Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammed Majeed

Add links
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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Majeed

[edit]

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

Muhammed Majeed (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)

Likely attempt at promo, sourcing is a mix of press releases and websites of dubious notability. I can't find any sourcing about him in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 00:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing but promo. There is nothing to claim towards notability. Agree with the nominator that sources are mix of press releases and some black hat SEO. Fails GNG. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC) — 202.164.137.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Dear IP editor with no other edits, in this case the sources can be ignored per WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. Maybe you are new and not familiar with these policies, so you should not place a vote until you have more experience. The policy states:
    "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Hkkingg (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If the experience is decided by the age of account and edit count, you should never put a vote. You joined 13 days ago and had made only less than 70 edits before marking your vote. It seems that you are already aware of certain wikipedia policies which are not even known to moderate experienced users. This is strange. You do not look like a new user to me. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even for WP:PROF notability, we require reliable sources; we merely don't require them to have the depth of coverage in individual sources that would be required for WP:GNG notability. Sources that are "mix of press releases and some black hat SEO", if that characterization is accurate, are unreliable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein I request that you review this again and reconsider your position.
    1- Because Ellis Island Medal of Honor has a wiki page, we can consider it to be a reliable award and meeting WP:ANYBIO, plus this is not the only award that he won.
    2- Please tell me which specific citations are press releases or black hat SEO. They all look like legit publications to me. Let's look at a few in more detail:
    - The Economic Times India is one of the major publications from India and has a Wikipedia page here. Almost 13,000 articles on Wikipedia have used this site as a citation.
    - Nutraceutical Business Review looks like a legit publication in the field of Nutraceuticals
    - Indian TV News looks like a legit Indian publication with a Wikipedia page here. 2300+ articles on wikipedia have used this as a citation. According to their About page they have a #1 ranking TV station. Are you saying that this Large TV Station is selling blackhat SEO articles??? what proof do you have???
    - NuFFooDS Spectrum: According to their about page: "NuFFooDS Spectrum India's first magazine catering to the Nutraceuticals, Nutritionals, Fuctional Foods and Dietary Supplements sector."
    - HAPPI Magazine : a publication in existence for more than 50 years according to their ABOUT page and has 30,000 subscribers.
    - WholeFoods Magazine : A publication in business for 39 years (since 1984). It is the longest-tenured media outlet of its kind in the natural products industry. Check their ABOUT PAGE. Majeed has 2 articles on this. Check Article 1 and Article 2.
    If any of these are are press releases they must say "Press Release" on them and to proof they are SEO and black hat, you must provide some evidence that they are selling articles, such as a Fiverr link.
    3- The guy has almost 8000 academic citations. I found at least 11 books written by him and 170 patents. He clearly can be considered an academic and passes WP:PROF. Hkkingg (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ellis Island Medal of Honour is given by Ellis Island Honors Society. It is not a well-known and significant award so he fails WP:ANYBIO. Economic Times is another publication by Times of India. Per WP:TOI, The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. You have provided no sources that help to meet WP:GNG. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 06:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, churned press releases do not always label themselves as such. XOR'easter (talk) 13:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @XOR'easter and IP Editor: I have to say that I am sure once you vote a certain way you would argue all you can to not admit that you were wrong. This is very obvious when you ignore the big fact that the guy has 8000 citations and have not provided a rebuttal for my #3 argument. According to WP:PROF he would qualify, which states:
    1. a. The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates.
    Hkkingg (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a pharmacist and fringe-medicine practitioner, he is not an academic, so there is obviously no pass of WP:PROF. Instead we have to look for WP:GNG notability. The book source Stepping Out of the Brain Drain and newspaper source "Four Indian-Americans to receive Ellis Medal" both appear to be brief mentions, not enough depth for GNG. All the rest are unreliable spam. So we don't have the in-depth, reliable, independent sourcing required for GNG and we don't have notability that way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein Please note per WP:PROF " However, academics may also work outside academia and their primary job does not need to be academic if they are known for their academic achievements. Conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not need to be notable academics to warrant an article." He has 8000 citations, 170 patents in academia, author of 11 books and many articles and this cannot be ignored. Also please check my explanation of sources above and state your reason for calling them SEO and blackat spam. You have not provided any valid reason why you think they are spammy sites and my research shows that there are several reliable sites. Hkkingg (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PROF would apply if he worked in real medicine. Working in Ayurveda is ... not that. We would need top-quality sources that explicitly contextualize the relation between his work and the mainstream, which we don't have. WP:PROF is inapplicable and beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn for fringe-medicine purveyors. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Hkking. Based on his almost 8000 academic citations, he meets WP:PROF. The guidelines state this specifically.Pershkoviski (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See [1]. This user has been warned by an admin for making votes at multiple venues within a short span of time. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The guidelines don't state that specifically; WP:PROF provides no exact numbers that have to be surpassed, for the very good reason that no such criterion can actually be formulated. Raw citation counts are simply not meaningful without a comparison to the rest of the field, some understanding of how much an individual author contributed to papers with many authors, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is coming from an IP voter with very little edits. His vote and whatever he says should not be given much value. Hkkingg (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. We see others with very few citations being listed... 49.206.255.210 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear IP voter, did you mean to place a KEEP vote? if so, please put a bold KEEP, in the front of your statement. Hkkingg (talk) 17:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's very well published and the recipient of a prestigious international award.
AtFirstLight (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have dug through some recent AFD's and found this discussion, where several editors including @Outdoorsjim, @Elemimele and @Oblivy agreed that someone with around 1000 academic citations meets the notability guidelines. In this case the subject has around 8000 academic citations.

