Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rabia Salihu Sa'id

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While the arguments raised for failing notability of academics (WP:PROF) are strong, many arguments were raised in favor of the subject meeting the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) due to coverage in several media outlets. PROF is explicit in that it's independent of other notability guidelines (and therefore doesn't supersede them). That said, several arguments rest heavily on a single source (the BBC), which is an outright incorrect reflection of our notability guidelines. Coverage by the BBC alone (or any single other major news outlet alone) doesn't confer instant notability. However, several also argued that coverage in other publications (e.g., due to community outreach efforts) as well as awards/honors won may meet the requirements on the amount and depth of coverage for sufficiently meeting one or several non-PROF notability guidelines. slakr\ talk / 04:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia Salihu Sa'id[edit]

Rabia Salihu Sa'id (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:PROF. Her only paper in Google Scholar has never been cited. Her notability is due to the BBC's publicity effort, and only that--there are no notable accomplishments at all. The only reason for including this article, is to promote our own publicity effort. But we don't advertise here, even for an unquestionably worthy cause like Women in Red. The pace to advertise our projects is not as articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I appreciate the instinct to make sure we don't end up with navel-gazery in the aftermath of high-profile projects, but I disagree with the rationale. (FWIW, I saw this AfD after DGG mentioned it on his talk page.) It doesn't seem to be the case that coverage of Sa'id is exclusively due to BBC publicity; she had previously received the Elsevier award for women scientists in developing countries, and was covered fairly extensively as a result of that, which preceded the 2015 BBC list. She's been profiled in mainstream news sources about science, like this Nature News piece, and also in Nigerian sources, like this one. She's also a fellow of the African Scientific Institute, although I'm uncertain of their selectivity. And while none of these are substantive coverage alone, they're evidence she's obviously active in advocacy and public outreach [1], [2], [3], [4]. She's published more than a single paper, though mostly in Nigerian journals (her CV is here). She also seems to be putting some of her professional effort into her outreach work, e.g. [5], [6]. I think it's a mistake to judge Sa'id by WP:PROF - which of course defines criteria mostly based on the typical activities of Western academics - when her notability rests so strongly on the specific cultural context of her achievements. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but despite all the hype, her work has attracted essentially zero attention from the scientific community. The rest seems to be WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and per Xxanthippe above. Nothing even remotely approaching passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. No other valid basis for keeping the article. Nsk92 (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if her scientific impact might not meet the criteria of WP:PROF, there seems to me to be ample coverage of Sa'id herself to meet the GNG. Significant coverage by the BBC (which whatever its involvement with this article is still a very reliable source) [7][8], NPR [9], Nature [10], Elsevier [11] and Yahoo News [12] stand out in particular. Remember we're here to judge notability, not scientific achievement. One doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with the other, even for academics. I think we should also be careful about relying to heavily on Google Scholar to judge impact in cases like this. It's not very good at picking up journals that aren't in English and/or aren't online and included in standard indexes, which probably gives it a significant systematic bias against scholars in developing countries. Joe Roe (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's quite notable and popular as presented on the BBC page. I think this page just need additional references and more structuring.Mahveotm (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine interviews are part of the intellectual/academic scene and, if this is the standard, much of the academic world will be notable for WP purposes. But it's not. That's precisely why we have WP:PROF. Her work has not been "noted" (I cannot really even see any publications in GS). Parenthetically, I'll again point out the fallacy of the "bias" argument against GS/WoS/WorldCat et al. Anyone can submit work anywhere and the system (writ large) is remarkably good at matching the impact of scientific work and publications. Agricola44 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    Are they? I don't know anyone who's been interviewed or profiled like that. At best, a journalist will call you up for a line or two for an article on a new finding, and even then it's usually only relatively big names who are asked. I was under the impression that we had WP:PROF to widen our biographical coverage of academics, not exclude otherwise notable academics who don't meet it. In any case, it makes it quite clear that it is independent of the GNG and "it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way".
    Regarding Google Scholar, I'm not sure how you can maintain that it's not subject to some systematic bias given the facts in front of you. How else do you explain that Sa'id's CV lists 20 peer reviewed publications and you can't find any of them with GS? While yes in theory anyone can publish anywhere, in practice the journals you choose to submit to is heavily affected by what journals you and your immediate academic peers subscribe to, publish in and edit. There are also significant and extensively documented financial barriers to scholars in developing countries accessing and publishing in high profile western journals. Joe Roe (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but wrong on almost all counts.
  • PROF. Academics are, by nature, experts in in narrow fields of knowledge and it is not unusual for them to be one-off interviewed (popular media, as expert, etc) for a particular topic, to have their work/book reviewed, to have their opinion cited ("according to Dr X, an expert on Y,..."), and so on and so forth. Many folks here do not seem to be aware of this fact. By their very nature, academics tend to have much more coverage than the average person in society. PROF functions to keep WP representation somewhat proportional, i.e. to prevent a bias of what would be perhaps e-6 (like one in a million) for non-academics vs maybe 30-50% of academics who would have WP articles. PROF is definitely exclusionary.
