Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamal Benslama


 * 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kamal Benslama

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Author is (or has been) a "physics professor" at University of Regina. He is not listed on their website any more, but given that it was his first position after completing his postdoc, this was likely at the assistant professor level. the citation and publication data given in the article are, at first sight, stellar. This is deceptive, however: subject is first nor last author on any of the important ones, which have sometimes over 3000 (three-thousand!) authors. Apparently, Benslama was (is?) a member of several (very large) consortia and as is often the case in these mega physics projects, co-authors all papers coming out of it. However, there is no evidence that he had anything more than a very minor role. In conclusion, there is no real evidence of notability, does not meet WP:PROF. Hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I had actually been mulling nominating this article myself. Autobiography. And I will concur fully with the nominator as to both his reasoning and conclusions. Safiel (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete after moving the content to his user-page. Username confirms this as an autobiographical page.  Rossami (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added many links to proof than this article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography of a scientist. In my view, both the notability and leadership roles are well demonstrated through the links attached to the article. I have also added a few selected papers where the author is the primary author or one of the primary authors. talks at international conferences and symposiums have also been added, as well as interviews with radio, TV stations and written press. On the other hand, I would like to mention that several links in the articles have been added in order to address your concerns and I am open to discuss which ones should be kept in the final version of this article. With my best regards. KB  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)  — Kamalbenslama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Most of the sources provided are not independent. Of the rest, one is a local news story, and one is a radio program where the subject was invited to explain research results from the Hadron collider. it doesn't focus on him specifically. Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:PROF. While the publication list is impressive, it probably does not accuraely refelct his personal output, as explained by Guillaume above. Being team leader of a project is not really notable. My own search turned up no good sources establishing notability. Sources provided by or proposed by Kamalbenslama above (apparently the subject of the article) are run-of-the-mill or not independent. In short, a hard-working, productive young professor, but not distinguished enough by substantial independent coverage to justify an independent article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Negligible citations on GS. More on Inspire but not sufficient to stand out from the crowd. WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete after moving text to the author's userpage. fails WP:PROF and is pure autobiography. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment All the links provided by the author are from universities, labs and funding agencies. I believe that all these sources are credible and trustworthy. Concerning the comments about "team leader is not notable", I will have to disagree with this statement, mainly when it is question about a collaboration of 3500 physicists worldwide and when the membership involve a vote by 137 institutes worldwide and require also approval from funding agencies. May be you did not have a chance to verify all the links submitted? if this is the case, please have a look. One more point, did you have a look at the invited talks by the author? in large collaborations, this is another point to consider.
 * Thank you
 * Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 17:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)  — Kamalbenslama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment You are NOT the leader of a team of 3500 physicists. You are the leader of a small group of postdocs and grad students at the University of Regina, which is just one of the 137 institutions involved in the ATLAS project. That pretty much makes your role as team leader not notable.
 * As for he references you provided, they are either not independent (from your own university or the project you are a member of), or trivial, routine or tangential. No offense, but there's just nothing here that makes you stand out against the scads of young physics professors out there. I respect you work and your accomplishments, but until independent sources take notice of you and give you significant coverage, you don't meet the requirements for an independent article on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, first, I did not talk about the leader of the entire collaboration, I hope that this was clear in the links I sent. So please don't make me say what I did not say. Second, while I do respect your opinion, I would like to say that I disagree with your statement. I am not going to keep arguing this way and I will simply let other people give their opinions as well. I will simply add one and last comment: you have here the *very rare* example of a guy (from a small town i morocco far away from the civilization) who did everything on his own and reach the point where he is *without any* political connections, without lobbies, without "a big father" giving him everything on a golden plate. Everything was done with hard work and honesty. You may want to check the "political connections" of the young prof. you are talking about and it is worth that you get you facts right! I am sorry, but your statements are completely false. That being said, you gave your opinion, I gave mine so let's other people give their opinion. I do believe to the honesty of people. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)  — Kamalbenslama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 'Comment Do you realize how many people you have just insulted? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Oonce again please do not play with the words. We are talking about the specific case of young prof. in a large collaboration, such as, the one we are discussing. My comments refer to this specific case and nothing else. I stand by my comments about *the specific case we are discussing, which means young prof in a large collaboration*. Life is full of hard working people in plenty of areas!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalbenslama (talk • contribs)  — Kamalbenslama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment I suggest you formulate more exactly, because I have been interpreting your foregoing comments in exactly the same way as Dominus Vobisdu did. As you say, life is full of hard-working people and you obviously are one of them. Nobody here is trying to denigrate your accomplishments. However, given all those hard-working people, you have to stand out in some way or another in order to have encyclopedic notability. Perhaps you'll get there some time in the future, but right now, that is not the case. All researchers publish papers, all give presentations at meetings and seminars, there is nothing extraordinary about that. And contrary to what you imply (unless I am misreading you again), most researchers accomplish this, like you, without the help of a powerful daddy or a political obby. After all, we're talking science here, where it is ideas and results that count, not connections! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient citations for WP:PROF. No other indications of notability, and some of the claims in the article are not supported by the given sources, which are not WP:RS in any case. Article author would benefit from reading WP:YOURSELF. -- 202.124.73.93 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment a link to the list of publications and citations has been added (official list for HEP), as well as links to some selected works published in international journals. Also have to mention that the same article exist in French wikipedia! Kamalbenslama (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC) — Kamalbenslama (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I have created an interwiki link (a bot should do that here in a few minutes) and proposed the French article also for deletion. Their rules are slightly different than ours but, if anything, even more stringent. In any case, the different wikis are independent and even if the French article would be kept, that doesn't have any bearing on the discussion here. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment:

Dear Guillaume,

You lost any credibility in this case. You went beyond your way to ask for the deletion of my article in wiki french, after I told you it is published in the french wiki. I think this speaks volumes about your unfairness. I think you are taking this case very personally and this is against the wiki recommendations. You simply violated the neutrality article of the editors of wikipedia. Therefore, I respectfully request that another admin. takes care of this case. You have expressed your opinion and now it is time not to interfere since you are taking things personally. In fact I find it lamentable, you went ahead and interfered in the french version, knowing that you are strongly involved in the English one. This is unacceptable! Kamalbenslama (talk) 12:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that I am the one taking things personal here (after all, it's not my autobiography...) And I have been active on the French Wikipedia (and others) for years, even though most of my activity is here, so crossing over is nothing out of the ordinary. As for the admin part, I'm not an admin, neither here nor at the fr.wiki. So you can rest assured that an impartial third person will take the final decision about whether your bio will be deleted or kept (both here and over at the French wiki). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The huge number of co-authors on most or all of his papers renders our most common means of measuring academic impact (citation counts and h-index etc) meaningless, and I don't see any other WP:PROF criterion for which we have any evidence. There is a little bit of popular press for his research  (which is why I'm only weakly in favor of deletion) but both just mention him as being part of 2000- or 3000-scientist teams, which again doesn't do much to pick him out of the crowd. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2012 (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.