- 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 no consensus. Jamie☆S93 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gad Saad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
looks like a vanity page written by the person himself. Not sure the contributions are immense enough to maintain a collaborative page. Midnightpoutine (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:PROF. The criteria at that page clearly do not fit this person, for example The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources - Gad Saad's contributions to the 'scholarly discipline' of gift-giving are clearly not significant, or if they are they are not demonstrated by reliable sources. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All accomplishments claimed, laudable as they might be, are standard fare for an academic. Hairhorn (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The article needed work. But there is substantial enough coverage of this professor and his book [1]. He's been cited numerous times as an expert. ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Several publications, Ph.D. from a reputed school and so on...--Status quo not acceptable (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Author of 22 peer-reviewed papers, according to Scopus. Unfortunately none of them very heavily cited-- the most is 21 cites for "Exploring the h-index at the author and journal levels using bibliometric data of productive consumer scholars and business-related journals respectively" in Scientometrics and 21 for a paper in Psychology and Marketing. I am not sure he is notable as an academic, though he might be considered a speciality in his narrow area. However, he is notable as an author, as sometimes happens to academics working in afield which has popular interest. The number of articles found about his work by CoM in Google News Archive is more than sufficient--multiple features in the most important papers. Nominated apparently on the basis of not "seeming" notable, which is not anywhere near as reliable an indication as actually doing a search for courses. DGG (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:PROF --- nn academic. Any associate prof at a non-teching college would have this much under his belt with ease. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (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.