Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cawo Mohamed Abdi


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Cawo Mohamed Abdi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

She is still only an assistant professor, and has very few publications. Meets neither WP:PROF nor GNG/  DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Cawo is actually one of the main figures in Somali Studies. She is both a Research Fellow at the University of Pretoria and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota. She is also the wife of Abdi Ismail Samatar, who is himself a prominent scholar within the field and the brother of former President of Somalia candidate Ahmed Ismail Samatar. Additionally, Cawo has published many works; what's listed on the page is only a selected bibliography. She is likewise a member of many professional organizations, and has chaired a number of international conferences, including the 2012 Istanbul Conference on Somalia. She is also on the editorial board of Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies, published by Macalester College. Middayexpress (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your first sentence might show notability, if there are independent sources that attest to this claim (there aren't any in the current version of the article). The other points in your statement are not related to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough evidence of impact. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete -- still a bit too soon, lacking clear documented evidence of a substantial impact on the larger field. Editorial board participation is not enough; editor of the Journal would be sufficient for me. The standard for assistant professors is rather high. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Cawo is actually both a writer and professor . Bildhaan: An International Journal of Somali Studies is one of the main journals in Somali Studies, and she is on its International Advisory Board along with Nuruddin Farah, Said Sheikh Samatar, and a number of other prominent scholars within the field . Middayexpress (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but these are more things that do not further a notability argument. What will help is secondary sources that discuss her and her expertise specifically and/or some sort of demonstration that the academic world feels her work has impact (e.g. citations, book holdings, etc). She is an assistant professor, so is unlikely to satisfy any of the other, more difficult aspects of WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * I disagree that it doesn't further a notability argument -- to me, it does help, because the quality of the journal reflects and is built up by the reputation of the people on the board (sort of like the prestige of a prize comes in part from its rarity and the prestige of others who have received it). I just don't think that it's enough notability to pass WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Mscuthbert, please see below. Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @MSC: I agree in principle that being a member of an editorial board helps, but only if the journal is a mainstream, established publication. As far as I can tell, "Bildhaan" is still very obscure. It is published by a small liberal arts college, has very low circulation, is not indexed by the major indexing services, not cited to any meaningful degree, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC).


 * Comment. She seems to have one book that is only held by 4 institutions. Agricola44 (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC).
 * That's not actually a book, but an article in short book form. Her upcoming book is still a manuscript. What she does have is many different peer-reviewed journal articles to her name, including commissioned reports for both the Canadian and American governments. I also just had a look at WP:PROF. It states that "academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable", including that "the person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g., the IEEE)". Cawo qualifies since she is a member of several such scholarly societies, like the American Sociological Association, Sociologists for Women in Society, Midwest Sociological Society, African Studies Association, Canadian Sociological Association and Global Studies Association. Her work has also been cited by a number of other scholars in the field, thereby also establishing that "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Additionally, the fact that she has chaired several international conferences in an academic capacity (e.g. the Istanbul Conference on Somalia in 2012 organized by the Turkish government ) likewise establishes that she "has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." Middayexpress (talk) 14:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the word "elected" when mentioning memberships. Just to be a member, all that is needed is to pay your dues... "Significant impact" is not shown by a handful of citations, typically hundreds or more are needed to show notability here. Nor do I see any evidence that she was the chair of that Istanbul meeting (and even if she were, we would need some evidence that this was a major meeting): she is not mentioned in the link you gave and her CV is a bit ambiguous and rather suggests that she was chair of a sub-panel session only. --Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did notice the word "elected", and the American Sociological Association for one holds annual elections for its members . Further, WP:PROF says nothing about hundreds of citations being required. It just says that "significant impact in their scholarly discipline" is "demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This is established by the many scholarly works on Google Scholar which cite Cawo's research . Also, the link I gave on the Istanbul conference was to show the importance of that event. The fact that she served as a Chair at the Istanbul conference is clearly indicated in her CV under the header "Chairing" as well as the note below it that she served as a "Chair" there. Middayexpress (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an election for officers of the association, not members. The guideline does not mention absolute numbers of citations, because that depends on the field. In a field like this, 500 citations or an h-index of 10 or 12 might indicate notability. In a field like neuroscience, you'd need more than 1000 citations and an h-index of 20 or more. And I'm afraid that being a chair of a session at a meeting is really nothing special. Invited plenary speaker, that could be something different, invited session speaker or chair is not. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I agree with Xxanthippe and Mscuthbert: too soon. --Randykitty (talk) 16:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON for an early-in-career assistant professor doing the typical work and having output on par with others of the same rank in academia: 1 book with 4 institutional holdings, 4 articles in indexed journals cited 5 times (h-index 1, WoS), some editorial work, conference organizing, member of technical societies, etc. – all the fodder of every academic. Arguments above that such things demonstrate notability represent a basic misunderstanding of the guidelines in WP:PROF as established by the precedent of many hundreds of academic's AfDs. This is an uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2014 (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.