Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
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. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Majeed (scientist)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Muhammed Majeed (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See [1]. Page was deleted, draftified, and deleted (once again, 4 months ago). It was created under a different name by the same editor ([2]). But still, per WP:PROF, doesn't appear to have had significant impact. All (except one) of the sources are his own work. I couldn't find any secondary sources that indicated his work was so significant to merit his own article. And according to the specific criteria notes: Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. Also, citation metrics, such as having 8,600 citations is not a good indicator per WP:PROF#Citation metrics: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. A non-governmental organization, ASSOCHAM, through a virtual conference gave him a grandiose honorary title, which doesn't equate to a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. As a further note, a search of the name returns possibly several people of the same name, and an assistant professor from the US comes up first. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Aintabli (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All but one book is self-published. (The publisher is registered to the subject). —siroχo 05:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo Whether the books self published or not would not matter when they have been used over 8000 times as citation by other academics. He is a scientists releasing scientific material and books. He is not a fiction writer. This is how most scientists release publications. Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it isn't. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not see 8000 citations for the self-published books. —siroχo 19:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Obvious attempt to bypass the community's decision in the May 2023 AfD is obvious. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are referring to the page name, I did that because there are several people with similar names (some different spellings), so I didn't want there to be any confusion, Check Mohamed Mjid, Mohammad Majid Hussain, Mohammad Majid Ali and Majed Mohammed. There are also many others with the name that will come up in Google. Hkkingg (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't change the fact that you have overruled a decision by the community, which the name difference appears to camouflage. Even with WP:GF, if you cannot keep track of recent deletions of articles you've created despite all that still being visible on your talk page, I'm afraid that enters the realm of WP:CIR. Aintabli (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    During the last AFD discussion, I perceived a negative bias against him, as the voters seemed to doubt the scientific validity of his advocacy. For example one DELETE voter stated "Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." Consequently, I made modifications to the page content in my new submission, resulting in a significant transformation. While I acknowledge the experience of editors like @David Eppstein, I believe it's important to maintain impartiality and objectivity. I recognize Wikipedia's policies concerning unverified science, but in this particular case, they don't apply. Therefore, I urge individuals to set aside any preconceived biases and base their votes on the fact that he possesses over 8000 academic citations and has received multiple awards, thereby meeting the criteria outlined in both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:ANYBIO. Hkkingg (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Different enough from the deleted version for G4 not to apply, but with no new evidence of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disclosure: I am the page creator. Firstly the last AFD was borderline with 3 keeps and 3 deletes and at minimum should have been extended for 1-2 weeks or should have been kept as "No Consensus."

Second we had some non-policy based Delete votes like this one " Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors." I also felt that most of the problem was with the way the page was written, which made people think that way. So I have completely revised the copy. In addition, it really doesn't matter if he has enough citations, because as an Academic he meets WP:ACADEMIC and has over 8000 citations. It just speaks for itself. He is well known as one of the experts in his field and has also won awards as follows:

-Government of India - Presidential Award
-National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations - Ellis Island Medal of Honor
-Long Island University - Daniel B. Statesman Award for Distinguished Alumni
-Indian-American Kerala Cultural and Civic Center - 25th Jubilee Year Lifetime Achievement Award
-Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Shield of Honor Award
-Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Indian Nutraceuticals Trailblazer Award
-Associated Chambers of Commerce & Industry of India - Father of Indian Nutraceutical Industry Award
Hence he also meets WP:ANYBIO. Ellis Island Medal of Honor is a well known award and has a wiki page. Also He got an award from Government of India.Hkkingg (talk) 06:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one discounts single-purpose accounts and blocked sockpuppets, the last AfD was much more convincing: 3 policy-based deletes and 3 discounted comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, AfD discussions aren't concluded by pure headcounts but by arguments made anyway. Cortador (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The prior AFD also had an IP voter with no history voting to Delete and in my opinion was closed prematurely. Please have a look at all these citations as well and tell me why you think they are not acceptable:
Innovate Bengaluru
Sami-Sabinsa Wins Multiple Awards | HAPPI
Sabinsa Crosses 400-Patent Milestone | Nutraceuticals World
Sabinsa Founder Dr. Muhammed Majeed Named Father of Indian Nutraceuticals Industry.
Dr. Majeed Foundation supports COVID-19 efforts in India, donating over $1.32M.
"Sabinsa founder Dr Muhammed Majeed publishes book highlighting selenium research".
Dr. Muhammed Majeed, Sabinsa". WholeFoods Magazine
The subject has also registered over 400 patents which are being used in actual products by his company Sabina. Hkkingg (talk) 16:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hkkingg, sometimes responding to every editor can backfire. I think you've put together your best argument and don't need to counter every other editor who has a different opinion than yours. Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (not sure on Salt) -- self-published books without independent reviews/assertions of importance count for very little for notability. The one McGraw Hill book seems to be not one of their main labels. Not enough articles, citations, awards to approach the WP:PROF guideline (and I'm pretty inclusionist). Articles pointed out by the main editor, such as Whole Foods Magazine show again more self-promotion and not independent coverage. Not sure on salting, because there is a decent possibility that the company may someday be significant and this article be a redirect, but if it's this disruptive to the editing community, salting may be in order. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is a pretty clear case of WP:FRINGE, so WP:PROF does not apply and the subject has to be evaluated under WP:BIO for the purposes of notability. There is simply too little here in that regard apart from self-published sources and promotional fluff. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2023 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FMuhammed_Majeed_%28scientist%29

Leave a Reply