  • GS bias. We should understand that "journal" is an extremely loose term. I see some on her list like Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences. These are obscure publications likely having little to no barrier to acceptance and whose papers are rarely, if ever cited. There are plenty of such "junk journals" (pardon the pejorative) the world over, including especially in the US and Europe and their existence is basically supported by the phenomenon of CV-fluffing. For outsiders, her CV looks great, but those in-the-know will consider it to be heavily padded.
  • Choice of submission. This is certainly not governed by which journals your immediate peers subscribe to. Keep in mind that the journal impact "pecking order" is well-known to all academics in all academic sub-fields. The rule-of-thumb that almost all academics follow (driven by the desire for career advancement and visibility) is that your work is submitted to the highest journal at which you feel your paper has a reasonable chance of review/acceptance.
  • Financial barriers. The situation is precisely the opposite of what you claim. A large fraction of mainstream journals have enormous incentives for authors from developing countries. These consist minimally of fee waivers, for example with the enormous family of BMC Journals, as well as other advantages. The general philosophy for some time now has been that there should be no barriers to publishing based on who is submitting.

This person is very obviously an average academic. Agricola44 (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is enough coverage to pass GNG. The argument about it being "routine" is specious: people aren't the subject of a large amount of news coverage for being a physician unless they are noteworthy in some way. We don't need to hold the article to the standard of PROF, either. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Requiring her to meet PROF is a somewhat one-dimensional approach. It is like saying that Dr. Phil or Ben Carson should only have articles if they meet academic requirements. As has been pointed out numerous times, the standard is not selective criteria based on a sole aspect of someone's life, but their notability over time in reliable sources for the totality of their accomplishments. Thanks @Opabinia regalis and Joe Roe: for digging out sufficient sources to confirm she clearly meets GNG. SusunW (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If Dr Phil's notability were based on his academic role, then he would not have articles, but his notability is in a different field. As for Ben Carson's notability , it would be sufficient just based on WP:PROF, with a citation record of papers with 368, 342, 227 172 etc citations, almost all in the most important journals. But Sa'id's notability is stated as being a physicist, even in the BBC award, and has to be judged on the basis of WP:PROF. What else has she done which is supposed to be notable? Giving awards to people to demonstrate cultural diversity has a social purpose--it's not irresponsible for BBC to do that. It is irresponsible for us to do it for the purposes of an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really need to have this discussion again. She doesn't have to have done anything. Porn stars are notable for WP purposes, as are people like the Khardashians and Paris Hilton, for having done nothing at all. All that is required is that any subject have RS not affiliated with the subject, which have noted them over time. She has been noted for her activism in encouraging others to pursue education and mentoring in every article. That is more than sufficient for GNG. SusunW (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have to have done anything. That approach may be adequate for celebrity magazines, but it it not sufficient for Wikipedia notability. Wikipedia requires solid and noted career achievement. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Actually WP requires no such thing. RS over time in sources unrelated to the subject, no field nor achievement is required at all to meet WP criteria for GNG. No academic or alternatives are required, at all. It is remarkable that she returned to school and got an education in a developing country in a field where women are typically excluded. It is even more remarkable that the press has noted her accomplishment and held her up as a role model for others. That she has been recognized by both the Elsevier Foundation and BBC is much more than many in her position would ever have achieved. Thus, she is notable. SusunW (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Sorry, but GNG provides just that: if someone is a celebrity or well known for any reason, they are notable. We might not like it, but that's not a valid AfD reason as you well know. Both of you are trying to hold this woman to a higher standard than GNG. Why? This is a case of special pleading. DGG even said if her career was like DR Phil, then he'd evaluate differently? Why? We only need to pass a standard of notability, which she does. We don't need to pass her on multiple levels unless there is a new set of policies out there I'm unaware of. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You and SusunW are trying to hold her to a lesser standard than we uniformly hold academics to. Why? Agricola44 (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
No, Agricola, you and DGG are making a special pleading to hold her to some alternative standard. Per PROF "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline." All articles must adhere to GNG. Why do you insist that she meets something else? SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the relationship between WP:PROF and other notability guidelines in this discussion. We uniformly hold academics to the standard of WP:PROF and WP:GNG (and WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR, etc. – whatever applies). They are not mutually exclusive. As it happens most academics do not meet the GNG so it rarely comes up, but in this case the opposite is true. It's not a double standard or special pleading, it's the same standard as always: do we have enough reliable sources to create a reasonable article about this person? Joe Roe (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the nature of what is encyclopedic. Please see my expanded comments below. Agricola44 (talk) 14:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Yep, unlike those celebrity rags like Nature and NPR, we here at Wikipedia only cover Serious Business ;)
Simply repeating that Sa'id doesn't meet WP:PROF is not engaging with the argument being made, and is a bad case of the tail wagging the dog. We define "notability" in order to provide guidance on which subjects have enough source material published about them to write a reasonable article. Sa'id has had a large number of profiles written about her and her work. Fortunately, that's enough; we don't have to second-guess why the source material was written or make judgments based on what we personally think the sources should be writing about. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is important because the first line of the BLP states that the subject is known for her research tackling climate change issues in Nigeria. This appears to be unsupported because there is not a single citation to her research in either of the citation databases Google scholar or Web of science. The impact of her research on the community of mainstream science appears to be zero.
