Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samoon Ahmad,MD

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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samoon Ahmad,MD[edit]

Samoon Ahmad,MD (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)

associate professor at NYU fails NACADEMIC; BEFORE finds no publication count and Ahmad does not hold a named chair nor has he been elected a Fellow of a learned society - also fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 07:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and lack reference. --Spasage (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I continue to work on this page to prove he is notable enough for a wiki page? I did quite a bit of research last night and came across more information. I believe the page should be given a chance beyond the introductory paragraph? (pls. advise if this is the correct way to address this discussion page - and or advice after my uploads).MegEng (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MegEng - you're absolutely welcome to continue working on the page during an AfD. Chetsford (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to participate in this discussion however due to the time constraints I am concentrating on developing the page, and learning A LOT about wiki guidelines as I go along... MegEng (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, MegEng. I noticed that your contributions to Wikipedia are mostly on this article. Are you the subject of the article, perhaps? Do you have any kind of relation to the subject? -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no kind of relation to the subject. I am a new contributor to wikipedia with a lot of time on my hands (retired school teacher) and I have been using wikipedia pages for information for over 10 years. Thank-you for letting me clarify this.MegEng (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ask that this page be re-reviewed and not deleted. I spent my free hours this past week in an attempt to highlight nobility and meet reference requirements, and uncovered some unique layers which I attempted to show without a promotional slant. I started this page because this doctor's biography showed some effort to better the world (e.g. beyond research, money and prestige). I understand the page still needs refinement which I can do with at a slower pace with help from other users and with advice from the Tea House (this is also my first and last page, as I want to turn to editing page. Thank-you for your consideration.MegEng (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)es).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Szzuk- thank-you. I am addressing existing concerns for this page with advice offered from this discussion and other users/Tea House. I am slowing my pace somewhat to ensure I meet Wikipedia expectations.MegEng (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice for lack of notability. If the article's creator wants to work on and improve the text, they can work on it and should be allowed to resubmit it at a later date. Meantime, Wikipedia is not a testing board; newcomers are advised to use the WP:AFC process. Putting up an article knowing that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards, or knowing it's there and allowing it to be up does a disservice to the encyclopaedia. See also WP:DRAFTS. -The Gnome (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As per my mention of no affiliation to subject (see above) and non-partial to this subject and did not knowingly do anything. If I had known this discussion is what waited my first attempt to contribute to Wikipedia I would never have started it. I would like the chance to improve it but at a slower pace so I can learn more. Thank-you for allowing this page to be worked on and all encouragement helps.MegEng (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MegEng - having a page nominated for deletion is not an indication of any wrongdoing on the part of the page's creator. Most people who have created any significant number of pages have had a few nominated for deletion, or actually deleted. As per The Gnome's comments, you are welcome to continue improving it while it's being discussed at AfD and - should it ultimiately be deleted - are further welcome to work on it in a sandbox before reintroducing it to mainspace. In a sandbox you can work on it as slowly as you like. Wikipedia just has an obligation to the privacy of WP:BLPs that would preclude them from becoming searchable subjects on WP if there's any doubt about their notability. This is to protect Samoon Ahmad more than anything else. Have you had a chance to visit the WP:TEAHOUSE? Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford- thank-you for the above comment and information. It is really appreciated. I had to step away from Wikipedia for a few days in order to get over my disappointment and re-group. I am now ready to vist the WP:TEAHOUSE and work on the page within a sandbox, re-read the discussion related notes and advice i was given, and work at a slower pace (as well as edit some pages that i have come across that need some notices, etc.). Thank-you again.MegEng (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MegEng - I'm withdrawing the deletion nomination due to the fact you've added a claim from an offline source that Ahmad is a fellow of the APA. This might be an automatic qualifier for notability under the WP:NACADEMIC criteria. