Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ali Besharat

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Mohammad Ali Besharat}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mohammad_Ali_Besharat Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mohammad Ali Besharat}})

Notability. Lexy iris (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete, no independent coverage, is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Neither of the two sources are independent, an interview, and google scholar list of citations, I searched for more sources and couldn't find anything apart for a blog that has one of his papers in it's reference list, everything else is published by himself, ie his own papers. I can't find anything to suggest notability through WP:NPROF either.YBm2XrpCP (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• The Google Scholar list of citations is independent, and shows 3383 citations with an h-index of 26. Such a record would most likely attract a lot of "keep" opinions in an AFD discussion for a British or American academic, so why is it considered insufficient for an Iranian? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Would 3383 citations be enough? If you can link me to AFD discussions where physiologists only required that many? I looked at (an admittedly very small sample size) of random psychologists from List_of_physiologists and they all had 900+ citations on their highest cited articles over Mohammad Ali Besharat's 156 ([https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Clay+Armstrong&btnG= [1]][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Diane+Barber&btnG= [2]][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Herbert+Spencer+Gasser&btnG= [3]][https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=M6kYR7kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao [4]]), List_of_psychologists and they all have over 1200+ citations on their most cited articles ([https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=xaxV8_8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao [1]][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=John+Robert+Anderson&btnG= [2]][https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Daniel+Batson&btnG= [3]]) apart from [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Tim+Noakes&btnG= [4]] but this psychologist has other awards and fits other notability criteria. Mohammad Ali Besharat's most cited article has 156 citations. However WP:NPROF doesn't specify a specific number for criterion 1 only that they need several highly cited works, and it does say that h-index is of limited usefulness. YBm2XrpCP (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• I haven't checked what difference it would make to the outcome, but please show some respect for the article subject by recognising that he is a psychologist, not a physiologist. Once again I must point out that it is unlikely that this silly mistake would have been made for an Anglophone academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ah my mistake I wrote psychologist then searched physiologist, I do apologise, I don't believe that his Iranian decent is relevant to his notability but correct me if I'm wrong, while there may be systematic bias towards non-anglophone academics, I don't believe it was the cause of my accidental mistake, I have corrected the error above.YBm2XrpCP (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.