Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh

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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC notability criteria. More than 50% of the references are the person's own work and the rest seem to be typical biography pages on different research institutes' websites describing the person very briefly. In secondary sources, apparently only two trivial mentions (KazInform International News Agency & ABC Nyheter). Article was declined twice for notability issues in 2014. 212.239.136.225 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC) 23:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep The New York Times gave significant coverage to her research on poverty in Afghanistan in this 2005 article. According to Google Scholar, her 2007 book Human Security Concepts and Implications has been cited 841 times. Here is a review of this book, which describes it as a "pioneering work" that portrays poverty as a human security threat. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep:
  • Cullen has kindly provided argument to keep, which I agree – and I will now be sure that Cullen's examples appear in entry.
  • Nay-sayers, save your breath and Wikipedia text space; prove your point first (e.g., in this case, by demonstrating via search your advocacy for deletion). Please, please learn to take more constructive approaches, not destructive, which suck up other people's time in negative fashion. - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Made changes - Aboudaqn (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as I agree with Cullen and Aboudaqn (thanks for changes, Aboudaqn) - Raffmeiste (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as I agree with Cullen, Aboudaqn and Raffmeiste. There is strong evidente of the academic notability (semantic scholar: 450 citations, here - Vidamag (talk) 09:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Nice! - added to entry - Aboudaqn (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2021 (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.