Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vahid Tarokh

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vahid Tarokh

Based upon Vahid Tarokh's own request for deletion of this page. Please see the talk page Ghlobe 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Courtesy delete. Sounds at least borderline notable based on the infromation in the article, but my opinion is that if a borderline or questionable article subject wishes their article to be deleted, we should honour that request. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence *at all* that Tarokh blanked it; please also see my comment below. -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per comments by Starblind above. Change to Strong Keep as per comments below by Splash. Even if Vahid Tarokh is the one requesting the article be deleted(which I doubt), I'm not sure it would be a consideration. This guy is notable enough to warrant an article... whether he likes it or not. Jcam 14:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The man seems more than notable enough for wikipedia: through his inventions, through the awards, through the honorary degrees (I don't think someone would get an honorary degree from Harvard for nothing) and through being "one of the Top 10 Most Cited Researchers in Computer Science according to the ISI web of science." Also, I would need to see proof that 72.70.95.56 (talk • contribs) is indeed Vahid Tarokh himself, before considering the request. Furthermore, I'm not in favour of deleting articles because the subject requests it: either people are notable enough for wikipedia and they get an article, or they're not notable enough and they don't get an article. Aecis ^{I'm too busy acting like I'm not naive.} 14:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on resume. The subject certainly meets WP:PROF and we keep many more borderline cases simply because of slightly higher public notability or infamy for other reasons. The user's request is a valid consideration but not sufficient by itself in this case. (Apologies.) --Dhartung | Talk 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep definitely notable and as the last 2 comments stated, just because the subject wants an article deleted, that doesn't mean it should be. The subject is of course quite welcome to help correct any inaccuracies in the article. --Maelnuneb (Talk) 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, incredibly famous person in the field in which I just completed my PhD - he invented a scheme (space-time coding, see also space-time block code and space-time trellis code) that changed the face of wireless communications research at a stroke. He is faculty at Harvard. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the person who blanked the article and its talk page is Tarokh himself. The article is rather poor because it was written by a student/employee of Tarokh's who had some reflected vanity issues; I got beaten to writing it myself but believe me that he is one of the most notable individuals in the whole of the field. His two most famous papers, references [6] and [7] in space-time block code are amongst the most widely cited journal articles in wireless. (Don't believe what you read at Citeseer; it's rubbish at this kind of thing.) -Splash - tk 21:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per precedent. Also, the vandalism in this case (i.e. anon blanking of article and talk page) unfortunately ruined the credibility of this deletion request. Dl2000 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well sourced and the AfD is solely based on (unnecessary) modesty from the person it deals with. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 19:51, 8 October 2006 (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.