Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dlawer Ala'Aldeen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. GRBerry 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dlawer Ala'Aldeen
AfDs for this article:
Procedural nom as contested prod in April when the initial stub was created. Only contributions have been from the guy himself and anon IPs from the universities he works at - even then they were copyvios of university pages.
There are no secondary sources available. With copyvios removed this article remains a very short stub, and I don't see the potential for this to become a full article at a later stage. Whilst he might be notable in Nottingham where he practices, I don't see substancial WP:BIO. Breno talk 13:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete just another prof like any other. No refs to substantial contributions or awards. --BlindEagletalk~contribs 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Does anyone do research anymore? This man has authored/co-authored, by my count, at least 50 articles, including for the Lancet more than once. Has co-authored 3 books on microbiology AND holds a patent.--Sethacus 15:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep (though a patent by itself unless exploited is not particularly meaningful). Even the original article gave his position, which should have at least raised the thought that Nottingham usually appoints Professors who have done notable work. DGG (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Web of Science lists 33 publications that have been cited a grand total of 375 times. This is not really remarkable or notable.--Crusio 22:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Professor (far rarer title in UK than in US) and head of research group at University of Nottingham. One of the Society for General Microbiology subject chairs [1] and Chair of the Federation of Infection Societies; I don't know the latter organisation, but the former means he's one of the foremost UK experts in his field. He's also an expert consultant to the Medical Research Council & Royal College of Pathologists, and Associate Editor of Journal of Medical Microbiology, which is a reasonably prestigious journal in its field. [2]. His publication record is solid with 45 publications indexed by Medline, many in high-quality specialist journals such as Infect Immun, J Bacteriol, J Antimicrob Chemother, J Infect, Mol Microbiol Microbiology etc, plus several short papers in Lancet & NEJM. Several have relatively high citation counts (eg 94 for this review [3], 43 for NEJM letter [4]) He also appears to have been interviewed by the Lancet, if anyone has a subscription: [5]. He's also co-written several textbooks with reputable publishers. Clearly meets my definition of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- objectively, reviews always get high counts. That none of the research papers have more than 30 or so citations is not really very promising. I still think he just makes it, based on the editorship and so on. He is probably as much a clinician as a researcher. I'll check Lancet tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- True enough. Microbiology is my area, though, and the journals he's published in are all reasonably decent specialist journals in the area, which I think counts for more than just numbers of published papers. Espresso Addict 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- They are high ranking journals, but I think this is an unwarranted extension of our practice. Individual papers in even the best journals dont make people notable. A great many people have published a few good such articles--and there is a very wide range of quality. (Looking for example at J. Bacteriology, articles in an issue typically have anywhere from 2 to 20 cites--1 or 2 have over 100.), It isn't the number of papers, but the citations- Suppose I had three papers in Journal of Molecular Biology, an excellent journal, each cited 8 or 10 times. That's not notable; very few people thought it worth citing. If they had been cited a few hundred times each, it would be another matter. By the standard you propose, almost every assistant professor at a major university would get an article--they have all published a few papers in good journals. I'm not that inclusionist, even with academics, and I don't think the decisions here or the proposals at WP:PROF support that view--the most recent proposal there was to sharply elevate the standards. We can discuss this further there. (note that this is a side issue--the guy is notable, putting everything together). DGG (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- True enough. Microbiology is my area, though, and the journals he's published in are all reasonably decent specialist journals in the area, which I think counts for more than just numbers of published papers. Espresso Addict 04:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- objectively, reviews always get high counts. That none of the research papers have more than 30 or so citations is not really very promising. I still think he just makes it, based on the editorship and so on. He is probably as much a clinician as a researcher. I'll check Lancet tomorrow. DGG (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as above Elmao 11:04, 19 September 2007 (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.
