Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phibion Nyamudeza


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 15:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Phibion Nyamudeza

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. Searching Google Scholar I find an article cited by 15 others but this was co-authored with several others (in fact his name does not appear as an author or editor in catalogues), his other publications have a trivial number of citations. Google News gets no matches and a more generalized search shows nothing to establish notability through wide public recognition. This page reads as a résumé and has little promise of being turned into an appropriate article that will meet the guidance of WP:BLP.

He has co-authored [] but this is a collection of conference proceedings and so is unlikely to demonstrate his impact on the field. Ash (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- Ash (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as his notability or impact cannot be proven. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable as an academic (he's not even an academic anymore according to the entry) and not notable as a manager at an accounting/consulting firm. Two non-notable activities do not add up to make one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The notability cannot be proven unless any award, prize or distinction is mentioned.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs) 23:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep PriceWaterhouseCoopers keeps the records of its employees as secrets so a search on the firm's website will not point Dr. Nyamudeza as their employee. However this site "http://www.linkedin.com/pub/phibion-nyamudeza/17/685/481" will point out that indeed Dr. Nyamudeza is employed at PriceWaterhouseCoopers as a Consultant. Anyone can contact PriceWaterhouseCoopers in Harare and be told that Dr. Nyamudeza is one of their Consultants, which in itself is sufficient proof, according to the Policy, that Phibion Nyamudeza should be kept. Also a simple google search will reveal that the man is of impact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potipha (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not express your opinion multiple times in an AfD discussion. If you wish to clarify a point you can add a separate dated comment to your original opinion or add a new comment and mark it clearly (Comment). See WP:GOODARG for examples.—Ash (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that Linkedin fails to meet WP:ELNO #10, it also fails the self-published sources guidance and was removed on this basis.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. With all due respect, the above argument (the article should be kept because his employer will vouch) is nonsense. WP:PROF seems the closest fit, since he's a scientist and since the article lists publications. However, GS shows an h-index of at most only 4. Also, there are no obvious notable awards, distinguished titles, or anything else that would satisfy the criteria in WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, per Agricola44, there is nothing to show passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepThe WP:PROF for the notibility of academics is satisfied in the entry in that Dr. Nyamudeza's 'research has made significant impact in [His] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources' presented in the same article
 * , please do not express your opinion multiple times in an AfD discussion and remember to sign off your contributions. Ash (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not pass any of the categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 15 January 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.