Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soroush Nazarpour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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  21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soroush Nazarpour

Soroush Nazarpour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Autobiographical article on a PhD student who appears to be more exceptional than average (assuming the information therein is correct), but still not notable. Speedy was declined. --Finngall talk 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Not notable per the general inclusion guidelines of WP:BIO. Closest specific criteria for the subject's assertion to notability would be from WP:PROF, but the subject is too young and has insufficient publications to provide a suitably large body of work for notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, per rationale given by Fritzpoll (talk · contribs), not to mention only references given are directly affiliated with article's subject. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Forget WP:PROF, this is a possible hoax article. I could not find any evidence regarding the book or any other publications in GoogleScholar[1](a few false positives here) or GoogleBooks[2]. The journal where he was supposed to have published a paper, "Journal of Metallurgy Engineering" or "Journal of Metallurgy and Engineering" does not seem to exist either[3][4]. I could not find his name by searching the University of Barcelona directory[5] either. Looks like a hoax article to me. Nsk92 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see his name in this list from the University of Barcelona here - might be unverfied/inaccurate material, but he does exist Fritzpoll (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Still, I would have to say that most of the info in the article is unverified at this point and, even if every single fact ultimately checks out, it does not look like he would pass WP:PROF for now. I checked ArXiv just in case but there is nothing there either[6]. Nsk92 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the point is that whether or not the facts are correct, the subject fails to assert sufficient notability. Though I must admit, the facts suggest hoax material within the article. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The place to see whether a journal exists is not Google or Google Scholar. Many 3rd world periodicals do not have web pages. The easiest place to look is WorldCat. [7]. I sometimes also check LC and British Library, but their holdings are supposed to appear in WorldCat. (It is also necessary to realise that people sometimes list the title incorrectly, and if it's an English translation of a foreign title, wide variation is possible. ) Nor will one usually find third world books in Google Books--certainly not for non-Roman languages. The better way is an author check in WorldCat, which will at least get the significant ones. That said, I didn't find them there either. Nor can I identify the journals. Doesn't prove they don't exist in Persian. However, I think he is clearly non-notable.
Yeah, I'm a researcher at a University and I got nothing coming up on the various resources at my disposal, including a quick access request to the British Library for non-electronically available material with this title. It was clearly too sunny to do any actual work today... Fritzpoll (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
*Delete DGG (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • delete fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD:A7. Stifle (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Article makes assertion to notability, so CSD:A7 does not apply Fritzpoll (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
As I noted before, a speedy had already been declined. Let the AfD run its course...based on the comments to this point, the result will be the same anyway. --Finngall talk 20:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability, with barely an assertion of one. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


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.