Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamel Rekab

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. The "keep" !votes fail to convince that the subject passes PROF or GNG. Randykitty (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kamel Rekab[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)

Appears to fail WP:NACADEMIC. The citation counts are insufficient to show significant scholarly impact, he doesn't hold a named chair and I don't see anything else that would make him meet any other criteria. WP:BASIC is also not met – the article doesn't demonstrate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and I couldn't find any better ones during a BEFORE search. For what it's worth, there's a pretty strong smell of UPE in the air here; the creator gamed AC, created an essentially complete mainspace article in a single edit and then disappeared. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Blablubbs|talk 11:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment. While I'd normally take active part in AfDs on academics in math-adjacent fields, I think I probably have a COI with the subject here. I did take the liberty of adding his book (with two reviews) to the article; that shouldn't be interpreted as any kind of !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to further disclose that the subject contacted me. I made some general comments about how the AfD process works. I did mention the Amstat Fellow as a pass of WP:NPROF C3, for reasons. I don't believe that the citations that are in the article at the moment (added after my email) support that he is currently a fellow of the american statistical association. Pinging Kj cheetham. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see a source which confirms it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete. While this is a stats professor, he has done applied work in biomedical fields and computer science, which are high citation fields. It seems however the work did not have a large impact there. While his citations would be decent for a pure stats/pure maths professor, this is very low for a biostats person. While he has published over 100 articles, it seems only 20 ever got more than ten citations (according to GS) so this rather highlights lack of notability than boosts his impact (basically means 80 publications with almost no citations at all). --hroest 14:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He barely passes WP:PROF criteria as most of the research work is done in computer science and biomedical fields which is a high citation field in academics. Pilean (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pilean: Wouldn't having relatively few citations in a high citation field be an indicator against notability, rather than for it? If he worked in an even higher citation field with the same citation figures then his citations would be even less likely to indicate notability. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the citation counts and reviews of one book are respectable, they are not high enough (in high citation fields) to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1 or WP:AUTHOR, and his leadership of a local statistical association is not enough for WP:PROF#C6. No other claims to notability are evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @David_Eppstein What do you consider high enough? is this your opinion or is there any wiki guideline about this? 660+ citations is plenty in my opinion. Plus he has written a book and comes up dozens of times in other books if you do a Google books search. Peter303x (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - For computer science at least I'd have been expecting a good few 1000 citations, less so for pure maths, as hroest said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, But I guess he is close enough to achieve that too. Condoz (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF, but if someone finds something more than I could I could be convinced to change my !vote. Would probably need a 2nd book or more reviews of the first to meet WP:NAUTHOR. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a Google Books search and his name comes up in dozens of books related to mathematics and statistics. In addition, Google scholar shows over 660 citations to his published works. To me this it seems good enough to meet WP:NPROF. Peter303x (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the citation count is not much impressive but it's good enough to make him a pass for NPROF. He also served as the department Chair from 2005 to 2007. In 2006-2007, he served as the President of the American Statistical Association which gives him additional recognition to qualify for GNG. Setreis (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Setreis, to meet GNG, there needs to be coverage, and none has been presented so far. Blablubbs|talk 22:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is false that he was president of the American Statistical Association. Our article only claims that he headed one of the local branches of the association, not enough for automatic notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Rekab was only the President of the Kansas–Western Missouri Chapter of the ASA. The ASA presidents in 2006 and 2007 were Sallie Ann Keller and Mary Ellen Bock respectively. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For all who wondering, he served as the President and as the Department Chair from in Department of Mathematics and Statistics which can be easily seen from these sources. [1], [2] and [3]. Condoz (talk) 08:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep appears to barely pass NPROF Noah ^💬 21:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject falls short of WP:NACADEMIC. Regarding C1:
- The subject works in a high-citation field but only has 10 publications with more than 20 citations on Google Scholar, with the most-cited paper having 76 citations. On Scopus and Web of Science (the preferred citation metrics), it is even fewer, showing only 3 and 2 publications with more than 20 citations respectively.
- For comparison, Mary Ellen Bock (the actual ASA President in 2007) has publications with 894, 228, 121, and 112 citations on Google Scholar, and 7 and 4 publications with more than 20 citations on Scopus and Web of Science, respectively.
