Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahriar Afshar

: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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Afshar experiment. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

=[[:Shahriar Afshar]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Shahriar Afshar}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Shahriar Afshar}})

Subject does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No faculty position, Web of Science gives 56 citations total. The main claim for fame is Afshar experiment which has historically had a disproportionately large impact in Wikipedia. But based on the low citation number, it has had no significant impact on the field and thus does not confer notability to the subject. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shahriar_Afshar&oldid=1168651227 Here] is the version of the article before my edits and deletions. It has few more references (to minor awards and such). Those New Scientist refs can be read in Wikipedia library. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  • KeepRedirect I'm not a fan of Bio pages generally nor of self-promoters, but Wikipedia seems to have a low bar for both. I agree that the experiment is the sole source of notability, so a small scale merge would also be ok. The failure of Wikipedia to limit the scope of his experiment should not, in my opinion, weigh against his notability; that's our failing. Nor should our (low) opinion of the single experiment weigh against notability; we are not peer reviewers. I think he is notable because of the self-promotion and failing experiment. I don't think the article makes this clear, and the academic pushback should at least be referenceable. I don't think we should adjust the bar up for people whose work we don't agree with. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

::As @Ldm1954 notes the "Institute" does not show up on Google maps. The site is mostly dead. The startup site is just a picture. The Kor-FX was a Kickstarter project in 2014 when the Facebook account goes silent. They have a web site with product but it's unclear if the really still exist. If all of this info is removed as unreliable we are left with the Afshar exp already covered. Johnjbarton (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article is also lacking reliable sources for biographical information. There are multiple interviews and articles, but the reporter has likely obtained the information from the subject himself. Due to the tendency for self-promotion, they are not very reliable. For example, 2004 New Scientist article tells that Afshar worked on Boston-based Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS). I am not convinced such institute exists, except as a [https://irims.org/index.html webpage]. And in the APS article he is said to hold a faculty position in Rowan, although in reality he was a visiting professor. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Delete and Redirect I see no demonstration of notability. At a minimum the bar for a scientist should be that they would receive a tenured position at a major university, a national lab or a high profile position in industry. I see no evidence for this. His experiment can remain, but I see no rationale to defend this page.

:Ldm1954 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

::Adding, WP:NACADEMIC is perhaps higher than what I mentioned, although it is also not specific so has loopholes. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2023 (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.