I note that there has recently been a debate on whether notability standards should be lower for minorities subject to systemic bias in Wikipedia than for others (noting that although women do not form a minority in terms of population, they are underrepresented in Wikipedia. The consensus of the debate was that standards should not be lower.[13]
That statement is directly supported by an inline citation to a source that states, "[Sa'id was honoured for] her research that seeks to solve Nigerian environmental challenges" [14]. The discussion you're pointing to seems like a strawman to me, since nobody in this AfD is suggesting that the notability standard should be lowered in this case. Joe Roe (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as we shouldn't overwork ourselves or start politics over something quite simple; I concur that there's still nothing here for WP:PROF and nothing else genuinely convincing, and the BBC link itself is not sufficient for an article here alone. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I'd agree there's no evidence she meets WP:PROF, she has gained substantial press coverage, some of which is reasonably detailed eg this article in Nature. All the sources that people are turning up need adding to the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it needs clean up but it is notable. Jooojay (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who cares whether she meets Prof she doesn't qualify as a footballer either. The point here is notability and Prof is just a sub-category. Did Rosa Parkes DO anything? She just refused to move seats on a bus and a group of activists created a publicity campaign for her. I've been telling newbies this week that "in a nutshell" if you find someone identified as a subject in Nature, the BBC and say the Elsevier Foundation then tick.... write an article. If the BBC decide to make a celebrity profile then that usually works. She may not be the leading academic in Nigeria but she has been chosen for coverage by important reliable sources. Victuallers (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The BBC is an independent and reliable source. Their attention alone is sufficient for WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC. For some perspective on the general question of notability, please see Chitty. Andrew D. (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ExpressoAddict and Victuallers..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer - There's a surprising amount of "Who cares if she satisfies notability", "WP:PROF is nit mattering" (even though it's the field to judge her, in this case). Also, we cannot simply say "It needs work, improve it" if there's in fact nothing to improve. Simply because the Keep are stacked largely in number is not meaning they carry weight. Importantly, we cannot compare her to Rosa Parks as the latter was a historical figure, whereas this is not. WP:BASIC and WP:GNG mean nothing when WP:NOT in fact will, because if she's not satisfying PROF, she's not notable, and the nomination has also shown she's not satisfying AUTHOR either. As it is, we have considered PROD as a notability-based policy so calling otherwise is not what we've established, take "she may not be a leading prof in Nigeria, but this is enough" for example. Also, simply because a BBC profile exists is still not founded notability established policy, so we shouldn't mistake ourselves. SwisterTwister talk 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rosa Parks became a historical figure though because of media coverage. Without that she wasn't notable, same with this I think. DGG certainly has a point on her merit as a scholar, obviously there's thousands of more notable scholars missing with dozens of papers, but somehow this woman got on the BBC 100 list and is getting coverage. I think being included on a BBC 100 Women list is a major thing, there's millions of women in the world. As an encyclopedia I think we just need to look at whether there is coverage in reliable sources or not, not just make judgements on the validity of the coverage, though I understand that argument. In this case it's not just the BBC, the Elsevier Foundation Awards recognized her too. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anybody in this discussion is saying "who cares if she's notable". A major point of contention does seem to surround WP:PROF specifically. Those of us in favour of keeping the article are arguing that not satisfying WP:PROF is irrelevant if the subject satisfies the GNG. Others have argued that all academics must meet PROF if they are to be included. I find the latter interpretation hard to reconcile with the guideline itself taking pains to emphasise that it is fully independent of the GNG or other SNGs. Joe Roe (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, we take the next logical step and check the basis on which these sources make their claims. Here we find a problem in that there is no basis. GS, which slurps in just about everything, doesn't list anything. Even direct Google searching on the titles of her papers (from her CV, linked above) mostly doesn't return anything. So, what about checking the journals? These are publications like the Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences. Nobody has ever heard of them because they're un-indexed vanity venues whose works are never read or cited by any mainstream scientists: no impact, no citations, etc. Our WP article now seems to be outright lying about her notability. We claim notable accomplishments in atmospheric science, but there actually are none. It will be immediately obvious to any atmospheric scientist and obvious to anyone else who bothers to do any minimal checking. This compromises WP's reputation. What gives?
In my view, what gives is the following. Forget, for a moment, the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS crusades that perfuse WP. The problem with the "there are sources" argument is the modern commodification of sources has devalued them, often down to nothing. A century ago, when communication was expensive, a source only existed to confirm/report some aspect of already-existing genuine notability. Now, content is often generated only to fill our modern infinite channels of zero-cost communication. Here, we have not much more than another case of a person being famous for being famous. WP is full of this stuff, a recent archetypical case being Jacob Barnett – we finally settled on a warts-and-all factual article. For the record, I'm all for keeping this article, if it is written factually, by which it could not say that she's a notable researcher.
