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. RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dawit Mulugeta (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)

This person is relatively unknown and a non-public figure, even if they are notable enough for an article. The significance of his publications is not as profound as previously thought upon further inspection and through laterally checking secondary source material. Previous claims to keeping this page several months ago should be reverted; reasons for keeping this article are exaggerated by the author (me). Thomasdw22 (talk) 7:00, 10 Feburary 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of significance which probably fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Sheldybett (talk) 08:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you want to apply WP:NPOLITICIAN to some kind of research scientist? Surely the relevant criteria here is WP:NACADEMIC.CoronaryKea (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry about that, I thought he was a polictan when it first came up on my mind until I realised it now he is an notabable academic. Sorry about that. Sheldybett (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:NACADEMIC Criterion 1 only. It's annoying the claims about the impact of his work are not properly cited but a couple of his articles have over a hundred citations, which speaks to the broader impact. The argument in the previous discussion about him having worked at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is irrelevant, though: he does not meet criterion 3. CoronaryKea (talk) 09:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment All of the article's references are by him and not about him. My own google search didn't find coverage that meets the GNG. However, he does have several highly cited papers. I don't know if an h-index of 10 is good or bad for agronomy.Sandals1 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very much on the weak side. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment/Delete I have done multiple checks on the impact of the research, which do not span past his field, and do not support other fields. The research done by Dr Mulugeta is in it of itself wonderful, however, it is not significant, despite my claims. It has the same effect as someone writing their professors wikipedia article. I feel that it is not significant enough for an article, even if there are cited papers. Thomasdw22 (talk) 1:44, 25 Feburary 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - OK, so I guess he never played pro soccer, or happens to be an obscure species of moth, but this is too much. Tony May (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2019 (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.