Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zairi


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Mohamed Zairi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability, likely added by subject of article himself


 * Keep Very weak keep There's a small amount of coverage regarding some of his awards out there in Google News . He passes several of the criteria at WP:PROF: I think (given how often his books are referenced) that he could be said to pass #1; he holds a named chair at the University of Bradford (the Juran Chair) which passes #5; and as the Dean of eTQM College he also meets #6 . The problems with this article are largely due to Prof. Zairi himself, since his staffers have been told to maintain the article, which to their minds seems to involve adding the same humongous chunk of unsourced puffery. If the page is kept, I'd recommend applying pending changes or perhaps even semi-protection for a while. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  08:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a note about the sources; is self-submitted press release, and as you can see if you read Terms and Condition, "AMEinfo.com is not to be held responsible for the accuracy of the statements made in press releases by companies, PR agencies or individuals quoted in such releases or articles. "  is basicly a recruitment website for companies, so I don't really see either as reliable sources.Amlaera (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, he is not qualified for #6 since it is an online, self-started college. And from what I understand, he does not hold a named chair at the university at bradford, as says "Professor Mohamed Zairi, head of the European Centre for Total Quality Management at the Universityís School of Management, was awarded the Juran Chair in Total Quality Management by the Juran Foundation in conjunction with the e-TQM College". So I do not see him passing any of the criteria.Amlaera (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The Juran chair is a position at the ECPBM, which is part of Bradford University's School of Management. Prof Zairi is, to date, the only person to hold this chair, so it's not exactly a well-established post, but it is a named chair at a major institution, so I think it qualifies. Fair point regarding the eTQM college, though; it definitely isn't a "major academic institution", so WP:PROF #6 doesn't apply; I'll strike that. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all that sure of #1 now either, he seems to only have an H-index of 5, which is well below what would be expected of an influential academic... Striking that as well, and amending !vote to reflect that. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a source for the statement that ECBPM is a part of Bradford University's School of Management? I can't find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amlaera (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here you go (.doc download). Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  12:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * He is not mentioned in and his course is not listed at . The only thing saying that it is part of University of Bradford is that document and some corporate press releases. Seems very fishy.Amlaera (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Determined to bust my balls on this, aren't you? This press release from the University indicates that he was a professor emeritus, so he wouldn't have any current courses listed. I'm assuming that he's no longer at the University even in that capacity (he's not listed at their staff profiles page, which lists active emeriti as well as current staff). The relationship between the ECBPM and the School of Management may not be as direct as I thought, either; it's listed in several places under the SoM banner, but not (tellingly) on its own website or on the SoM site.
 * Part of the problem is that self-promotion seems to be something of a watchword for Zairi's career, so the signal:noise ratio for sources is pretty bad; finding decent sources is like finding the proverbial needle. Academics aren't know for being easy to source (which is why WP:PROF is one of the few inclusion criteria that trumps the GNG) but it's my impression that there ought to be enough out there - given all the awards and accolades he's supposedly collected - to support an article. Don't ask me where, though... Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, yeah, sorry if I'm going hard at you here, wasn't my intention, it just spiraled out of control :) The problem with the prices and accolades is that many of them are virtually unknown or awarded by his own organizations as far as I can see. Amlaera (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree with you... let's see what others think, though. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  07:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. This page is enough to convince me that the Centre really was affiliated with Bradford (but ceased in 2009, explaining why his name is not listed there now) but this page tells me the chair is not with Bradford but with "e-TQM College", a Dubai electronic learning institution. So there's some case to be made for WP:PROF but it's a bit tenuous. The fact that he used to be associated with Bradford but isn't now doesn't so much concern me (notability is permanent) as that it may or may not have really been a Bradford chair. The Harrington/Ishikawa Medal is also a plausible way for him to be notable but it seems very local and specific to me.. And the WP:COI problems are big enough, and the case borderline enough, that I think we're better off without. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein's due diligence. The best arguments for Zairi meeting WP:PROF are not persuasive, and the COI issues push this article somewhat into WP:NOT territory. I admit, individually these may be insufficient to merit deletion, but I believe it would be appropriate to consider the totality of the circumstances, and thus look at the issues in aggregate. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * At best weak keep -- It is always difficult to judge the merits of an article that is a mere stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On reconsideration Keep -- Unlike US, where every lecturer is a "professor", in UK the title indicates that the university conferring it is acknowledging his distinction. WP should follow suit.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a direct comment on this AfD, but I think it's fairer to say that in the US "professor" is a much more common rank than in other countries. Over half of the teaching faculties at US colleges are not of professor rank.  (My school has about 3 permanent lecturers for every person with Professor somewhere in his or her title). Does not change the overall correctness of your argument though. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep He's got a lot of publications including books with CRC Press and Routledge:, 24.151.116.25 (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A GS h-index of 42, even in a well-cited field passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 9 June 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.