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) — Benison (Beni · talk) 14:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehrdad Vahabi (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)

I don't think this article merits deletion, just wanted to make sure it's properly reviewed. Xpander (talk) 10:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Iran, and France. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His citation counts are not strong enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1 in economics, but there are enough book reviews (now in the article) for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:PROF by citations seems borderline; the top citations in GS[1] are decent (125, 97, 96) but the total citations & h-index are rather low. However the reviews added by David Eppstein meet my definition of WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:22, 27 November 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.