Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munjed Al Muderis

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. Due to the now clear, policy-backed consensus, it would appear Munjed Al Muderis is not currently notable enough to warrant an article. This close does not prejudice against recreation at a later time, if/when he is covered by more reliable sources. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Munjed Al Muderis

[edit]
Munjed Al Muderis (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)

Biography of living person that does not establish notability. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 15:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Does not pass WP:SCHOLAR; a search of Google Scholar finds only ONE publication, cited only 28 times. (It's about Zebra Lines, a concept that has not become generally accepted; IMO the Zebra lines article should also be deleted.) He comes closer to notability via WP:GNG; Google News Archive finds half a dozen articles in mainstream publications about his "bionic" prosthetic limbs and his allegations against the Australian refugee camps. (Amusingly, our article says he left Iraq in horror rather than amputate the EARS of Army deserters, while the news article says he was ordered to amputate their LIMBS.) I don't find this degree of coverage to meet the notability standard, and I'm hesitant to keep a medical article that has so little WP:MEDRS sourcing. If kept, the article should certainly be edited to remove the names of his patients! --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting history: An SPA wrote three articles earlier this year: one about Dr. Al Muderi, one about his practice, and one about the Zebra Lines. Their article about Dr. Al Muderi was declined at AfC in August [1] and a new article (this one) was created by a second SPA in October. The first SPA's article about the practice was declined three separate times at AfC, then improved by the second SPA, but still seems to be languishing at AfC.[2] In October the second SPA simply went ahead (bypassing AfC) and created an article about Dr. Al Muderis's practice, The Osseointegration Group of Australia, which largely duplicates this biographical article including listing the names of his patients; that article needs to be looked at. The third article, about Zebra Lines, was somehow passed at AfC bypassed AfC; I am about to nominate it for deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zebra Lines. --MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW this is cute: The journal article which described Zebra Lines had two other co-authors besides Dr. Al Muderi, but the reference citations in the two articles list Al Muderi as the only author. Yet more evidence that this related group of articles is promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the duplicate AfC entry for The Osseointegration Group of Australia. That article is pretty spammy, too, though. Maybe this should have been a mass AfD. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is kept (which is still up in the air), the article about The Osseointegration Group of Australia should be redirected to it. The information is 100% duplicated. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi guys, thanks for your input however, I disagree with your conclusion that Dr Al Muderis (not Muderi as you repeatedly state)is not notable enough for Wikipedia. He is the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world. As you mention there are multiple mentions of him in news articles which only further proves his notability. You mention a fact discrepancy between the article I created and a transcript from the ABC show 7.30 Report. I am a journalist myself (you can google me to substantiate this) and unfortunately sometimes news sources get facts wrong sometimes. There are three other sources I can provide you with that include interviews with Dr Al Muderis where he says himself it was the ears of army deserters that he was instructed to cut off. The reason his patients names are mentioned as they are examples of world first operations of their kind and Brendan Burkett being an accomplished Paraolympian makes him worthy of mentioning. There has been a few more articles about osseointegration and Dr Al Muderis published in prominent national Australian magazines this month which I am happy to add to the reference list. I'm sorry if you view these articles as promotional this is not the case. Rather my intention was to provide the broader amputee community with a procedure which can dramatically change their life. I do have an affiliation with Dr Al Muderis in that I was a patient of his. I am a amputee and had osseointegration surgery a year ago and it has changed my life dramatically. I am rid of the pain I endured daily and can now walk freely without restriction. I only stumbled across the procedure by accident and since it has had such a positive effect on my life all I want is for other amputees to experience the same happiness and success I have. It is a new surgery so is not common mainstream knowledge yet so deleting these articles would only deny the amputee community of information that could improve their life.
