Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bassam Izzudin

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. Sandstein 18:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Izzudin[edit]

[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)

Does not meet WP:NBIO- lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, per NPROF C1. It seems maybe his name is misspelled here (should be Izzuddin). I looked at the collaborators on all 203 of his papers on Scopus, and compared to the 60 coauthors with more than 10 papers he's well above average in citation parameters. Total citations: average: 1257, median: 585, Izzuddin: 3426. Total papers: avg: 87, med: 52, I: 203. h-index: avg: 15, med: 12, I: 31. Highest citation: avg: 145, med: 90, I: 472. However, with only 60 unique coauthors and my arbitrary cutoff of 10 papers, I can't say this is representative of the field as a whole so would defer to experts on whether his citation record is actually impressive. JoelleJay (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree re the misspelling, but beyond his well-cited doctoral dissertation, the remaining citations were not high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. He is also a Fellow of the Institute of Structural Engeineers but I didn't see evidence that they are selective enough for #C3, and I didn't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein -- His most-cited work is actually a first-author from 2008 (472 citations on Scopus, 619 on GS), followed by one with 184 citations (268 on GS); his doctoral thesis is from 1990 and apparently isn't indexed by Scopus. Among him and the 60 coauthors, and not including his thesis, the average (and median) for 1st- through 5th-highest-cited papers is: 1st: 145 (90), Izzuddin: 472. 2nd: 88 (60), I: 184. 3rd: 69 (42), I: 105. 4th: 56 (36), I: 71. 5th: 48 (31), I: 71. So it does seem this is a low-cited field and he is well above the standards. JoelleJay (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seem pl ez ^{{{ping}} me} 11:58, 19 March 2021 (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.