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. ✗plicit 14:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munir Nayfeh[edit]

Munir Nayfeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Notability (Academics) not fulfilled Samuelshraga (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For a 14-year old article, is it possible to ask for a deletion rationale consisting of 1 word per year? Does it inherently fail a guideline or just at the moment? Geschichte (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was aiming for conciseness. It seems the emerging consensus here is that he passes notability on citation metrics, which is perfectly valid - I'm not familiar with citation rates in the field. My nomination was based on the fact that of the 8 criteria of academics' notability, I don't think there's any indication that the author passes 2-8. So to answer your second question, it would have been an inherent issue, but I defer to the consensus on the citation rates. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Technology, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, California, Connecticut, Illinois, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof on GS cites. Will the nominator explain how they carried out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  I think my (lack of) knowledge of what constitutes being highly cited may have led me astray here. Noting that one commenter called it marginal, but I happily defer to all of you on the issue. Thanks for weighing in, sorry if it was a premature move. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. H-factor of 42, and no major awards. It appears that he has been retired/inactive for 15-20 years. Since citation rates have been rising, 42 from some time ago is closer to 52 for someone who is currently active. This is marginal without acknowledgement from the wider community via awards. Since he was once weakly notable, a weak keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. He has published several significantly cited articles in peer-reviewed journals, so he passes WP:NACADEMIC. popodameron ⁠talk 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prominent and well nown in the fied of particle physics: https://physics.illinois.edu/people/directory/profile/m-nayfeh. Extremely high h-index for his field. Syrianpoet94 (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2024 (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.