Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idriss M. Bennani-Baiti


 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 23:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Idriss M. Bennani-Baiti

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Deceptive puff piece. Before I did some cleanup (see here) the article claimed that he was a "Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Scholar". That already made alarm bells go off, because the correct term is "HHMI Investigator". Indeed, Bennani-Baiti is not listed on the HHMI website. It looks like he worked in the lab of an HHMI investigator, nothing more. The article further claimed that he is "the Editor or Executive Editor" of several journals. Two of these are newly established (and actually don't list any editorial board; articles were deleted -by me, that's how I got here- as copyvio), the third one actually does list him, but only as an editorial board member. The article further claims that "Bennani-Baiti has published or reviewed hundreds of peer-reviewed research articles and reviews". I don't know how many articles he has reviewed, but conflating that with articles published is rather unusual. So I checked the Web of Science. WoS lists 42 publications, that have been cited a grand total of 565 times (h-index = 13; three highest-cited papers score 125, 63, and 50 citations). For high-citation density fields like epigenetics and oncology, that is decidedly unimpressive. A Google search finds a link that says that he currently works in Vienna (so much for being an HHMI investigator) and as this information is user-contributed, we can assume that this is correct. The editorial board listing here says that he's an "associate investigator". All references are to articles by the subject himself. No other sources found on Google or elsewheer. Does not meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per nom. The subject of the article is a named author in all seven of the journal articles currently included as sources. The fifth of these is one of Human Pathology's most cited articles (published since 2011). Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any independent coverage of this person provided that would offer support to any claims of notability. As such, notability has not been demonstrated. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The efforts to clean up this article feel like the you-tube video of a raccoon washing cotton candy - once it's clean there's nothing left. for (talk)  11:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know why any raccoon would be trying to "clean up" my entry. I have myself within one day asked for the entry to be deleted. So why are raccoons wasting their time (and more importantly mine) with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This fails GNG so we need to evaluate solely on the basis of WP:PROF. The h-index of 13 is much less than what is desired. I do not see any other claim - path breaking research or awards or any contribution outside academia. Neither is the subject the chief editor of a well established journal. None of these satisfy WP:PROF. In addition to all of this, I am concerned that the incorrect claims in the article implies that Wikipedia is possibly being used to promote the "achievements" of the subject and maybe legitimise it. A clear delete for now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no deceptive puff as suggested by Randykitty above. First, The correct term for an HHMI scholar is not HHMI investigator. These are two different things. An HHMI investigator is an HHMI group leader. An HHMI scholar is a scientist how was selected for an HHMI scholarship. I was an HHMI scholar from 1993-1997, and there is no amount of claimed "puff" that can change that. Second, Randykitty goes on to say: that I am only listed as an "editorial board member" on one of the journals, not as an editor. It is clear that Randykitty has a limited understanding of the editorial board structure of journals. Editorial board members are editors of a journal (as opposed to academic editors). In addition, I listed only three journals on which I am an editor or executive editor, but had stated that I am an editor at several journals including those three. It means that I am an editor (or executive editor) at many more journals. I did not list them because I actually want to avoid too much fluff "or puff" as Randykitty would put it. The entire list is as follows: Cancer Epigenetics, Clinical Cancer Epigenetics, Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research, Cancer Informatics, Gene Regulation and Systems Biology, Genomics Discovery, International Journal of Clinical Therapeutics and Diagnosis, Journal of Carcinogenesis & Mutagenesis, Journal of Data Mining in Genomics & Proteomics. And this leads me to my third point: as an editor of these journals, and reviewer (and ad hoc reviewer) of many more, I on average review one article per week. I reviewed my first article in 1991; I'll let Randykitty do the math on whether I have reviewed hundred of articles since he/she seems to have a lot of time (but not enough to thoroughly research things). Fourth, yes I work in Vienna and this is not a secret (this can be seen not only on Researchgate but also on my public profile on LinkedIn), and again, I never claimed I am/was an HHMI investigator. I am an HHMI scholar. If Randykitty were privy to the working of the HHMI, she/he would know that while being an investigator has an expiration date, once one had an HHMI scholarship, it is for life and cannot be taken away. So independently of what Randykitty may think or believe, I did not just work in some HHMI lab, I am an HHMI scholar. Finally, the "user-contributed" information on researchgate is outdated and obselete(for many years now), and I am not longer (and have not been for years) an associate investigator (no shame in that, it is just not my current status). My current status can be looked up on LinkedIn. Finally, once I realized that someone was mocking around with my entry, I am the one who initiated a call for "delete" on the entire entry: as can be seen from my long list of functions and duties above (only a very partial list), I just don't have time for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And one more thing: my references are peer-reviewed publications in some of the most respected journals in the world of scientific publishing. These can be looked up on PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and directly in the concerned journals. In science, this as high of a bar for scientific contribution than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Another thing: I don't know who changed my functions from Editor/Executive editor to "Editor-in-chief"! I do not fulfill this function and have never stated so! I guess it speaks poorly of Wikipedia's "curators" who would take an accurate account of one's functions, change it extensively, and include several inaccuracies making the account useless, if not fraudulent. I can just imagine what my colleagues would think of me seeing my so-called "Editor-in-chief" function (knowing that there is none) and thinking I contributed that entry!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments 1/ Any evidence for this "HHMI scholarship? 2/ An editorial board member is a very different thing from an "editor" and an "executive editor" is usually just another name for "editor-in-chief". The two journals listed in the article have updated their websites and although they don't list any board members, they both list you as "executive editor", meaning that apparently you are the head honcho. As for your other editorships, I Googled some of the journals that you list above. Almost all are predatory journals and being on their boards is more something to be ashamed of than to put forward as evidence of notability. You are "executive editor" on the Journal of Proteomics and Genomics Research. For what that means, please see here. I recommend that you separate yourself from that seedy outfit as soon as you can. 3/ As the peer-review process is confidential, it is very easy to claim that one has reviewed hundreds of articles. The thing about it being confidential being that this is a claim that cannot be verified (there is now a service called Publons that allows verification of such claims, but only for recent reviews). 4/ Nothing I said was intended to belittle your scientific contributions. However, the citation data do not indicate any notability according to WP:PROF (which is not the same thing as saying that your contributions are not valuable, it actually has nothing to do with "quality"). --Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, I don't really have time for this as this has taken much more of my time than I've ever intended. I have early on placed a request to delete the entire entry. Would you please go ahead and delete it? Thank you in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibennani~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Request SNOW close Given the above comment by the article creator and the unanimous !votes to delete, I request a SNOW close. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not as much of a slam-dunk case as the above discussion would suggest — he appears to be on-track for a successful academic career, has citations to his publications, and is editor-in-chief of two journals, suggesting a plausible case for WP:PROF criteria #C1 (citations) and #C8 (journal editorships). However, the citation counts are too low and the journals too new and not-well-established for him to actually pass these criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2016 (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.