I'm disappointed that so many editors have this anti-intellectual, knee-jerk "there are sources" philosophy. If that is all there is to expanding WP, then smart people could just write a big script to crawl the world's knowledge banks. My view is that the only real value that we editors add to WP is through discriminating discernment and judgement of what is, in fact, encyclopedic. Here endeth the soliloquy. Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a classic argument to avoid – see WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Sources are objective; while personal opinion isn't. See also WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid all your soliloquy is saying to me is that you haven't understood even the basics of WP:V or WP:N. Assessing the body of sources available is exactly what we're supposed to be doing here. It's not up to us to fact check the BBC, Nature, etc. You are of course perfectly entitled to disagree with Wikipedia's "we go off the sources" philosophy, but given that it's a core policy, this AfD isn't the place to seek to change it. Joe Roe (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it sounds like the two of you are OK with having an article that makes false statements. Please have a look at the Jacob Barnett article where barrels of ink were spilled on this type of issue. It is, in fact, up to us to "fact check" because secondary sources are sometimes wrong, especially in the sense of promotional articles, which are what surround this person. If you're not doing this, then why are you an "editor"? Here, the most we could say is that there are sources that have called her a notable climate scientist. We cannot say she is a notable climate scientist because that would have to be supported by published work that is highly-cited by her peers in mainstream scientific journals. Such does not exist. I think that this issue is basically what prompted DGG's nom. Agricola44 (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - there is a fair amount of extra material out there about the Elsevier awards. Their full title is the 'Elsevier Foundation Awards for Women in Science in the Developing World' though sometimes they are called the 'Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early Career Women Scientists in the Developing World'. Anyway, I added more to the article, including the actual award citation, and finding the research mentioned on carpenters' briquettes. As an award sponsored by Elsevier, presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and partnered by the Organization for Women in Science for the Developing World (OWSD) and The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS), I think this is a more notable achievement than being on the the BBC 100 Women list. Certainly there is enough out there about these awards to warrant details in a list article. See here for more about the awards. @Agricola44: why did you pick the Nigerian journals above? She was not given the award for her work in climate change science. You need to go to the actual award citation and go from there.. It took seconds for me to find the paper published here in International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering - website is here. Would you or others be able to evaluate that? Even if that isn't a step up, it is still good to be able to directly cite the paper she co-authored and see what the work is that she received her award for. I don't know which sources were used to put "climate change researcher" in the Wikipedia article, but I agree with you that someone seems to have over-reached there. I'll remove that now. Carcharoth (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carcharoth: Let me answer your question in the context of my not knowing how much the various panelists here know about the scientific research process (though I know DGG knows it extremely well). Her CV is packed with red flags. I mentioned Journal of the Nigerian Association of Mathematical Physics and Bayero Journal of Physics and Mathematical Sciences because their names give them away. You mentioned International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering, which sounds mainstream, but isn't. For example, it's on Beall's List of predatory journals. For that matter, so are most of the other "journals" she has published in, including Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics, published by SCIRP, and Advances in Applied Science Research, published by Pelagia Research Library, International Journal of Physical Sciences, published by Academic Journals, all of which are listed on Beall's List. Indeed, it seems the entirety of her work appears in junk journals, which explains why even Google doesn't show any of her "research". You linked to the paper for which she received this Elsevier award. Have you read it? I have, and it is consistent roughly with a high-school-level science project. I will ping several others who I know have scientific backgrounds to have a look, in case I'm missing something. (Will list here, once pinged).
Started with pings to RockMagnetist, David Eppstein, Xxanthippe, and Nsk92. Agricola44 (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was taken to task above for "fact checking", but I'm afraid these individuals still don't understand that even usually-reputable publications make mistakes, or least over-sell matters, because of promotion or lack of training or skepticism, etc. of their staff writers. I maintain that WP is full of these sorts of "notable scientists", who really demand much closer scrutiny. Agricola44 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Agricola44: you are making the mistake of thinking she is notable for her scientific research. She is not. I have a scientific background and I agree with your assessment there (though not the tone you adopt). No-one should be claiming that her science is groundbreaking or notable (certainly not without sources stating that). What she is notable for is receiving an award from Elsevier that is specifically aimed at women in science in the developing world. The coverage from that and subsequent similar coverage, is what just about makes her notable under the GNG. You may also want to take a closer look at the Elsevier award. The description (which I linked above) is:

[the awards] recognize the achievements of researchers who have made significant contributions to the advancement of scientific knowledge. [...] Succeeding in the competitive world of science is challenging under the best of circumstances. But women scientists in countries with scarce resources and competing cultural expectations face significant additional obstacles as they strive to excel at careers in science. This awards program takes those factors into account by recognizing the research excellence of early-career women scientists from 81 developing countries. [...] Each year a total of five winners are selected, one from each of the following regions: Latin America and the Caribbean; East and South-East Asia and the Pacific; Arab region; Central and South Asia; Sub-Saharan Africa.

In the area of women in science in the developing world, her achievements have been recognised. You are judging her by the wrong standards. Carcharoth (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People in the developing world need to be judged by different standards. It is our duty to create Wikipedia "profiles" for them
In the area of women in science in the developing world, her achievements have been recognised. You are judging her by the wrong standards.
