Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hossein Farhady

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 keep. Good discussion, with the weight of consensus leaning towards keeping the article. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Farhady[edit]

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

There's no indication as to why this person is notable. Fails WP:GNG. References are written by the source - although they're not even backing up anything since 'ref' tags weren't used. Possible self promotion/autobiography. st170e^talk 02:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShulMaven (talk • contribs)
Keep. The appropriate guidelines are WP:NACADEMICS. In this case you can search in Google Scholar to find a considerable number of academic publications, including works cited more than 100 times. So the notability requirements are satisfied easily. Zero^talk 23:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the WP:NACADEMICS guidelines, a "considerable number of articles" is not one of the criteria. The criteria are having made a significant impact on their field, above and beyond normal academic research. Therefore one would need to find verifiable resources that the person has been so designated based on awards, special appointments, or the statements of their colleagues. The main criterion is "effect on a field." I don't see that here. LaMona (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Hahc21 19:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see lots of citations to his articles on Google scholar - literally hundreds of times. His top article was cited over 500 times. How could that not have an effect? Bearian (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The basic criterion for an academic being an authority in his subject is the extent to which others use his work, andthis is measured roughly by the number of citations. Most of the other facets of WP:PROF, such as awards, are just shortcuts to this. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and that is stated explicitly in notes on WP:NACADEMIC. In addition, his book on language education cited over 500 times indicates success on criterion 4 as well. Zero^talk 09:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no point in this resisting. Notability was the only reason provided for deletion, but the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC are met easily. Zero^talk 10:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Zero0000: Have you considered the opinion of User:LaMona? Perhaps they will revisit the discussion, if they receive notification per their user name being linked in my comment here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the specific notes at WP:NACADEMIC say "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." He has over 1000 citations, the majority apparently in academic sources. A large number of serious books on second language acquisition cite his work (search for his name at google books). He isn't Albert Einstein, but he is notable enough for an article. Zero^talk 21:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Can you spell out his impact on the field? Or point to others who do? Also note that of the 1000 citations, over half are to what appears to be a textbook. If that book, though, changed somehow the course of linguistics, then we have notability. Being cited 500+ times isn't itself proof of notability. I was able to find a work in the field cited over 9,000 times (and no, it's not by Chomsky - his works are cited tens of thousands of times). The upshot is that it's hard to be quantitative about academic achievement, which is why you have to find inventions, awards, etc. LaMona (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His co-authored book has received significant reviews in TESOL Quarterly, Language in Society, and the Modern Language Journal, and has therefore "...played a major role in co-creating .... a significant or well-known work .... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." per WP:AUTHOR 3. I am not actually convinced by the argument based on pure citation counts vs. PROF 1, particularly as typically measured by h-index, but I think AUTHOR 3 suffices. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:07, 25 November 2014 (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.