Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoaib Zaidi

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. Deryck C. 21:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dr Zaidi's article easily passes the test for WP:SIGNIFICANCE (please not that this is an ESSAY, not a guideline or policy).
This scholar would at a cursory view appear to fail WP:NACADEMICS, for reasons 1 to 9 inclusive.
I do note that Dr Zaidi is credited with about 20 patents in his field of expertise according to Google Scholar.
I declined the speedy deletion and have so made myself WP:INVOLVED
I must therefore be neutral in this discussion.
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article should be DELETED as it fails WP:ACADEMIC and his accomplishments are trivial--Jaaron95 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Dean of a department does not count as "highest level elected or appointed position at a major academic institution" as required by WP:NACADEMIC. Other than the WP:PS interview included in the article, I didn't find a lot of coverage for this individual. @Shirt58: I have to note that
  1. I believe you have stretched the interpretation of WP:INVOLVED past its logical boundaries: your removal of the speedy notice does not make you an involved admin in this issue. You clearly should not be the admin to close this discussion, but that's a different matter.
  2. You have already acted non-neutrally in this matter by opening the AFD in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep DAWN is Pakistan's leading newspaper, therefore a reliable source. From the opening statement above, I looked up and added as a reference, a list of Zaidi's scientific articles from Google Scholar, presumably a reliable source. It seems to me that 2 strong reliable sources = WP:N. Tapered (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like WikiDan61, I'd like to see a stronger statement from the nom. Having declined a speedy does not make one involved and INVOLVED does not apply to participation in an AFD anyway. Now to the real issue at hand. Above, some arguments in favor of notability are made, under WP:ACADEMIC and under WP:GNG. I don't think either one is correct. It is argued that the subject meets ACADEMIC #6, but as clarified by WikiDan61, dean is not a "highest level elected or appointed position at a major academic institution". The GScholar profile is not an in-depth discussion of the subject and therefore does not contribute to notability under GNG. It could conceivably lead to meeting ACADEMIC #1 by showing that the subject is a highly-cited (and hence highly influential) researcher. However, I don't think this is the case. The profile list three highly-cited articles, but on these papers Zaidi is only a very minor author among a large number. Even counting those papers, his total number of citations is 750 with an h-index of 9. This is far below what we usually take as indicating notability in AfD discussions. Finally, there is the article in Dawn. It is not really about Zaidi, but about the education program of his university. Even if we accept this as an in-depth source about Zaidi, we only have one, so I don't think that this meets GNG either. --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. As Randykitty details, we don't really have evidence for passing any of the WP:PROF criteria. #C1 is closest, as he has three papers with 100+ citations each, but being in the middle position of 20 non-alphabetical authors (as e.g. the top-cited one) implies that his contribution to the work was likely minor. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Randykitty and David Eppstein subject fails WP:PROF specifically does not meet WP:PROF#C1 does not have highly cited academic work and his citation are low for that and fails WP:GNG lacks indepth sources except one.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only claim of notability is being a dean, which isn't enough to pass WP:PROF. Patents mean very little too, so he fails WP:GNG as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.