Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziad Nasreddine

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. Meets WP:ACADEMIC and passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Nasreddine

[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)

a clear case of BLP1E, all the references are there just because he treated Donald Trump Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ziad Nasreddine is the creator of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, before anything related to Donald Trump. –– Just4info (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just4info (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPROF criteria 1, creator of MoCA is notable in the field of ideas. Per the ~12,000 citations and widespread medical adoption, he is the corresponding author and first author so it is highly likely to be his creation. I don't believe he has ever treated Donald Trump. Original article. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SNG WP:BIO and also lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain a little better, I did think NPROF was met "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." 12,000 citations is quite a lot. PainProf (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The 2005 paper alone has been cited nearly 12,000 times; several others have hundreds of citations. This person meets WP:PROF#1 quite comfortably. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable Resources. Passes GNG.DMySon 18:25, 3 August 2020 (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.