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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Reza Bahrami

[edit]

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

Iranian molecular biologist, editor-in-chief of a non-notable journal (Journal of Cell and Molecular Research). Web of Science lists 50 publications for "Bahrami AR", that have been cited 752 times (h-index = 10). Most of those citations are to articles on which Bahrami is only a minor author (e.g., 4th of 8 authors). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:PROF. Randykitty (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 13 not enough for this highly cited field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm not finding anything in the way of sources here. Perhaps the article creator knows of something? -- 101.119.14.67 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete We should not go by h factor alone. A person who has published 3 papers with 200 citations and 10 with 13 has a h factor of 13; so does someone who has published 13 papers, each receiving 13 citations--but their scientific notability is very different. In his case, the highest papers 3 listed with him as coworker, have 254, 192 and 154 citations. Such work would be notable if her were the principal researcher, but it seems from the article he is not. (The Google scholar page, fwiw, may be confusing two different people, one in stem cell research and one in plant biology. This shows the need for analysis of GS raw data, rather than taking it at face value. ) DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 6 October 2013 (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.