Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wassim Almawi (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wassim Almawi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Associate professor, no claim of notability in the article. Gigs (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no indication that subject passes WP:PROF--137.122.49.102 (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - for the same reasons put forth in the previous AFD. Almawi meets criteria 1 of WP:PROF, based on the large amount of publications listed (100+) on google scholar; the first article listed has been cited 106 times and the second 76 times. Academic Wikipedia articles can be very difficult to source, which is why this one has been stubbified substantially. This issue is compounded when the academic is involved at a foreign language university. Is the New York Times going to publish an article on Almawi's work on "Trends in the use of glucocorticoids in renal transplantation"? Not likely. But it is an important work in his field and his associates agree in that they've cited it over 100 times in their own studies. --Jezebel's Ponyo shhh 14:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: 106 cites? Not bad but not particularly impressive. My various supervisors (none of which have wiki articles) have papers with 260+ (that paper was mentioned in non-academic media) to 4500+ cites. So, if this person research is important, evidence of it beyond google scholar should be not too hard to find. Who cited his research and why? I understand stubbifying vanity but some word could be said about this person's research and sourced, if the subject does pass WP:PROF.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Article doesn't contain any encyclopedic information on what this scholar is known for discovering. Abductive  (reasoning) 04:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Top GS cites are 104, 76, 54, 39, 38 .... with h index = 16. May pass WP:Prof #1. A large amount of sourceable information was removed from the article before it was nominated for AfD. Restoration of this in part may allay the justified concerns of Abductive . Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC).
 * H-index in biological fields is inflated simply because there are so many researchers in that field. It's like relying on Google hits for something related to open source. Gigs (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. For an active field with a fast publication cycle like biochemistry the citability data is not that impressive. In the absence of additional factors to indicate academic notability, I don't think there is quite enough here for passing WP:PPOF. Nsk92 (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying here may not be relevant to this person. The same is true for computer science, biology and other applied fields. Wikipedia needs to update their WP:PROF to reflect such differences to favour depending upon situations. There must be some level of commonsense involved. thx.--kaeiou (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The earlier version of the article needs more sources but if that version is correct he is probably notable. I agree with Xxanthippe. MiRroar (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep This person meets criteria #1 of WP:PROF, based on the large amount of publications listed and article #1. --kaeiou (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Nsk92 points out that the citation level is not that impressive for the field in question, and associate prof rank, as well as lack of any press coverage to be found in Gnews, suggests a relative lack of prominence in his field. Ray  Talk 22:59, 21 March 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.