Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Gad-el-Hak


 * 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect that this article will not be kept; hopefully advocates for this position will ensure that it is purged of all COI influence. BD2412 T 01:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohamed Gad-el-Hak

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's not clear if WP:Notability has even been met. The page was created and heavily edited by the subject himself. He was called out multiple times for blatant COI, and was finally blocked recently. Another editor and I have started to clean up the article; I've taken a knife to it and removed large swathes that were just self-WP:Puffery. I'm not convinced he is notable enough; even if he is, almost all references I can find to him are from his own website or that of his university, and/or scholarly articles that he has written. He has not been featured in any newspapers or non-academic publications, despite his claims on his resume otherwise (at least, not that I can find). Most other websites seem to either have copied from his website, or from the additions he made to Wikipedia. I would definitely like to hear what others have to say.

After removing his self-published material from the references section, that will leave us with not very much at all to work with.  M r A urelius R  Talk! 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   M r A urelius R   Talk! 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep:Seems to me a pass of wp:prof based on citations and h-index. needs editing though(Msrasnw (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC))
 * Question. Do any of the societies listed on his CV get him past WP:NPROF #3? I don't know science. NPROF #5 also looks relevant, but I'm not sure about the prominence of his institution. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadelhak (talk • contribs) 15:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Fellow of the APS (verifiable here) and of the ASME (here) are definitely passes of #3. AAAS is more debatable but I would think it counts too. I'm less familiar with the other ones but I expect some of them are also passes. His citation record is also a clear pass of #1, and his named professorship at VCU is an obvious pass of #5. Speedy because the nomination seems to be based purely on personal opinion, bad-faith assumptions, and the wrong notability guideline (WP:GNG instead of WP:PROF). Incidentally, even if you were looking for GNG-like coverage, you should have at least found "Homage to a Legendary Dynamicist on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday", about Gad-el-Hak, in the Journal of Fluids Engineering. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Prof on GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep High level of citations, fellow of APS, and named chair makes it a clear pass of WP:NPROF, though I did consider briefly WP:TNT initially. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly snow, per multiple WP:NPROF criteria. The citation record looks like C1, even in a high citation field, and the several fellow appointments to learned societies are a pass of C3.  Comment that although it's not automatic, academics that get an article celebrating their nth birthday or retirement are very likely to be notable per C1 (a festschrift volume is an unambiguous pass).  VCU should be a major institution for C5, and the anniversary article is a reliable source for the named chair (which, by the way, he no longer seems to hold).  The article surely had/has numerous problems, and it is understandable that the nominator wanted clarification on notability before putting in further cleanup work. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Respectfully, I would like to appeal your decision and recent actions.  I will try to be brief and use short bullets.
 * Early on the creation of this page, I supplied pictures of fluid flows that I took myself and have the copyright to. Each of those photos were published in peer-reviewed journals, but at that time, I didn’t have adequate references.  WP removed the pictures, and I didn’t contest.
 * I now have adequate references in peer-reviewed journals, but you removed the 14-point bullets, and with those the (secondary-sources) references.
 * All the references are secondary sources, and are not self-congratulatory.
 * I am not advocating for a product or a company, for profit or not-for-profit. This page simply describes the scholarly contributions of a university faculty.  Almost everything mentioned there is supported by references to peer-reviewed journals.  A notable exception, is the birth date and place, but if you want to see a birth certificate, I am glad to supply that, privately of course.
 * I have seen many similar pages written by my peers, and none of those has the dreaded COI notices you bestow upon my page.
 * I urge you to remove all the COI and deletion notices, restore the 14-point bullets and references that you already removed, and ask me for any proof you wish. My page does not advocate a product or a company, but all the statements there are supported by secondary sources.
 * You should not be participating, in this discussion or in editing the article. See WP:AUTOBIO for why. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * hope you don't mind, but I reformatted your vote so that it followed the pattern. Best,  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 21:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep as an obvious pass of WP:PROF criteria 1 (citation profile), 3 (Fellow of the APS would be enough), and 5 (named chair). I have made a first attempt to edit the page for tone, so that it reads more like an encyclopedia article and less like a biographical blurb for a keynote speaker. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Created by a WP:COI and wp:BLOCKED editor 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:PROF as a named chair, and fellow of societies/associations. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per WP:CSK; if I understood well, the nominator proposed deletion more like a WP:TNT (here's not the place?), rather than to dispute its notability. The subject's citations are enough to establish a very clear notability per WP:NPROF.  Walwal20  talk ▾ contribs 21:27, 20 September 2020 (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.