Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Abdollahian

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Abdollahian[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this person meets WP:PROF, or more basic criteria for notability like WP:GNG. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Tentative~~ Delete due to overly WP:PROMO tone and content of the article, such as:

Abdollahian's studies included strategic decision making, data analytics, predictive analytics, international political economy, sustainable development, economics, growth, econometrics, and computational modeling. He has lectured to audiences worldwide, and he served as a board member for several private and nonprofit enterprises.

Note the sea of blue and peacock language "worldwide audiences". The article also contains a meticulous list of journal articles which are typically not included. So I'm leaning delete, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome | Democratics ^Talk 09:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: upgrading from tentative delete to full delete as no sources have been presented at this AfD. [{WP:TNT]] applies -- if someone comes along with good sources for an NPOV article, it can be recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The citations on GS are not enough for WP:PROF. I am unable to infer if the subject would pass any other criteria. Considering the state of the article, I feel it is OK to TNT it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2016 (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.