Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Malkawi

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Malkawi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per WP:PROF, no Notability nor (awards, achievements, etc), the article is too inflated article and filled with a lot of useless personal information and filled with a lot of references (don't talking about him) to make the article look like a high notability person (WP:MASK), we delete this article in Arabic Wikipedia (Per A7). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be important to note that this article was written in large part by one person with an ostensible conflict of interest. Concern has also been voiced about two other related articles: T.C. Chan Center for Building Simulation and Energy Studies and QSAS (see: this talk page), both of which, intentionally or not, ostensibly suffer from WP:MASK and may need to be looked into for nomination here. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Okay, this one may seem contentious, so let's start with something basic: whether intentional or not, I agree with nominator's assertion of WP:MASK; the article is bloated to an unreasonable degree, and statements will frequently have several (in this case, up to seven) citations apiece. In terms of notability, the subject fails to satisfy any of the 9 criteria for WP:NACADEMIC, although that's not necessarily the end of the discussion. WP:NACADEMIC defers to WP:BIO if its criteria aren't met, though I couldn't find anything in or outside of those 91 citations (complete overkill) that satisfies this; the ones I looked at – many from this article and a few not – either include Malkawi tengentially, don't even mention Malkawi, are press releases, are from non-notable sources, are self-authored, etc., none of which advance notability. Sifting through citations like this feels like Gish gallop, insofar as there are so many references that fail to establish notability that there's no way I could reasonably read through and address all of them. Comment: If kept, this article is in serious need of pruning, both for its prose and its citations. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:47, 6 June 2019 (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.