Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Kaabar

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kaabar[edit]

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

As a former adjunct faculty member at a community college and a self-published textbook author, the subject does not pass WP:PROF. It's possible that the two published reviews of his self-published textbooks could be used to argue for a borderline pass of WP:AUTHOR instead, but the reviews are so negative that I think it would be better for the subject not to have an article at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability for WP:Prof or WP:Author. Is this an attack page? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Not originally, but it sort of turned into one because the only reliable sources are these attack reviews. Look at the older versions (e.g. this one) to see what its creator (also named Kaabar) started it as. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the subject probably doesn't meet GNG. Are the reviews printed, or are they only online. It looks like the MAA offers online self-submitted reviews of a very large number of books, thus I don't think those reviews would satisfy AUTHOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The MAA Reviews are edited (by Fernando Q. Gouvêa) and published by a major mathematics society, on a regular schedule [1], so I think they count as reliable rather than as self-published. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, looking closer it seems you are right. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think I need to change my !vote, I think the article still fails NPOV as only RS is two negative reviews by the same reviewer on the same section of the same website. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2017 (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.