Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel Fattouche


 * 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. For WP:GNG, Cullen's "Google News search" is vague and doesn't mention any specific sources. For WP:PROF, his h-index appear to be insufficient. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 12:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Michel Fattouche

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Autobiography by "his long-time friend". Notability is questionable. bender235 (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A Google News search verifies that this businessman/engineer/inventor/professor is notable. Shortcomings due to conflict of interest because a friend of his wrote the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment An autobiography is an article that someone writes about themself, not an article that someone writes about another person. Or does Bender235 believe that Zhatim is a meatpuppet under complete control of Michel Fattouche? Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Cullen's argument holds water. The article is fairly well-formed and appears to be notable. It just needs work. Steven Walling  04:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Keep . With GS h index around 15 (?? see debate below) just passes WP:Prof. Severe pruning needed at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Weak Delete. I'm borderline here based on WoS h-index of only 7, although there are around 120 total citations. If this article is kept, I completely agree with Xxan than most of it should be resected – it's basically this man's CV at the moment. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Weak Keep. The subject seems notable, but the lists of patents and "Product Development", along with the myriad citations corresponding to the patents, are needless and should be removed. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete An h-index of 15 on GS (with only 7 on the more reliable WoS) is for me not at all sufficient for notability. No evidence any of the WP:PROF criteria (awards, etc) are otherwise met. I am curious what Cullen328 found on Google that leads to an opposite conclusion. Just some GHits is not sufficient. --Crusio (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The GS h-index goes down to 9 when you exclude patents. Since patents are often cited by legal (rather than academic sources), I think their exclusion is fair when considering grounds for academic notability. Ray  Talk 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article claims that he is the inventor and is known for "Wideband Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing" and "Direct-sequence Spread Spectrum". I note that the both phrases have plenty of hits in Google scholar, with top citation counts of 245 for the first and 2465 for the second. Fattouche's publications on the subject consist of a self-published paper on wofdm with zero citations, and a patent on dsss with (once one excludes other patents and legal opinions from the cite count) maybe four citations. So our article appears to be quite misleading, and his claims of notability don't stand up under scrutiny. His GS citation counts (excluding patents) of 57, 43, 34, 29, 21, ... are not impressive enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. But this is only a weak delete because he may have some chance of passing WP:GNG via the many newspaper articles that mention him (most trivially, but maybe there is something nontrivial in there). If it's kept for this reason, the article needs to be rewritten to be based on what the newspaper articles say about him rather than touting him as an academic achiever. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, multiply-re-created WP:COI article promoting an off-wiki agenda. Insufficient WP:RS exist to fix the problems of disputed claims made in this article. If the claims were accurate there would be many more sources available to back them ,as it is it appears that sources attributing these innovations to the subject are self-published and run counter to what independent sources say. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 27 February 2011 (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.