Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sherif Karama

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. Insufficient evidence of an unusual level of influence in his academic field, and lacking independent sources for general notability. RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sherif Karama[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)

The article doesn't pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. No in-depth coverage on reliable or independent sources. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 05:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be only an assistant professor (I guess because MD PhD takes a long time and he is still only a few years out from the PhD part) but I think His Google Scholar profile has enough citations for WP:PROF#C1. And copying and pasting the identical nomination statement on seven rapid-fire AfDs [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] doesn't make a strong case that the nominator has considered these cases individually or done the searching requested by WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. MD PhD are often are practicing doctors, so it takes a while, but he passes NPROF-1 with his citation record (h-index of 39, 19 works with over 100 citations).--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as I didn't realized just how ridiculous neurology citations are. Must be all that brain power, they have all the lit in mind.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Karama works at the interface of clinical genetics and neurology, both of which have extremely high citation rates -- there are people with bachelor's working as techs who have h-indices over 20. I am running the Scopus citation metrics now but I strongly suspect he will come out well below the median among his hundreds of coauthors. Pinging David Eppstein and Eostrix in case they want to look into this further as well. JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the 73 coauthors (with ≥20 papers) just from Karama's most recent two publications, I'm getting an average citation count of 13685 (median 8442) and h-index of 46 (median 44). This is compared to Karama's metrics of 3679 citations and h-index of 32. I would very strongly discourage using his citation profile as evidence of meeting C1. JoelleJay (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The subject has one highly cited but highly coauthored paper that he is first author on. Middle author on a highly coauthored paper doesn't convince me of so much. I think it's a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF C1; no other signs of notability. I hope the nominator did a careful WP:BEFORE on each article before batching them for AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. subject is an assistant professor which is generally WP:TOOSOON except in extraordinary circumstances which are not given here. There are only two last author publications yet out from this group and four reasonably cited first author publications. No major awards or recognitions. --hroest 14:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as TOOSOON. Like I said above, neurology is a ridiculously well-cited field (case in point: this postdoc with 2668 total citations, 39 papers, and h-index of 18, whose top 5 papers have 464, 442, 400, 366, and 129 citations; or this PhD student with 882 total citations, 35 papers, and h-index of 17, with top papers at 209, 69, 62, 50, and 45 citations). Here are the Scopus citation metrics for 328 of his coauthors with 30+ papers (postdocs and PhD students with <50 papers removed), collected from all of his publications with fewer than 25 authors, AND the 5 or so most recent mega-collab papers:

Total citations: average: 11869, median: 5418, Karama: 3679. Total papers: avg: 195, med: 118, K: 85. h-index: avg: 44, med: 37, K: 32. Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 1094, med: 514, K: 426. 2nd: avg: 644, med: 404, K: 150. 3rd: avg: 504, med: 289, K: 147. 4th: avg: 413, med: 245, K: 140. 5th: avg: 353, med: 212, K: 130. JoelleJay (talk) 03:54, 28 July 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.