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. See below. The claim for being a "distinguished fellow" is sourced to an irrelevant link! Let's not jump the gun. -The Gnome (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. A claim has been added to the article that the subject is a fellow of the American Psychiatric Association which might be a pass under criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC. I'm not familiar enough with the fellowship criteria of the APA to say for sure. Chetsford (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chetsford - THANK-YOU. I hope it will be enough (and I am going to continue to work on the page to address concerns). I will keep watching the discussion and hope... MegEng (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold your horses, Chetsford. The subject is ostensibly a "Distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association." The source for that claim is a link to the Amazon website about a book ("Kaplan & Sadock's Pocket Handbook of Clinical Psychiatry") that seems to have zero relevance with the subject. Perhaps, he is a member of the APA, but this by itself means nothing; practically every psychiatrist can join the APA.[1] So, WP:NACADEMIC is still lacking: "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Emphasis added. -The Gnome (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The link to Amazon is to well respected Medical Textbook that he CO-AUTHORED and (as noted in the the reference link that I inserted on his page - under 'Index' is an in-depth profile that i found that is within the textbook). As well, here is a link indicating he was Chair at APA's 2008 Conference[2][dead link] Your argument appears slightly slanted? (just an observation from a new user), then again I am wondering why his Academia standing is being questioned with the remaining/sound references (not mentioned) - they must hold little or no strength. I will look for a stronger reference.MegEng (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my insertion above does not sound disrespectful of your discussion (I am learning and will attempt not to take input personally). Thank-you.MegEng (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright. This happens many times when the discussion gets heated or it goes on for a long time; we think there's something "personal" involved. All I'm doing here is debating the 'notability of the article's subject. Nothing to do with his "respectability," etc. By the way, the link you gave about him chairing some APA conference is a dead end. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with having an article deleted and then reinstated after sources proving notability are found and the text is up to scratch. You're fighting to have the article staying up in Wikipedia on the wrong grounds! Most of the arguments you're offering are irrelevant, e.g. that you're a newbie, he's a nice guy, he's well respected, etc. Try to focus, if I may offer some advice, on notability. Start by examining carefully the general criteria for a person'a notability and notability criteria for academics. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome - thanks, I think I must have jumped to the wrong source. I'll withdraw my withdrawal pending confirmation from an independent source Ahmad is a Distinguished Fellow of the APA. Chetsford (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford and The Gnome - This links shows him with general APA membership only[3] - the website does not show a list of Distinguished Fellowships so I would hesitate how others acquire their references. His profile on the the textbook (following those of Kaplan & Saddock's profiles) clearly says 'Distinquished Fellowship" with APA. Author of a well recognizable and respected Text book (co-author, several editions as contributing editor, etc. over several years). His post-trauma award with the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies is also an option. I have read the page on Notability several times, and again today, as you are aware the Criteria per profession varies: "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." So I will present arguments for these after some more studying.MegEng (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, and to make a long story short, there is no independent confirmation of the subject being a "distinguished fellow of the APA." I'm removing the relevant claim from the BLP. -The Gnome (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, however, I added membership to APA (see reference) as a General Membership only. I am looking into the textbook further.MegEng (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.Coauthor of parts of majpr textboiks, which is enough to meet WP:Prof. DGG ( talk ) 07:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt I may be wrong about the subject's notability status. Please help me make up my mind by providing some support for the characterization of those textbooks as "major," so that criteria #1 or #4 of WP:NACADEMIC are met. Sincere thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will attempt to locate a sound reference indicating Kaplan & Sadock is a "cornerstone text in the field of psychiatry and mental health." (quote publisher)MegEng (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome- Reference for Kaplan & Sadock is a top ranked medical (psychiatry) text book[4] Also related: refer Harold Kaplan and References 18-22 on Samoon Ahmad's page.MegEng (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep citing that book (Sadock, Benjamin J.; Sadock, Virginia A. (2007). Kaplan and Sadock's Synopsis of Psychiatry. Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry. USA: LWW. ISBN 978-0781773270.) but we need primary evidence of the subject's supposed "distinguished fellowishp" in the APA. Shouldn't this be evident from the APA's logs?
