Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shibley Rahman

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shibley Rahman[edit]

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

COI article for a non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance and with a single BBC GNEWS (missing from the article) that outlines alleged stalking of an actress [1]. The article reads like a CV and appears to fail notability. ttonyb (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:ACADEMIC or otherwise, article reads like a résumé, and discussion on the talk page of the article and of the primary author indicates conflict of interest. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been cleaned up and more sources added. While a primary author of the article apparently knows Dr. Rahman, it is well sourced enough to be considered as a genuine article and, in my opinion, should be kept. sxebill (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate as to which of the notability guidelines for individuals he meets? From what I can tell, the addition merely provides some abstracts, summaries, etc., of the articles he has written, without actually elaborating on the notability aspect of the subject as an individual. Is there any information out that other than the primary source journal articles, such as third-party sources which explain why his research is any more important and encyclopedic than that of any other academic? 30+ of the 37 cited sources appear to be citations of his own work, or work which is related to his, neither of which establish notability, per se. Mere information about the research is a CV, but commentary from other sources would make it an article. That's the real issue here. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the article has few or no reliable sources that are actually about its subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject/author requests deletion, and failure to pass WP:PROF.

I have noted all the comments above, and really I have to say, having carefully read the comments, that If it does not fulfill the criteria for a biography of any sort, I'd be very happy for you to pull it altogether. A clear consensus is emerging that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia and I have a genuine sense of guilt for wasting all your valuable time. Please note, however, that I am trying to edit the article, but as you know it's pretty pointless doing it about an article writh you or your work as the subject.

Indeed my closest friends have advised me that impartiality is a critical thing, and that autobiographies are virtually impossible to write. It might therefore be sensible for me to consider how I might contribute to the brilliant Wiki elsewhere? Please note that since the publication of these comments I have referred to a main incident of my life, which does need make my history notable, but the fact that I am well respected in the field of dementia research (and in fact quoted by more than half of the reference list, other laboratories who have discussed my research in their independent papers) so much so that my paper is currently in chapter 24.2.2 of the Oxford Textbook of Medicine (OUP), is a source of pride for me. And I have been awarded membership of the Society of Biology, and Fellowship of the Royal Society for Encouragement in the Arts, Commerce and Entrepreneurship, which is indeed another one of your criteria. I have done for a long time unpaid expert academic work in a medical charity (as shown on my linkedin profile), and I was awarded an academic scholarship at Westminster and Cambridge (the second, whilst not national as such, is the 4th top university in the world currently according to "The Economist".

Having said all that, if my article is patently unsuitable despite the re-writes, I have no intention of trying to convince you otherwise, as you know the rules far better than me! So I do apologse for any upset caused; Ihave found writing this, yes effectively, autobiography emotionally demanding for obvious reasons, given that I am disabled and do not apply for any regular jobs. I therefore am very unlikely to meet your notifiability guidelines for decades to come, which greatly saddens me. However, I have rewritten the article many times, and it still reads like an autobiography, I feel. Of course, an easy way around this would be to get people who are experts in frontal dementia or Parkinson's disease to evaluate critically what I've written, as it's arguably fair that the Wiki piece should be subject to genuine peer review, as well as editorial moderation. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just actually tackled one of Kinu's original criticisms of many moons ago. I've got rid of any gratuitous references by myself which are irrelevant to the main article (such as my reviews of frontal lobe function in book chapters), because they did inadvertently look like a CV. I hope that this has improved the quality of the article, even though I know you're going to axe it unless something drastic happens. Articleman11 (talk) 09:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Individually, this person is not notable enough for a article. His work on scientific topics could perhaps we referenced on the pages relevant to those topics, but a biography page is not the place to discuss such topics. Fellowship of the RSA is totally not notable: that's available for purchase. There are over 80,000 members of the Society of Biology. It's just not of encylopedic interest. --Duncan (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I would be happy for it to be axed. I was only doing my best. I would like to put it somewhere in Wiki as the work is interesting. The article on frontotemporal dementia is too brief to put it there without looking out of place. In that case, I feel that I fundamentally agree with Duncan in that the work is fundamentally unsuitable for an encyclopaedia such as Wiki. I am very grateful for your comments though, and I hope that the word 'delete' is no reflection of the fact my work is considered crap. Nobody very senior around the world would think that in frontotemporal dementia, not least the people I've quoted, many of which I meet on the professional circuit (it's real academia, not Wiki.)

Right, could you then delete it? I would like to some sort of biolography on AboutUs. Many thanks guys. I actually agree with you. By the way, confirm this is correct?

"You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain so licensed until they enter the public domain when your copyright expires (currently some decades after an author's death). ( source of policy quotation )

I assume that if you get rid of it off Wiki then I can publish my work (it is my own work) elsewhere which is after all what we both wish?

PS Your comment that being a FRSA is available for purchase is not on. I believe that your own Wiki page even explains the membership process for election. You have to meet certain criteria. Some officers of Wiki may not meet them indeed however much money they pay (this is not a personal criticism at all, please note). http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/the-fellowship Your description of the RSA is hugely insulting to members of it, I humbly submit. Thanks guys.

Best wishes - nothing personal - just delete it - I will still continue to adore Wikipedia. Articleman11 (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have asked for help at BLPN, here.

I just want this to end!!!!!!!!!!!!! Articleman11 (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little sign of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2010 (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.