There isn't evidence of satisfying the other NACADEMIC criteria (e.g. the department chair was not named and does not satisfy C5) or GNG. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rekab is well known in sequential designs as was honored by three very well know statisticians including Robert W. Keener and Malay Ghosh. Dr. Rekab finished his dissertation under the supervision of Dr. Michael Woodroofe. He should not be evaluated on the basis of biostatisticians nor computer scientists because he is a THEORETICAL (PURE) STATISTICIAN and is noted for work in sequential designs. As he served as the department Chair from in Department of Mathematics and Statistics and also served as the President of the American Statistical Association in 2006-2007, he surely meets WP:NPROF. Condoz (talk) 08:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above, the claim that he was president of ASA appears to be false. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter who his advisor, as far as notability is concerned. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any criterion of NPROF or GNG. Being president of a regional branch of a professional organization is hardly the same as leading the organization proper. Some of the keep arguments are nonsensical: working in a high-citation field means that the bar for C1 should be higher, not lower. Spicy (talk) 10:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is 'Fellow of the American Statistical Association' grounds for notability under WP:NPROF #3? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, but why do you think he is a Fellow? He isn't listed at https://www.amstat.org/ASA/Your-Career/Awards/ASA-Fellows-list.aspx . —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Initially assuming goodfaith based on the article, but I can find nothing to back it up, so I've duly removed it. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPROF - published over 100 research articles, and was a major Ph.D. advisor to 22 Ph.D. students, supervised by Michael Woodroofe, works at major American university. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those seems to be reasons to meet one of the WP:NPROF clauses though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publishing over 100 research articles and being mentioned on many books is something to consider for sure. Condoz (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The volume of publication is not a measure of notability on WP. If the volume is sufficiently high to be generate GNG coverage, that would be a different story but that is not the case here. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While examining deeply, I guess he meets WP:NPROF Criteria #1 for sequential designs, Criteria #2 for receiving Team award Sematech Center of Excellence for creating a well-known software package called STADIUM (Statistical TCAD Analysis for Design in Manufacturing). The software has been delivered to Sematech Center of Excellence, Advanced Micro Devices, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, the United States Department of Defense, DARPA, and the United States Army 1 and also Criteria #7 for consulting services with defense forces2. And also being a Fellow of the American Statistical Association' grounds for notability under WP:NPROF #3 too. Grailcombs (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the software package is well-known (which would have to be demonstrated in reliable sources), then maybe that should have an article, but notability is not inherited. The substantial impact would have to be demonstrated in independent reliable sources, not to his own geocities(!) website – whether being a fellow of the ASA qualifies for NPROF#3, I do not know though, but it doesn't really matter because he doesn't actually seem to be one. Blablubbs|talk 23:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess you are right but he got a notable award for that which is something to consider here. Condoz (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The third major team accomplishment from Sematech Center of Excellence is not exactly a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. There is basically no coverage about this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have to agree with the nominator that there is a smell of UPE here. The two major contributors to this article, Condoz (talk · contribs) and Grailcombs (talk · contribs), made major contributions to this as the fourth and third articles they touched, respectively, after two articles on Indian media, one on eastern European politics, and a biography of a dubiously-notable evangelist Morris George Cornell Vaagenes and a probably-notable dentist John S. Greenspan. Those editing patterns don't make sense to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rule that an editor should stick to one area of editing. Editors are free to improve any page they want, which interests them or they like to edit in that particular area. Condoz (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All true but an irrelevant distraction from my point. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure I truly respect your points. I also saw that you are a highly recognizable professor too. That's impressive and something great to see :) Condoz (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect to many editors' thoughts I am sure he somehow meets WP:NPROF as for his work in sequential designs, for being the Department Chair from in Department of Mathematics and Statistics, for writing dozens of books (the citation counts and reviews of one book are quite impressive) and for his work with defence authorities1. ALso, I guess he has boarderline achievements to meets #6 in NPROF for major academic institution. Atlast, I think getting on Medi1 is not easy especially for being an academic guy. This is for sure also gives him a plus point of notability. Condoz (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found a single publication from Kamel with more than a few dozen citations. Which book is that? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume this refers to Statistical design of experiments with engineering applications, which has 76 cites in Google Scholar (not enough to convince me of WP:PROF#C1, even if we had more publications at that level, but respectable). It also has multiple published reviews [4] [5] [6] but again (because it's only one book) not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the analyses by David Eppstein and MarkH21. Merely having published is not grounds for notability, however numerous the publications; we need evidence that those publications have been influential. (Also, "department chair" is an administrative position, not the kind of recognition for achievement that a named chair is. WP:PROF doesn't consider department chair as an indication of notability, for good reason.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not seeing particularly outstanding citations in comparison to this niche field (and especially not the broader biostats field). I looked at 115 of his coauthors, coauthors-of-coauthors, and authors of failure prediction and software reliability articles citing his work (who have ≥15 papers, and excluding those who publish strictly biomedical papers -- e.g. the MANY articles on sleep apnea and forensic analysis of menstrual blood), and he's pretty much below the median across all citation metrics. Total citations: average: 1181, median: 567, Rekab: 254. Total papers: avg: 66, med: 47, R: 43. h-index: avg: 15, med: 12, R: 10. Highest citations - 1st: avg: 148, med: 78, R: 42. 2nd: avg: 91, med: 56, R: 24. 3rd: avg: 71, med: 46, R: 21. 4th: avg: 60, med: 43, R: 19. 5th: avg: 48, med: 26, R: 17. JoelleJay (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. I also agree David Eppstein and MarkH21.4meter4 (talk) 01:32, 24 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.