And, just to be clear, Kaplan is the book that is "a cornerstone text in the field of psychiatry and mental health," and not a book by Samoon Ahmad. So far, and in so many words, we have nothing of substance. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did not appear to be considering what DGG forwarded above "Coauthor of parts of major textbooks is enough to meet WP:Prof. AS NOTED HERE: "Kaplan & Sadock's pocket handbook of clinical psychiatry" (2018 - this latest book is CO-AUTHORED by Sammon Ahmad and his name is CLEARLY noted as one of the 3 authors) - see link[5] So why are you not making an effort to consider this? You appear fixated on the APA despite other criteria that the subject is able to fulfill.MegEng (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Confrontational attitude and personal attacks do not get contributors very far in Wikipedia, MegEng, rest assured of that. You may want to consider improving your manners.
On the substance of the dialogue: I refer you to the incisive commentary by DGG immediately below. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Gnome and DGG I want to apologize for my comments, I did not mean them to be combative or disrespectful. When I re-read them, I see now how they could be perceived as such and I am truly sorry. At the time, I was frustrated. Since I started this page, it has held a deletion notice, it got to me. That is no excuse. I forgot you both are volunteers as well, and helping with your time to ensure Wikipedia users follow guidelines. And it's needed. I respect both your advice and help. Please accept my apology and I will step back from the discussion. Sincerely, MegEng (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done; we move on. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking in more detail, authorship of a textbook or chapter is a little difficult to apply in clinical medicine, because almost all major textbooks are multi-authored, with individual authors contributing chapters in their fields. Even editor of such a book is sometimes difficult to determine, because here too there are usually several, and the most prominent name is the usually decreased famous author of the first edition. Additionally, Kaplan & Sadock's Pocket Handbook of Psychiatric Drug Treatment and Kaplan and Sadock's Concise Textbook of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are not formal textbooks in the usual sense, but shorter books of the sort widely used for review and quick reference. Some such books can be really important or even famous, but my usual criteria will not determine this--they are almost never assigned as textbooks and rarely collected by libraries. I am no longer sure that authorship of a chapter in such a book would itself be sufficient to meet WP:PROF; but he is one of the principal current editors of the books, and that is probably sufficient. In addition to the book there are a few papers shown in Google Scholar--the most cited have 129 and 63 references--but there are almost no other papers and I don't think that by itself shows notability either. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok (it appears he was contributing editor for past 10+ years on the majority of the handbooks). An additional reference notes him as contributing-Author for a 2009 textbook "Kaplan & Sadock's concise textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry"[6] On a different note, does he not satisfy Criteria 2 as recipient of the "Frank Ochberg Award for Media and Trauma Study (ISTSS) which "recognizes significant contributions by clinicians and researchers on the relationship of media and trauma"?[7] which ties in with his research contributions.MegEng (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It6 is not an award of major significance. Even if the Society is a major national organization, it's highest award is its Lifetime Achievement Award, and there are other awards for "outstanding" achievements. This is just for "significant", [1]. Trying to make a case with material like this gives an impression of a possible overcommitment. A few of my first articles were deleted; try not to takes things like this as major blows, and keep going on others. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank-you.MegEng (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being the "principal current editor" of a layman's guide, instead of a major scientific book, is IMVHO stretching the claim to notability, though I fully respect your opinion to "keep" this article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Criteria for Fellowship to the APA
  2. ^ Chair 2008 Workshop - refer 'IW11.' on page[dead link]
  3. ^ of APA Dr. Samoon Ahmad
  4. ^ and Sadock's textbook ranking: Board Vitals
  5. ^ AUTHOR Dr. SAMOON AHMAD
  6. ^ & Sadock's concise textbook of child and adolescent psychiatry
  7. ^ Samoon Ahmad 2007 Frank Ochbery Award for Media & Trauma Study
  • Delete inflated claims. Writing a chapter in a text book, heading a clinical unit at Bellevue Hospital, and chairing a paper session at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association (where a few hundred such sessions are held every year) are all indications of being a respected clinician - NOT of being a notable psychiatrist. All I see is over-sourcing, inflated claims, and no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 27 April 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.

References[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samoon_Ahmad,MD&oldid=1077088385"