Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroush Dabbagh

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 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush Dabbagh

[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)

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, his highest citation count is 1, total citations is 23, and doesn't appear to meet the position criteria either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy). He is best known for his works and views in Persian. Particularly his views on Hijab have been criticized: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He is also known for his debates on BBC. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy): False so long as you compare like with like. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I was paraphrasing WP:Academic: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Published much but cited little. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
delete Doesn't meet the GNG. Lots of publications is not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (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.