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. The "keep" opinions argue that the subject is notable per WP:PROF, an inclusion guideline. However, they do not address the policy-level issues raised by the nominator, namely, a lack of independent reliable sources. These concerns speak to core policies (WP:V, WP:BLP) and, unchallenged, mandate deletion.  Sandstein  18:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taieb Znati[edit]

Taieb Znati (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)

This article survived a no-consensus AfD some years ago, but our policies on sourcing of biographies have firmed up since then. The article has no independent sources. Its references are primary with several of the form "X is on the editorial board of journal Y, source, link to journal Y's editorial board". Notability is asserted but that assertion is not backed by any reference other than his own CV. Since the article has clearly not improved over the last couple of years, I think it is unlikely to do so - and even the creator agreed it should go. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons as in the previous two AfDs: with two publications having over 800 citations (in Google scholar, the best choice of citation index to use for this subject — Web of Science should be avoided), 7 with over 100 citations, and an h-index of 27, he has a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how many times do we decide to keep a shit article in the hopes that one day someone will care enough to make it not shit, even though plainly nobody cares enough to do so? This article is fundamentally noncompliant with policy: it has no reliable independent sources. We don't have any exemption to the requirement for sourcing based on how many publications the person might have, and subject-specific notability guidelines are only guides to the types of subject that should have the kind of sources we require - as you know, they are not a guarantee that they do have sources available and hence they are no guarantee (because they cannot be) that an article may exist simply because they tick the boxes: the only valid test in the final analysis is: are there non-trivial reliable independent sources? Guy (Help!) 23:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Eppstein. Policy on such matters is given in WP:Prof to which the nominator is directed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Delete The guidelines for WP:PROF are clearly too broad, especially for this case. The article definitely fails to prove encylopedic under the general guidelines and the coauthors of the previously described papers lack entries themselves. Many, in fact most, of the people listed on the Web of Knowledge index of highly cited researchers lack entries. Furthermore, I can point to hundreds of far more cited articles with a quick google scholar search (applicable certainly, the field is computer science) or from other sources (citeseer). Just viewing related articles to his highly cited works produces multiple 1500+ citations whose authors don't have Wikipedia articles. I think the WP:Prof criteria described is certainly inconsistent and should be discounted. The article itself provides little encyclopedic information, fails completely to conform to WP:MOSBIO and reads like a condensed resume. Wikipedia is NOT a directory, this article is unencyclopedic. As the single inconsistent criteria from WP:PROF is the sole (and decidedly weak see above) justification for keeping this article, and the article fails to meet WP:NOT, WP:MOSBIO, WP:BIO, the article should be deleted. Eternalmonkey (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that WP:Prof is an inappropriate policy guideline, change it. Until then it stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If you get down to it, the evidence would suggest that this doesn't even meet WP:Prof. According to the guideline, "The meaning of 'substantial number of publications' and "high citation rates" is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations," and "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." As stated earlier, there are thousands of examples of authors from the field with comparable citation ^[1][2]. Furthermore, WP:Prof requires reliable, published sources, a key feature this article is lacking. Most importantly, the article is a violation of WP:Not a directory, and to a lesser degree WP:MOSBIO and, according to those policies, is unencyclopedic and unlikely to be made so, especially if you consider the multiple years of article existence with minimal revision. Eternalmonkey (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are the creator of the BLP. Interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- clear pass of WP:PROF; see David Eppstein or the arguments in the last keep. Nom can discuss whether WP:PROF should be changed on that page, but it's the controlling guideline. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources? [WP:PROF] requires reliable sources. Again, he is no more cited than thousands of others from the field. His citation record is insufficient to warrant wikipedia notability. (see references above) It is not a clear pass. If any of the keep party have something new to add to the discussion other than the "clear pass" headline it would most certainly be welcome. Eternalmonkey (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would also like to add that this article has had a chance to be made useful, and clearly, no one [WP:CARES]. I care because I made the article, but it seems like few else do. Obviously anybody who cares about the living person this entry describes would be better served elsewhere. Also, it is probably plagiarizing his CV to some extent. It's just a lousy article that should never have been created. Why not just let this go? Eternalmonkey (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2016 (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.