Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahboub Baccouch

:{{la|Mahboub Baccouch}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahboub_Baccouch Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Mahboub Baccouch}})

Non-notable, fails WP:PROF JMHamo (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: appears to be autobiography of person who fails WP:PROF. PamD 09:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

:*Keep now that article has been entirely rewritten and sourced by an independent editor; appears to be probably notable. PamD 20:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - while it's not unusual to find nothing for academics on news or newspapers, his low hit count on Books, and his very low citation count on Scholar, make me agree that he currently fails WP:PROF. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – I updated and sourced the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahboub_Baccouch&diff=696873465&oldid=696846085]. I think it now meets WP:PROF criteria 1. Per specific criteria notes the subject's work is highly cited in the field of "applied numerical mathematics" as measured by Scopus citation index. I referenced it in the article, [http://web.archive.org/web/20151226141512/http://www.journals.elsevier.com/applied-numerical-mathematics/most-cited-articles/ archived here]. (side note: I do not know the subject and I am not associated with his institutions.) Bammesk (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC).... Also, the article is a stub, it has potential.
• Comment - Hoping that this will be relisted to give folks with more knowledge of academic citations a chance to weigh in. Honestly, after the excellent work done by {{u|Bammesk}} I am now a lot less sure of deletion than when I researched for my !vote. However, I don't have the technical chops to analyze the Scopus reference. If others come by who can give credible guidance on that, please ping me. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. {{U|Bammesk }}, I think you misread. His work is not among the most cited in the field of numerical mathematics. The reference is rather that a particular paper of his is among the most highly cited among those published in one particular journal. Elsevier's journal Applied numerical mathematics. The actual citation for that article in Google scholar is 25, which even for mathematics with low citations, is not that great. His most cited overall is Adjerid S, Baccouch M. The discontinuous Galerkin method for two-dimensional hyperbolic problems. Part I: Superconvergence error analysis. Journal of Scientific Computing. 2007 Oct 1;33(1):75-113, with 32 citations, which is not much better. (Proof that it's just this journal is by noticing there is no journal name given for any of the articles on the Elsevier page cited, and what it gives at the left is the journal information for this particular journal. And the explanation of the difference is that this journal is not among the most cited numerical mathematics journals [http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank.php?area=2600&category=2612&country=all&year=2014&order=sjr&min=0&min_type=cd]) DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:*{{U|DGG}}, thanks for fixing my misread, the google numbers make more sense now. The Scopus count isn't high but it is decent (top 5% of 500 papers in that journal in 5 years). I yield to consensus which will likely be delete. I want to keep my vote though. This is my first AfD and first academia BLP. My 2 cents so far: WP:PROF has a high bar, it requires notability derived from excellence, in a field where excellence is a prerequisite and pursuit of notability is traditionally discouraged. Bammesk (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as this certainly looks better but simply nothing to suggest fully satisfying professors notability guidelines. SwisterTwister talk 18:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - What would wikipedia be if we all wrote articles about ourselves? MiracleMat (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Regardless of whether it's an autobiography, he doesn't have the high citations to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 (e.g. top Google scholar citation count is 32, whereas some other papers with "Galerkin method" in the title have thousands of citations, and being listed as one on a long list of "most cited" articles from an individual journal says little about notability) and there is no evidence of meeting any other WP:PROF criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per David Eppstein's search on citations. It's not badly written and would be willing to userfy until the subject becomes a full prof. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.