Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed sanduk


 * 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 '''Userfied. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)'''

Mohammed sanduk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This might just be very badly written, but it lacks independent sources and contains some pretty blatant WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Subject is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Surrey U.K. Although a person of wide interests he makes little impact on WP:Prof criteria. One hit on Google Scholar but no cites. Looks like a delete at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not meet criteria like Xxanthippe said. MiRroar (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject is a physicist and the article makes at least 2 claims to notability that, if true, would represent remarkable advances in this science: (1) an extension of the theory of Bohm diffusion, and (2) an extension of the wave model of a particle. The source provided for the first claim is an obscure journal and this paper appears in none of the usual mainstream indexing services, e.g. WoS and GS. (Long parenthetical remark: this paper was also added as reference for Bohm diffusion in that article by an anonymous editor IP 82.2.247.35 in Guildford, the subject's hometown, and an apparently WP:SPA account, IP 86.2.254.132 also from Guildford, has also edited only this article and the Bohm diffusion article. If the Sanduk article is eventually deleted, the reference should be removed from the Bohm diffusion article, as it is apparently not recognized by mainstream physicists.) There are 2 sources for the second claim: and article in Apeiron and an uploaded paper in arXiv. Apeiron is a well-known "alternative science" journal and is not regarded as part of the mainstream science world, for example it is not indexed by WoS. The arxiv source, though more credible, is still not a peer-reviewed contribution. It's been uploaded there for about a year and there's no indication in the article that this paper has been submitted to a mainstream physics journal. On balance, there's no indication whatsoever that the physics community has embraced either of these two ideas. In terms of a more routine check, WoS shows 1 paper with 9 citations from 1992 (h-index = 1). This appears to be something related to what the article says was his PhD topic 20 years ago. It does not appear that he is a notable physicist in the least. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, sorry, but per above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (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.