I am happy to improve the articles with your feedback if you let me know what it is you feel they are lacking. Thanks. Miranda Cashin (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Miranda Cashin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If this is verifiable, please provide a link. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the coverage in the article there is also Weaver, Clair (1 August 2013), "From penniless prisoner to bionic surgeon", The Australian Women's Weekly. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. With two articles in Web of Knowledge (the Zebra Lines thing MelanieN notes plus a paper on hip arthroplasty cited only twice), he certainly doesn't seem to pass PROF. The news stories seem to relate a WP:SINGLEEVENT. Together, I'm not convinced those things add up to notability. Cnilep (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which event? The not cutting off ears/feet, escaping from his country, trouble in the detention centre or his operations? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The operation. Pretty sure not cutting off people's ears doesn't make someone notable. Not cutting off limbs is a pretty common achievement. Ditto leaving one's country, or being verbally abused in a jail. None of those things go to notability. He's known for an operation on a notable person; everything else is background. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 18:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gross trivialization of the facts. Not cutting someones ears off, when ordered to by a dictator, in a totalitarian country and having to leave the country to escape punishment is quite an achievement.--Xman64 (talk) 07:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question: how can he be such a renowned expert in osseointegration ("the leading surgeon performing Osseointegration not just in Australia but in the world") when it appears he has never published a single paper on the subject? [3] --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 12:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some doctor A prominant Orthopaedic Surgeon.. who has published one article who has published three articles.. [4] and coined a well published phrase in the industry - Zebra Lines (which has been updated recently to reflected wikipedias requirement for multiple citations) not really notable Has had many articles published within the Australia media on his life and work. --Xman64 (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not previously commented, but on the specific question of whether the Women's Weekly article should count as an RS for the purposes of WP:GNG my answer has to be in the affirmative. As a UK man I am not in the habit of reading Australian women's magazines but unless there is something of which I am aware the fact that it is aimed specifically at the female market and the magazine may also contain material that would not be considered suitable for Wikipedia cannot be a bar. Many publications have a readership which is heavily skewed. It qualifies in other respects and GNG is thereby satisfied. --AJHingston (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reasons provided by MelanieN above are correct, and this article doesn't seem to meeet WP:MEDRS standards. I understand why some may feel this is a borderline call, but what the article claims he's famous for - the phrase 'Zebra Lines' - is not generally accepted. In addition, the "accomplishments" section is filled with two-liners more appropriate in articles about the patients themselves, not the doctor. Finally, the infobox looks awful. If kept, there are definitely improvements to be made, but I don't see the notability here to take that step. GRUcrule (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold everything! I just noticed that the main reference for this article [5] - a source which is cited six separate times and is used to support claims like descent from the Iraqi royal family - appears to have been written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, and not by "Peter Meehan" as the reference claims. Somebody please double check this; I don't want to be the only one saying that the authorship of the primary source appears to have been falsified. If this is true, then a good deal of the article needs to be junked, as based on a self-referential or primary source. Furthermore, when most of the third-party news stories talk about his past, they are getting their information from the subject, in the form of interviews and such. It looks to me as if all of the "fleeing Iraq" reporting is based only on his own colorful stories; basically everything about his life pre-Australia seems to be unverified and based on his own say-so. The only reliably sourced information in the article is the news stories about his patients and their "cyborg legs". --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, while the PDF itself has a number of authors, the part about "a descendant from the 2nd family of the Iraq Royal Family when the country was under British rule" is indeed written by Munjed Al Muderis himself, making it an unverified claim. So that has to go unless someone can provide another source for this. --CyberXReftalk 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking deeper, the reference about him graduating from Baghdad University is also self-published. In fact the entire Early Career section is based self-published source (even the ABC news is just a transcript of an interview, which is self-published in nature). Also, how is proposing a term (Zebra Lines, which looks like should be deleted as well) an achievement. --CyberXReftalk 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for verifying. It looks to me as if the ENTIRE section of the pdf about Munjed Al Muderis was written by the subject himself. Did you find anything anywhere about this subject written by a "Peter Meehan"? BTW as I noted above, the authorship of the published article about zebra lines has also been somewhat falsified; both here and at the Zebra Lines page, the journal article is cited to Al Muderis as sole author, rather than to Al Muderis and two co-authors. We may need to regard all the cited references with some suspicion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2013 (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/Munjed_Al_Muderis&oldid=1138103512"