Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maged N. Kamel Boulos (2nd 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maged N. Kamel Boulos

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

I closed the previous AfD as speedy delete due to copyright violation which has now been cleared up. However, it's not clear to me that this man is notable. A number of news articles have been cited, but they're all stories about other things which include a quote by Boulos on the subject. Most are just a line or two - the longest is a couple of paragraphs, but still not significant coverage of the man himself. A notability tag has been added and removed a couple of times, so instead of letting that continue I thought I'd bring it here to establish consensus one way or the other. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case the above was too hand-wavey to be clear: I am in favour of deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article claims that he's the ed-in-chief of a BMC journal (a major publisher of biomedical journals) and this page confirms. Satisfies WP:PROF #8 explicitly. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'll happily confess that I'm in no position to judge whether the journal's "major [and] well-established" but I'm willing to believe it is if you reckon so. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a keep to me, per Agricola44 and WP:GNG. Stifle (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With an h index of 12 from GS cites plus the editorship and media mentions. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2010 (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.