Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennaji Moha


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ennaji Moha
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a biography, (possibly promotional), about an individual who may be notable, but for whom the author has failed to provide any references, while insisting (by way of removing BLP-PROD) that he has provided references. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The article is a mess, but that is a matter for normal editing. The title should probably be "Moha Ennaji" rather than vice versa, and under that name I can find the Middle East Institute describing the subject as "one of Morocco’s leading academics ... the author and/or editor of numerous books and articles on North Africa". AllyD (talk) 19:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A GS h-index of 8, with some high cites, may satisfy WP:Prof in a not widely cited field. GN has plenty of cites. Did the nominator check these issues? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC).
 * weak Keep Weak, mainly because extensive editing is needed (I started) Head of a significant cultural institutions and professor in an important university. But h index is totally useless in the humanities, and shouldn't even be quoted--publications in a field dependent on books don't work that way, because people normally write a small number of long works.  DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Weak Keep -- per DGG -- the books are more important than any citation counts on line. On notability, a clear keep, but as DGG notes, the article is a mess and to me that can be taken in consideration on less than clear cut cases. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (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.