Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid M. Rashid


 * 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Rashid M. Rashid

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability disputed. If a doctor's main achievement is a report on a previously described condition occuring in pregnancy, then this falls well short of WP:PROF. JFW | T@lk  20:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - notablity for inclusion in wikipedia not established. David Ruben Talk 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 02:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I tired out from searching earlier today, but did major edits to keep only those pubmed articles that help meet WP:PROF criterion #1. I am not sure if more can be found but I gave up the search as this really takes more time then I thought.  But I also find myself an involuntary spectator unable to unglue myself from this process. One person noted that just having publications doesnt cut it, and I agree, that is why I deleted a lot of what was in the article to only leave the more encyclopedic.  I am sure the article could use more work but it may be an issue of patience and time... unless someone wants to really dig around over a few days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * — Skinobs (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: Notability is not sufficiently established per WP:PROF. Plastikspork (talk) 02:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Although there are forty peer-reviewed papers in Scopus, none of hem have been cited more than 5 times. This does not add up to notability in a subject. DGG (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont want to be the only one backing this. I think if as they said, scopus showed few citations. Then maybe this is an article that does not need to be on wiki. I am ok with its deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So this got me thinking. This is a great chance to improve wiki. Maybe for the notability guideline, a certain score system should be established i.e "number of scopus citations" or the such. It would avoid future articles like this and debates like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably this belongs on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) rather than here. But we can't really pick a number because different fields have widely varying citation numbers, and for some fields (see footnote 5 of WP:PROF) Scopus is a bad choice because by focusing only on journals it ignores a large fraction of the literature. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. And I guess to emphasize this, I looked at the h-index of some dermatology greats such as Albert Bernard Ackerman and Ronald Rapini. THey were not remarkable at 13 and not even above 10. So if these people are considered notable, at least everyone in derm does, then the notability thing is really tough to figure out. And again, the issue to emphasize here is that derm deals with orphan diseases. And except for a few skin cancers and other things like psoraisis, almost everything is as rare as it comes and thus focusing on h-index is not a great way to go. I dont know, whats the best way to decide this? I talked to some other dermies and they are not interested in joining the wiki bandwagon. So it will be tough to get this area expanded and to know who are the notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinobs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Citation impact seems to be very low. No news hits on Google News.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - As per User:Plastikspork's rational. kilbad (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2009 (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.