The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad K. Azarian[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NPROF. He won an award from the Indiana section of the Mathematical Association of America, but I don't think that's sufficient for notability. Low citations on Scholar, and not an endowed chair. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publishing a lot is not a notability criterion by itself; those publications need to make an impact. Mathematics is a low-citation field but even so his Google Scholar citations are so low that I don't see any support for WP:PROF#C1. A regional-level distinguished service award (not a national one, for being on the executive board and running some competitions, apparently) is not enough for #C2. No other claim to notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly explained above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The fact that it's written like a CV could be fixed by rewriting if WP:PROF were met, but I see no way to make a case that WP:PROF is met. XOR'easter (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Unfortunately, as already stated by nom, Xxanthippe & XOR'easter, I too do not see how WP:PROF is met. Celestina007 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find evidence of passing WP:NPROF nor WP:GNG. No papers with a lot of citations (even by the standards in algebra, although there are numerous low-citation papers) and little independent recognition. — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.