Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Kamal (scientist)


 * 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) Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ahmed Kamal (scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This misses NPROF by a mile. The claims that he is in the top "2% of scientists in the world" are sourced to blatantly unreliable PR spam, which comes from this site originally. I can't verify his supposed success (like number of citations) and the study itself does not confirm his status in the "top 2%" either and I don't believe "pro vice chancellor" meets NPROF/NACADEMIC. Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable. not unreliable source. India Today has reported that. The Siasat Daily has done same. Times Now reported. These newspapers and news channels are popular in India. And this is the official website. check it too. Hasan (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TimesNow is not an rs, and the others, as I pointed out above, are copied from a blatantly unreliable spam site. The literal study itself proves those statements factually incorrect, it places him no where near the top 2%, not even the top 20%. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  15:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete fails GNG and academic notability miserably. The spam sites brought up by Hasan do not in any way establish notability for the person (and are not really reliable), at most they establish his suitability to be placed on a stand-alone list titled something like Standford University report on world's top 200 scientists or something ridiculous like that. To be clear, though, that list would never be created because it is itself not notable (announcements of individual winners is not significant coverage of the topic or of the general notability of the list of winners). There is no significant (independent) coverage in reliable sources to allow for a standalone article under wikipedia GNG guidelines, and his pro vice chancellor position means nothing under academic notability. I can see no case to be made for his notability. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The article as it stands now says he is vice-chancellor of a university. I see nothing in Google Scholar about him, but he shares a common name with a few dozen other scientists. Nothing terribly notable about a vice-chancellor. We need sources showing papers he's published, conference lectures he's given, quotes about him from other peer-reviewed journals... Oaktree b (talk) 19:48, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If he were actually the vice-chancellor, he would have a case for WP:PROF, as in the Indian system that means the head of the whole university. But pro-vice-chancellor is a lower-level administrative post that does not pass that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass GNG or NPROF and the sources are very questionable. Natureium (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. The subject easily passes WP:NACADEMIC. Per, , , , , , , and also being a Fellow of National Academy of Sciences, India . The article needs good amount of editing to show his works. But improvement is not a deletion criteria. This nomination clearly lacks WP:BEFORE. -  The9Man  ( Talk ) 06:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It would really help if people added the identified sources to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per . --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep based on academic citations disclosed by I would say it meets notability. Someone should update this article with more sources. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above. - Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2020 (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.