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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan El-Sallabi[edit]

Hassan El-Sallabi (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)

No indication of notability, according to unbiased, reliable sources. Links go to primary sources, his patents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be simply a hard-working university professor with nothing notable about him. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Hassan has contributions to telecommunications protocol and his patents are incorporated into a number products. Also, he received IEEE awards, and I am still in the process of editing the article. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what kind of world do we live in where professors with over 100 scientific papers and numerous patents are not considered 'notable' but every artist and singer gets a full Wikipedia page? How is it so that the internet gets deprived of exposure to such scientific minds because they are not 'notable' enough? I am sure many readers among the 7 billion humans would be interested to know more about scientists than about singers, dresses and useless pop culture and memes.

Even so, I am still in the process of writing the article, and consolidating sources, so let's have a bit longer window to do that. Thanks Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why some individuals in Wikipedia think that such an established scientist is not worth the few kilobytes his article will take on Wikipedia storage! Wikipedia moderators are not arbitrators on what the rest of the world should or should not read about. This is borderline censorship. As long as the article is well-referenced and provides an obvious point on a scholar with real-life achievements, then I don't see why some Wikipedia moderators don't think he's worth the article kilobytes.

Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at David Eppstein's Wikipedia page, I don't see anything in it that exceeds what Dr. Hassan's achieved. If David Eppstein can have a Wikipedia page for one award and a few publications, then I don't see why Dr. Hassan can't. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a relevant argument, per WP:OTHERSTUFF, but David Eppstein has a very substantial h-index of 56. The subject of this article does not. -- 120.17.99.24 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:FALLACY. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ADHOM. --ToonLucas22 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


So after some more digging, I found more evidence in support of keeping Dr. Hassan's page.

Dr. Hassan served as a Task Leader on Channel Modeling Work Package of IST-WINNER EU funded Project. The channel modeling research group was from industry (Nokia Research Center and Elektorbit Co.) and Academia (Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden; Ilmenau University, Gemany; Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Switzerland in addition to his group from Helsinki University of Technology, Finland). He was also proxy of Helsinki University of Technology, Finland in this project.


Also here's his prestigious IEEE Award:

File:Dr._Hassan_El-Sallabi_IEEE_Award.jpg

According to Wikipedia's criteria of "notability", 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

This criteria is in Dr. Hassan's favor due to his work adopted by Remcom Co. and in WINNER project as the work was under his academic capacity.

http://www.ist-winner.org/about.html

As a person from academia with industrial project; which is a consortium of 41 partners co-ordinated by Nokia Siemens Networks working towards enhancing the performance of mobile communication systems.


Also, all of these references:

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Pekka_Kyoesti/publication/224645000_Wideband_Spatial_Channel_Model_for_MIMO_Systems_at_5_GHz_in_Indoor_and_Outdoor_Environments/links/02bfe50d0689fc6211000000.pdf

http://www2.tu-ilmenau.de/nt/generic/paper_pdfs/WWRF15-WG4-12-Overview%20of%20WINNER-Jamsa.pdf http://www.ist-winner.org/DeliverableDocuments/D5.4.pdf http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2006/isbn951228247X/article5.pdf

It's simply not acceptable that academics with a lot less achievements are featured on Wikipedia, but Dr. Hassan is not.

Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is hardly a "prestigious IEEE Award," just an ordinary "best paper" award from a conference. Most academics get a few of those. It's nothing out of the ordinary. In addition, access to this award makes me wonder about a close connection between the subject and the author of the article. -- 120.17.99.24 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non-constructive response, with an implicit accusation, but I shall rise above the level of accusation and simply dissect your argument: First of all, the IEEE Vehicular Technology Society is actually one of the highest-regarded awards in the field of Electrical Engineering. You do not have to be an Electrical Engineer to understand its value; however it does not put anybody in a position to belittle an award they don't fully understand. IEEE is the largest and most prestigious Electrical Engineering body in existence, and its awards are highly sought after by electrical engineers around the globe. Therefore your comment about the award unfortunately does not help your argument, but actually jeopardizes it. IEEE.
Secondly, the accusation about conflict of interest is simply out of the blue, and the rebuttal is easy: Have a LinkedIn account? Simply visit Dr. Hassan El-Sallabi's page there, you don't even have to connect to him, it's there for public, accessible by any logged in LinkedIn user. Such a simple rebuttal, and the award being accessible over the internet to anybody, means you are throwing accusations left and right with no verification whatsoever, please stop jeopardizing your own argument. Thundervoul (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of the IEEE, in fact. With my own set of awards. Which do not make me notable. -- 120.17.125.96 (talk)contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider an IEEE technical field award to be contributing evidence of notability, and an IEEE fellow membership to be strong evidence. But as you say, this is a best paper award, in this case for "the best paper relating to Propagation published in the Transactions on Vehicular Technology". If the article is to be kept, it can be included in the article, but I don't think it contributes much towards notability. It's not a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level" of the type described by WP:PROF#C2. Since the article about me was mentioned earlier: I have four best paper type awards. I list them in my cv, because one lists everything in the cv. The editors of the article here have not deemed them important enough to mention, and (although they don't need my approval for this editorial choice) this seems reasonable to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Augmented by 7 awarded patents, incorporation of Dr. Hassan's research into actual products with real life impact (Ambulances in San Francisco for example), as well as telecommunication standards work, all of these pieces come together to support Dr. El-Sallabi's notability case. Also, whoever adds 'conflict of interest' as a comment in the original article: Please stop that, I proved to you the award image is publicly available, I'm starting to think there is an unexplained bias here, and I genuinely starting there is another motive. There is simply no conflict of interest in utilizing a publicly available image. Period. Moreover, there are no puffery terms. If there are, identify them specifically please. General broad comments are not helpful without pinpointing the particular phrase that doesn't actually exist so far as my knowledge of the article exists. Thundervoul (talk)
Since you don't seem to understand what it means: "Conflict of interest" means that we think the person writing the article has a close connection to the subject of the article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, and that's not possible when the author of the article is trying to make the subject look good. Additionally, autobiographies are strictly forbidden. (So, in case it wasn't clear why your mentioning the article about me was so far off-target: other people edit that article. I don't and shouldn't, and its existence does not have very much to do with my opinions about notability of other academics.) As for puffery, it means writing glowingly about things like "7 awarded patents", "real life impact", "standards work" as if those are unusual features of this case rather than things many academics do all the time. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the meaning of conflict of interest, but it does not apply to me. I noticed that some contributors to this page claimed they were students of Dr. Hassan, but they are not the authors of the article; I am. I have written the article to be neutral to the best of my knowledge, and you are welcome to point out where in the article was neutrality violated. As for puffery, note that the examples you've given are not in the real article, they are only in this page, in which we are just discussing the article in a free-form discussion. Therefore the terms "standards work", "real life impact" are not in the article, so your argument there is invalid. The phrase "award patent" is not a puffery term, it just means the subject's patent was in fact accepted, not rejected, and not in pre-application phases. Please do exert an effort to distinguish between the actual article and the discussion here, and then kindly show me where in the article were puffery terms clearly used, and where exactly was neutrality allegedly violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundervoul (talk • contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is the problem mainly with the classification of the article itself being WP:PROF? If so, what other classification exists?
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 // 00:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm all for scientists having WP pages but the current article could only be let if it was completely rewritten as per above issues noted. A) COI is a major issue here and is clearly reflected in the article's style. B) Original research/use of primary sources is a major problem (cite review of patents not the patents themselves). C) Undue/excessive detail damages all efforts to consider the page noteworthy. Sorry Thundervoul, the article could be put in your user space as a draft for you to work on it until it's ready as an WP article. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely would like clarification about the points you raise. A) I understand that some commentators here pointed out their own relationship with the subject of the article, but I am not, and I still would like the commentators who raised the COI issue to point exactly or at examples of where this was manifested 'in the original article'. C) No problem, just give me an example or two of excessive details that are not valid for the article in question. I am waiting.
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.
More