I don't get this. So women in science in the developing world need to be judged by separate standards (and the way I get it, lower standards than Western academics)? This is not only condescending but also offensive to many of us. I see this as the continuation of what they call the The White Man's Burden in a post-colonial world - a moral duty to "Save" people in the developing world. The notion of judging a certain group of people by lower standards contributes to reinforcing the existing class structure and is also disrespectful on a personal level. This is precisely the kind of rhetoric which drives away contributors from certain areas of the world. If the ultimate aim is to address systemic bias and encourage a diversity if editors, a better environment has to be created - an environment which emphasises equality and doesn't apply separate standards for articles about people from a different race/class/region. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemongirl942: you are talking to the wrong person. I couldn't agree more. I came to this article from working to produce the list here. Around 200 articles in varying states produced on one day in an editathon with people from all over the world, many not that familiar with our notability criteria, with some people working very hard to try and work out what should be kept. Quite why some articles are getting this level of attention and others are not, I am not sure. I didn't create any of them, but have worked on Carole Souter which was relatively easy. Quite why I started work on this article, I'm no longer sure. But the YouTube video (which I added) was nice to watch. Watch it yourself and see if you think the people in it would agree with you. Thank you for prompting me to find a non-primary source on this article. That is six citations I added to the article. I hope those who commented earlier might be able to return and see if their opinions have changed. The changes since the article was nominated for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. I'm pretty sure she does not pass WP:PROF (the Elsevier thing is an early-career award, not enough for that criterion of WP:PROF). But getting both the Elsevier award and the BBC 100 listing gives enough in-depth and reliable coverage of her for WP:GNG. As for the publications in bad journals: this seems to be pretty common for third-world academics, and if the case were based on WP:PROF it would be a major problem, but I think the GNG case is independent of that. That said, any parts of the article based on material in bad journals (in particular the sentence cited to her own paper in IJETAE, for which see this post) should be trimmed from our article. It's not a reliable source both because of the journal quality issue and because it's by the subject rather than about her. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, David, for that. I've said more on your talk page, but I think you have erred in removing that citation. It was only being used to cite the fact that she had published that specific paper in that journal. That is part of the public record, and shouldn't be censored. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here we have the problem: an award based on high-school-level publications in junk journals. Will the article say that? Agricola44 (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • You do have some very valid points. But would it not be better for you (and maybe David) to write to Elsevier, the AAAS, the OWSD and TWAS with your concerns, rather than making comments on Wikipedia of this nature about a living person? Imagine how the subject of this article would feel if she read some of the comments you have made denigrating her work? Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely the enormous downside of even creating articles like this. Please have an honest look at Jacob Barnett, especially the AfDs and recent talk. This exact topic was discussed to death. The article is factual, but very unflattering. What we should recognize is that anyone can easily do the minimal level of checking I did and find out the puffed-up basis of this article. If it follows the odyssey articles like the one on Barnett, it will be nominated for deletion from time-to-time, each occasion of which these same criticisms will come out. I don't think we can let what people think trump true and honest debate on an article. Agricola44 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Puffed-up basis of this article? Have you even read the latest version? What is puffed up about it? Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, but here is the problem. The text "received an award...for her work on atmospheric physics and environmental challenges" is, at best, very misleading. Most readers will take this to mean that she has done important work in these areas and this is false. Even many of our commentators here were fooled and they were supposed to have done the vetting. Knowing what we all now know, I would presume that none of us would be comfortable with a whitewash, even a well intentioned one. So, let me say that I have the same philosophy on this article as I have on others like it (most recently Jacob Barnett): I'm fine with keeping it, as long the text is honest, complete, and not misleading (as it now still is) Agricola44 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
We don't know anything, Agricola44. We have the BBC, NPR, Nature, Elsevier et al. asserting she has done important work on the one hand and you asserting she hasn't on the other. I hope you won't be offended to hear that I personally would put more weight on the former. Your point about (some of) the journals she's published in being dubious is well made and is further confirmation she probably wouldn't meet WP:PROF, but Mr. Beall calls them predatory for a reason. They dupe well meaning academics who maybe don't have the highest-profile research or the best English skills into shelling out to publish in them. Publishing in them is embarrassing but it doesn't necessarily say anything about the ethics of the authors or the quality of their work. Joe Roe (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very difficult to offend me, you're not even close ;-) So, it sounds to me like, as long as someone has said she's done important work in the atmospheric sciences, that's good enough for you and that that is what our article should say...all this in the face of the fact that all her work is published in, let us say, vanity journals and that none of it has ever been meaningfully cited, much less probably read, by mainstream atmospheric scientists. Are you not worried that this sort of thing contributes to perceptions of WP not being authoritative? Anyhow, I don't think I can say much more. This article is sure to be kept, based on sources. I can only hope that wiser heads prevail such that the content is ultimately not false or misleading. Agricola44 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that all the subject's research papers are published in junk journals is, perhaps, not of major importance. After all, publishing stuff adds (or subtracts) not one jot to Wikipedia notability. What is important is that the work be noticed by others, and in this case, there appears to be not a single citation to the work in any of the citation databases: these are the gold standards for research impact. Therefore, the award by the AAAS for her research may be misleading to many, as it implies that the research has made impact on others, as awards for research are usually taken to do. The matter will need to be mentioned in the BLP, but I am glad to see that some of the ill-advised and misplaced peacockery in the BLP has been removed by editors. It is clear that this award is not given for excellence in research, judged by international standards, but for the no less worthy but less notable perseverance in difficult circumstances. AAAS and Elsevir are at fault for not making this matter clear. It has misled several contributors to this AfD debate. Early career awards are generally not notable and do not qualify for WP:Prof#C2. