Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selam Ahderom (3rd nomination)

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selam Ahderom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I brought this here a few years ago and it was kept then. Since then, however, there has been no evidence forthcoming that the individual meets the WP:PROF criteria. (Please note the impact value of the publications.) Eusebeus (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no evidence in the searches of notability for PROF or any other standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No recent cited research publication and last moderately-cited paper was in 2003, therefore fails WP:PROF. No media coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC either. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Even though the previous AfD was quite some time ago and the concept of notability has now become much more formal, the previous verdict still seems baffling, e.g. "keep" arguments like "Precedent schmecedent" and SPA voting. I think that if you look at the actual merits of this case, it's an uncontroversial delete. This individual works as a lecturer, but holds no notable position, nor has earned any notable recognition per WP:PROF. The most common way of passing the notability hurdle, research impact (WP:PROF #1), is a complete bust here. WoS shows 6 papers, h-index = 2, and a grand total of 26 citations. Bear in mind that this person's specialty is EE, so the publication record, such as it is, is well-represented by WoS. Page is also an orphan. The fact that it has extremely low views probably is what allowed it to fly under the radar for so long. Should probably be salted too for 2 reasons: (1) current version was SPA-recreated and thus likely to be resurrected yet again if deleted, and (2) given the above observations, it is extremely unlikely this individual will become notable anytime in the near future. Again, an uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per Agricola44. No evidence of passing WP:PROF here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a possibility of a WP:BIAS issue, but it seems to be far outweighed by the evidence that he is far below the standard of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is not currently on the staff of the department in any capacity. [1].

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.