Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dawit Mulugeta

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit Mulugeta[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ... discospinster _talk 03:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any coverage of him. FloridaArmy (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are multiple sources covering the influence of a Dawit Mulugeta in the context of the scientific field; and such relevant policy does not have to be considerably news worthy, arguably, and although there are no articles solely covering him, there is considerable independent research used by a variety of works that are notable. For example, the main article states that:

"Mulugeta's publications have been used in multiple Consensus Study Reports by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, such as The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States. Organizations, such as the Committee on the Impact of Biotechnology, Kenyan Agricultural Research Institute, the United States Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and the Division on Earth and Life Studies, have referenced his research to shape agricultural policy."

These pieces of works have been cited in over 100 research articles according to Googles scholar page; and there is considerable mention and proof of his work in the JSTOR database. These are secondary sources (the scholarly pages) that reflect on his work, and use it to advance agricultural policy based on non-theoretical, non-profit studies, used previously by African countries (specifically Ethiopia and Kenya) and more recently the United States. Considerable mention in the scientific journal Weed Science, for which he has published in and published by the WSSA, is rated in the top 20 for research in agronomy according to Cambridge University. An example of one such paper written by Mr. Mulugeta has been cited by a policy source from the National Academy of Sciences, according to Altmetric. From this, I would say this work is "worthy of note", having had a considerable influence (you will find all of what I have stated can be found in the basis of the main articles references). There are many articles of people in Wikipedia whose biographies are not news worthy or have received major coverage, but are labeled as 'notable academics'. According to WP:ACADEMIC, there are multiple reasons for why he is notable:

Mr Mulugeta has been a research scientist and associate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."
"4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

And as stated by that same article:

"Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable."

I should also mention that his work in the SAS programming language has also been used in other publications and books, for which I am currently researching to improve the quality of the article; as well as improving the language of the article in general. I will be happy to have further discussion. Thomasdw22 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person is a significant contributor in both agricultureand marketing. The fact that he has not had a specific biography article does not mean that he is in any way not adequately significant. Pete unseth (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. , checking in Google Scholar, his most cited articles have 117, 97, 72 citations. Scientific influence is measured by citations, so this is sufficient to show notability under WP:PROF in any field. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 29 March 2018 (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.