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment (warning, humor alert!), another candidate for List of really, really, really, really long AFDs, at over 6k words and about 12x the size of the article being discussed., actually this has been a very interesting afd to read and i will be adding a link of it to my userpage, thanks to all the participants. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh. Sometimes you get a perfect storm with just the right conditions for a long discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: a couple of points, looking back at the original nomination statement. It should be clear by now that there are a number of inaccurate statements in the original nomination. DGG, you said "Her only paper in Google Scholar has never been cited." This is incorrect. She does have papers in Google Scholar that have been cited (but this is a red herring, her notability does not, and never has, derived from her scholarship [as that is normally judged]). DGG said "Her notability is due to the BBC's publicity effort, and only that". This is also incorrect. The Elsevier publicity (January 2015) and the British Council publicity (March 2015) all pre-dated the BBC publicity (August 2015 onwards). She has also received ongoing publicity since, such as this. Finally, DGG said: "we don't advertise here, even for an unquestionably worthy cause like Women in Red". This is also incorrect (and the bit of the deletion nomination statement I found most bizarre). Nothing in the article itself mentions 'Women in Red' (which is a Wikipedia WikiProject). How is the article an advertisement for Women in Red? There is a big, big difference between writing articles on women, and advertising a WikiProject. Unless DGG is confusing the BBC's 100 Women with Women in Red? They are two totally different things, as can be seen by following the links. On a more upbeat note, one thing I found out today: I never realised there was an International Day of the Girl Child. The things you learn on Wikipedia. Carcharoth (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any papers by her in Google scholar. Can you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
(1)What paper does she have that Google Scholar says is cited? Most of her papers aren't even listed there.
(2)Do you really think there is no relation between the Elsevier/British Council publicity and the BBC? They've found a few women scientists in developing countries whose careers can be made to sound interesting, and they all celebrate them. I note the name of an award: for "early career women" -- "early career" means not yet notable. Notable scientists are those who already are past the point of being in the early stages of their career.
(3)I used Women in Red as a shorthand for some of the recent projects to increase the representation of women in WP. Most of the work of the actual WiR participants has been excellent, and I've helped people there with a number of articles. (In NYC at least the people organizing the events do a great deal of screening to ensure against articles for people who will not securely prove notable) Some related editathons have not been well-conceived, including the one in London focused on the BBC list. It is degrading and insulted and condescending to write articles on women who would not be notable by the ordinary standards, or to stretch the standards to accommodate them. There is no reason to do this to increase the representation of women in WP--it will be infinitely better to write articles on the ones who are notable, and to take more seriously the fields in which women are active (and perhaps to decrease the over-representation of some fields which women are generally less likely to be interested). There is only one way a scientist can be notable, which is by their science, and this is measured by citations. A plausible question is whether she is possibly notable for "community work, but that's such a vague concept that I do not think that anyone could be notable for that unless it was in some specific field, and I do not see that. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Searching on the titles of the papers (rather than her name, which runs into several problems) finds some. As I said, a red herring (she isn't notable as a scientist). For what it is worth though, they are here (should be the top result each time): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I am aware that many of her papers don't appear at all in Google Scholar and that: (i) the last one linked isn't cited; (ii) that even though some are cited there isn't much; and (iii) that the journals are not the best. That is not the point I am making. The point is that you (and others) very specifically said that she wasn't cited and her papers were not showing up in Google Scholar. That is demonstrably false and places in question the ability (in this specific case) of some of those commenting at this deletion nomination to do basic literature searches. It is forgiveable, as there are problems in the citation record with her name and what is used as her surname. But maybe a cautionary tale to try a bit harder when doing searches? (And to wonder why nothing is showing up in a search when it should.)
(2) There will be a connection, but no more so than normal. You are right about early career scientists. But again, the notability she has is not as a scientist. I would go further than you and say that we shouldn't write about people in the middle of their careers. You can't realistically assess someone's notability until their career is finished. But as long as Wikipedia is writing about living people, and basing coverage on journalistic sources (rather than sources placing people in proper historical context), this is what will happen. Also, the whole "inspirational" = "media coverage" = "notable" sequence is very shaky, but that seems to be what happens when you get 'role model journalism'.
(3) About WiR and the overall addition of such articles, this AfD started after I left a note on your talk page and you replied here saying that you had nominated this article for deletion. What I was surprised at is that you and others seem to pass over other articles in that list (some were not there at the time) such as Amna Suleiman, Kunwar Bai Yadav, Gouri Chindarkar, Samantha John. I struggle to understand why this article was nominated for deletion, but those ones were not (at least not yet). Is there such a big lag in the deletion nomination and review process, or did you pick this as a borderline one as an example for the rest?
