Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bishoy Goubran


 * 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. very clear consensus. It is extremely rare that a postdoctoral fellow is already notable as WP:PROF. , and nothing shown here indicates otherwise. This really should have been a speedy.  DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bishoy Goubran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is about an individual without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources in the article confirm facts but are either not about the subject or not independent. Having a high iq does not grant inclusion in Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The IQ is one of the highest on the world, therein lies the notability, the sources cite world genius directory, also cite Goubran's enlistment and his personal page, please research: evangelis Katsioulis page too and many other very similar pages based on the intellectual notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelwasef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A quick google search supports all the factual data in the article, not sure though — Preceding unsigned comment added by BritBelzensky (talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)  — BritBelzensky (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment - "notable" in Wikipedia terms is a shorthand for meeting the inclusion criteria for a standalone article. This is accomplished by meeting either the general notability guidelines or one of the specialised ones.  The general guidelines require significant coverage in independent reliable sources.  Sources that confirm facts are useful for verifiability, but do nothing to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and explanation, It does indeed follow the general notability guidelines, the "significant" factor is relative and subjective, the degree of significance of coverage has no concrete satisfactory level. In my opinion there is significant coverage of Goubran in IQ societies that are covered in significant number of secondary sources, Respectfully Nabeelwasef (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Also for reader's information 99.999 percentile in intelligence quotient is definitely a rarity and notable, as deemed by business insider, dubai news, and major other media outlets.Nabeelwasef (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * it would help your case if the article stated that Goubran was above the 99.999th percentile, with a reliable reference. Currently that fact is not mentioned in the article. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice Mitch, I have added this part as per your advice. Nabeelwasef (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the reference for the IQ figure does not state what scale the value is on, so there is not enough information to determine the percentile. Hence, I've removed that percentile from the article. Strictly speaking, even with a reference that included the scale with the number, mapping that to a percentile using would be synthesis, although if a reference explicitly stated the scale and the standard deviation of that scale, looking up the percentile might (depending on the degree of detail in the references) be deemed "routine calculation".
 * Do you have a reference that actually states the percentile? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I've found one. Mitch Ames (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also added the geniuses list which include Goubran in the 157 category. Nabeelwasef (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep : thank you for your additions and contributions to the article : thank you for bringing these points into our awareness it has indeed refined the level of the article. Hope now it is resolved for everyone :) Nabeelwasef (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of the changes has addressed the fundamental issue that there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Whpq (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - please concretely define significant, quoting a wiki guideline.Nabeelwasef (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was linked in my first comment, but here it is again. WP:SIGCOV. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I don't see why this article doesn't fit those terms, I think we need another few opinions here, : Mitch would you please share your insights with us, thank you Nabeelwasef (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary."... In that sense 99.99 percentile is indeed fitting to all these criteria.Nabeelwasef (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think that Goubran does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. There really isn't a great depth of coverage - he has direct non-trivial coverage (as opposed to being mentioned) only in and, but that coverage is not "substantial" or "significant". There does not appear to be any coverage by independent sources that are "intellectually independent of each other", eg news reports. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mitch Ames (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Mitch and WHPQ for your opinions, now what happens next? how many votes does it take to develop consensus? Nabeelwasef (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2017 (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.