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. Walton^One 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel Nasser Tawfik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails both Wikipedia:Notability basic criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). This appears to be shameless' self-promotion, as the vast majority of edits have been by Amtawfik (talk · contribs) (who uploaded a picture of himself and added it to the article) and by several IP addresses in the 41.232.0.0-41.232.255.255 range, which are registered to one company in Cairo, Egypt (where this guy lives). This appears to be an WP:Autobiography. (EhJJ)^TALK 21:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete GoogleScholar produces only a few hits. A WOS search lists 9 articles by the subject, with citation hits in single digits for each. The awards listed in the WP article about him appear dubious. There does not seem to be any such thing as an "American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Membership Award" (see the list of AAAS awards at [1]). Most likely he is talking about general membership in AAAS which is open to everyone for a membership fee. The American Biographical Institute award also does not inspire much confidence: ABI is a business entity that makes money by selling its books and certificates to its honorees, essentially a vanity press outlet. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO and should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to my vote to Unsure per David Schaich's research. We might have been dealing with differences in spelling and hyphenation which first produced low results in WOS. I did a SPIRES search and also found some highly cited papers by the the subject, see here[2], where two papers (numbers 12 and 13 on the list) have 94 and 93 cites. I don't know enoough about typical publication and citation rates in this branch of physics, but these results may well signify notability, the horrid state of the WP article about him nonwithstanding. Nsk92 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only 9 published articles according to Web of Science, the most cited one cited only 7 times. Not yet notable. But we can get it out of WP without using unfriendly language about the subject/author.DGG (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not yet notable enough to warrant an article. Luksuh 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Weak delete. "Scientific contributions" section of the article only discusses topics he's studied, without describing any specific contributions. Few papers and citations, unimpressive (and unreferenced) awards. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A belated SPIRES search pops up at least a couple dozen papers, two with nearly 100 citations, but I still don't think there are notable contributions. Apparent autobiography doesn't make me inclined to be generous. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To reconcile this with the WoS results, looking at Spires, the most heavily cited papers are "Thermodynamics at nonzero baryon number density: A Comparison of lattice and hadron resonance gas model calculations." F. Karsch (Bielefeld U.) , K. Redlich (Bielefeld U. & Wroclaw U.) , A. Tawfik (Bielefeld U.) . BI-TP-2003-16, Jun 2003. 15pp. Published in Phys.Lett.B571:67-74,2003. 94 citations and "Hadron resonance mass spectrum and lattice QCD thermodynamics." F. Karsch (Bielefeld U.) , K. Redlich (Bielefeld U. & Wroclaw U.) , A. Tawfik (Bielefeld U.) . Mar 2003. 18pp. Published in Eur.Phys.J.C29:549-556,2003. 93 citations. My WoS search used only the form with the middle initial--repeating it, it gives 64 and 61 citations for the two papers, but it includes only peer-reviewed papers and the HEP database at Spires includes much else. It's Karsch & Redlich who are the really notable physicists, and need articles here; they do not have them. Thus the coverage paradox of Wikipedia. In the absence of people entering bios systematically in most subjects, we have preferentially the bios of the people whose COI has induced them to insert them, and these are not usually the most notable.

I have argued before to give a certain about of tolerance to people working in countries with less modernized academic systems. i think it might apply here as a deciding factor.DGG (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not yet sufficiently notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2008 (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.