Your last two sentences I disagree with totally. Scientists can be notable for things other than their scientific work. And people can be notable for community work (in this case for science outreach work). Carcharoth (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to your strawman of us not knowing how to search, I'll only remind you that I said of her work that none of it has ever been meaningfully cited and this is undeniably true. For example, on this one that you mentioned, there are a measly 6 citations and, importantly, all are either from obscure conferences, or from junk journals, most of which are on Beall's list. This is the sort of "walled garden" that exists at this level, with typically none of this kind of work ever seeing the light of day within mainstream science. But can we turn the conversation? I'm pretty sure this article will be kept, so the issue will now be what the article will say. Looking past this AfD, the main question will be how to delicately address the fact that she has recognition for research (which enables the existence of this article), but that mainstream science is not actually aware of this this research because of the problems we are all now aware of. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
The article talk page is the best location to discuss improvements to the article. Carcharoth (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. I just want to establish the existence of this issue now, so that folks are not shocked later with what I anticipate (if history is any guide) will be a very lively discussion. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are plenty of reliable sources in Nigerian media and elsewhere about Rabia Salihu Sa'id that meet Wikipedia standards because people are interested in writing and reading about her and other women who are working in STEM in developing countries. Because of that the article easily meets General Notability Guideline (GNG) and also WP:PEOPLE "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".

Additionally:

1) As has been pointed out by several other people, the nom statement is inaccurate. Whether WP:PROF is met or not is a red herring. To quote
"This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTHetc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.[1]
2) All that is required for an article is for her to be well known from coverage in the media like the Wedding dress of Kate Middleton or other [[Category:Royal wedding dresses]]. Likewise, I'm sure that Cabbage and Koalas don't have accomplishments and instead rely on general notability guidelines to establish the basis for the standalone article.
3) The fact that activists or advocates for a stronger presence of women in the media are talking about a specific person or group of people in the context of an ongoing specific media series or event is not promotional in the sense of WP:PROMOTION but instead it is valid topic of discussion for a specific genre of writing. Today, there is an genre that writes about gender issues in employment, research, and the media. Similar to how both the media and Wikipedia articles contain content about campaigning politicians and election by political writer or about college athletes recruited as professionals and major sporting events by sports writers.

The bottomline is that Rabia Salihu Sa'id is "significantly interesting" for the media to be writing about her for several years now and therefor this Wikipedia article should be kept. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Based upon the nature of the recognition she has received, and that the recognition section is larger than her career section - there might be more here. There are a number of sources that have been added in the votes and comments here. I would like to see what can be made of this article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see that content was already added to the article since this version, when it was nominated for deletion. IMO it should be kept because: 1) She is a researcher in the field of atmospheric and space-weather physics, for which she has been awarded, 2) she is at least equally known for her contributions to Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) outreach, for which she has been awarded, 3) she has received international press for her role as a physicist and role as an advocate and mentor for young women, 4) has co-founded Nigeria's Association of Women Physicists, and 5) has published journal articles about her work. (It does not fit within a guideline, as far as I know, but she is an inspiration within her country, where universities do not often have the money to fund research. And, she is effective despite the odds - for instance, she only has electricity for her computer (required for her research) for four hours a day. Many students don't have access to computers or the internet at all.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which policies are you referring to for notability? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE - because she is known as much for being an advocate for education, women, and the sciences as she is a physicist and researcher.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree she may only be "an average academic" based on her publications, but she obviously meets WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE based on sources (BBC, NPR, Nature, Elsevier). Also, the article has been substantially improved since it the AFD nomination, making the case for keeping it even stronger. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Talk:Rabia Salihu Sa'id because it is an article content discussion about the Elsevier award
  • Elsevir. The prize won by the subject is sponsored by AAAS and the publishing conglomerate Elsevir. Elsevir has been criticized for its publishing practices[15]. Do any of the contributors to this AfD have connections with Elsevir that would warrent a declaration of WP:COI? I have none myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • No connection \ COI to Elsevir. - I have no close connection or conflict of interest.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elsevier COi? No, of course not - Plus, "Squirrel!" Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have to say that I am disturbed by the provenance of this prize. Its awarders give the impression, which earlier on in this AfD debate misled some, that the research of the awardee was done within the framework of mainstream science and had been recognised by the community of mainstream science. At this stage of the AfD it is appears to be accepted by most contributors that this is not the case (but plausible arguments claim that notability can be found in WP:GNG and WP:People). It may be the case that Elsevir has been willing to expend money in establishing the prize in order to claw back some of its reputation. If this had been done in a transparent way it should be commended. It seems to me that some zealous followers of WP:Women in red have been unwittingly harnessed into promoting the interests of a megacorporation. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Xxanthippe Is your concern a content concern (i.e., there should be some sort of special handling of the discussion of the award in the article, if it's kept) - or are you asking people who based their vote on the Elsevir award to reconsider their vote? Or something else?