To the closing admin: please extend this AFD for another week, so we can get some more votes in. Hkkingg (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

comment I suggest you are misreading my comment. The subject of that article had received WP:SIRS media coverage. I did not say or imply that having 1000 citations made the person notable.Oblivy (talk) 03:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to waste a lot of time trying to apply NPROF to someone selling books on turmeric as a cure-all as, from the little I've gleaned about it, it's pseudoscience. On the other hand, his books seem to sell a darned sight better than a lot of people we've accepted as notable authors, so we may be obliged to keep the article based on his being an author. It is not our job to judge whether his books are clap-trap, only whether they're notable clap-trap. But we are entitled to remove anything that looks like promotion from the article about him. Beware of keep; it may not be the result you want; Wikipedia articles are obliged to treat a person and their work fairly, but not necessarily portray either in a positive light. Elemimele (talk) 18:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your response. As the creator of the article I have not included any promotional language. If you do see anything promotional, please go ahead and state it or you are welcome to edit the article yourself. If promotional language is an issue, it should not be used as a reason to decline a notable subject, but rather someone should fix it or just post a tag that it sounds promotional. Hkkingg (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is not about one book selling turmeric. I took the time to do some research on the contribution and the amount of scientific data collected and the validity of it. The term used 'pseudoscience' does not fit in here. 49.206.255.210 (talk) 04:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC) — 49.206.255.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I suggest you look at [2] and [3] as examples of the kind of resistance turmeric/curcumin health claims face on Wikipedia. There is an active community of editors who patrol for fringe or pseudoscience issues, with a goal to avoid having Wikipedia be a source of medical misinformation. Turmeric is definitely on the radar screen. If research supporting turmeric as a therapy is discussed on Wikipedia, it's likely (at best) to need counterbalance with criticism from medical-science sources. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just reality. Oblivy (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed your suggested links. These discussions are related to "Turmeric" being a valid therapy or not and it would only apply to a page's content when there is an unsupported content. In this case, the page itself is not about Turmeric, but about a doctor who is an expert in Turmeric related subjects and has written more than one book about it. It is also not the only subject that he has covered. He has books on other subjects as well. In any case, there is no statement in this page that is claiming any benefits of "Turmeric," so even though some editors may have resistance against the subject of Turmeric, their bias should not apply to the this deletion voting, and this consider the academic citations and his books as part of their decision.Please also check WP:AUTHOR. Subject also meets criterion 1 because of many academic citations and meets criterion 3, because his patents are being used in several live products such as Forslean, Boswellin, Blackpepper etc..49.206.255.210 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You objected to the use of the term 'pseudoscience', and that term and 'fringe' are used elsewhere in the discussion to justify a heightened standard for notability. Whether you call it bias or something else is up to you but there's a larger context. Oblivy (talk) 09:09, 5 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muhammed_Majeed&oldid=1153392133"