--CaroleHenson (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a connection to Elsevier apart from having published in one of their journals (which is hard to avoid these days). I'm as critical of their business practices and stranglehold on academic publishing as anyone, but it doesn't really get more "mainstream" than Elsevier. Also, for what it's worth, technically the award was given by the quasi-independent grant-giving body the Elsevier Foundation rather than the publisher itself. I'm sure they do give out these kind of things to try and salvage their nosediving reputation, but I don't see how that makes it any less of a notable achievement for the awardees. Dubious motivation didn't hold back the Nobel! Joe Roe (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Xxanthippe, why are you chasing shadows here? If someone was promoting Elsevier, they would more likely be creating articles on the Elsevier Foundation, on the awards themselves, and on the other prize recipients (from other years as well as this year). Not that such article creation would necessarily be wrong if done correctly. This article was clearly created by someone with an interest in Nigerian topics. As has been pointed out, Elsevier is about as mainstream as you can get in science publishing. Are you going to start objecting to Microsoft Award next? And if you can't even spell Elsevier correctly, I am sceptical that you should have been among those pinged by Agricola44 for your "scientific background". Anyone with a background in science would know how to spell Elsevier correctly. OK, withdrawing that last bit, as it is a legitimate alternate spelling (if still a bit odd to see it used here). Carcharoth (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage people to stop second guessing motivations for media articles written about Rabia Salihu Sa'id. Going down that path is problematic on many fronts and in fact leads to Wikipedians using our own views to decide who is notable instead of relying verifiable reliable secondary sources to decide the selection of content for Wikipedia. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is almost certain at this point that this article will be kept because of the sources. However, I think what Xxan is pointing out is the larger issue of our role in sustaining any misrepresentation. The Elsevier citation expressly says the award is for her briquettes research. The bio in Nature repeats that the award was for her work. However, we now know this research was published in a vanity journal, has been cited only once, the citing article likewise appearing in a vanity journal, and that mainstream science is unaware of this work, outside of the Elsevier award. In my opinion, questions of due diligence, undue promotion, fact checking, unfortunate wording, etc. on the parts of Elsevier, Nature et al. are not really the issue here...after all, they are sources. Our dilemma is whether to suppress this information, in which case WP readers will be left with the false impression that this person has made scientific impact, or to include this information to truthfully and fully convey the biographical details for the reader. Agricola44 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Xxanthippe and Agricola44, the award you object to is offered by Elsevier Foundation AND the American Association for the Advancement of Science, no slouch organization. I am not a defender of the credibility of Elsevier, a megacorp of academic publishing, with a sorry reputation for overpricing journal subscriptions to libraries, and misrepresenting some journals as refereed when they are not, and even printing and selling research that is in the public domain. Print publishers are understandably worried about OER and online publishing, but that doesn't excuse in any way their Luddite reaction to fight our progress in making information more accessible, free where possible--philosophically orthogonal to WP’s mission, it’s an existential battle for them as a business. However, as we’ve noted, their credibility comes into question. I, as one non-zealous WP:Women in red follower, have no interest in promoting Elsevier. But all these arguments are irrelevant. Using WP's academic criteria, her bio might be judged WP:TOOSOON, but there are multiple independent, reliable sources publishing about her, so by default she meets GNG... and, well, fin. Cheers! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misunderstand me. I'm not objecting to the Elsevier award, nor am I saying it's not sourced. However, I am reminding panelists here that it was given under false pretenses in the sense that it is claimed to be a research award, but was bestowed upon a person whose research has yet to see the light of day in mainstream science. As I said, the "disconnect" on the parts of Elsevier, Nature, AAAS (whether lack of due diligence, careless promotion, etc) is irrelevant, as are opinions on Elsevier's corporate practices (mentioned several times, including your WP:TEXTWALL). FYI, the briquettes research was not published in an Elsevier journal, as far as I can tell. I recognize the article is likely to be kept. The issue is whether we suppress these details of which we are all now aware. Agricola44 (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Xxanthippe and Agricola44, if I'm understanding you correctly, you all seem to be objecting to any mentions of the topic of the research that Sa'id is doing by the group giving the award, by the media covering the award, and by Wikipedia because you do not think Sa'id is worthy of an award based on her body of work on this topic. This approach seems wrong because 1) the topic of her research is of interest and would naturally be covered when writing a media piece about her getting an award 2) Wikipedia should follow the lead of reliable sources for the content about her work unless it is outrageously stating a fact that is implausible. Then we would require multiple sources to confirm. (this doesn't seem to apply here) So, I have no problem with mentioning the award and mentioning that the award was based on her work in Atmospheric Physics. (I was reluctant to reply more about this in the Afd because it seems more appropriate for a talk page discussion on the article.) Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I'm not objecting to mentioning the award. On the contrary, I'm saying more information will be needed to put this award into context. Anyone familiar with scientific publishing will indeed recognize the problem of vanity publishing. Please familiarize yourself with the very similar case of Jacob Barnett because it is a good predictor of where things will go after "keep". See you on the talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • We'll be fine if we follow the sources. No special effort is needed to put the award into context. But let's move the discussion to the article talk page. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a topic (in this case a person) meets WP:Notability it is not relevant whether it fails any additional guidelines and we are advised to presume notability. I am happy to accept this. Also, I see no reason for not accepting notability in this case. Multiple independent reliable sources are available as has been pointed out in the article and above. Thincat (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rabia_Salihu_Sa%27id&oldid=1089522074"