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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talat Waseem[edit]

Talat Waseem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable academic. User:DGG has provided a list of Waseem's most cited articles, but in none of these is he first or last author, the two positions indicative of highest level of contribution. A Google Scholar search of Ghrelin appears to have sources that are cited far in excess of these. There are no independent sources establishing notability, and it also appears that the highest rung he has reached at an academic institution was postdoc. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete A few reasonably well cited papers, GoogleScholar gives h-index about 5, not enough to indicate WP:PROF notability on the basis of citability of his work. Nothing else in the record indicates academic notability on other grounds (no significant awards, journal editorships, etc, listed in the article). The article does not give any dates for his education and employment history, but at age 32 not likely to be far beyond the postdoc stage. Nsk92 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even if he had been the first or last author on his most-cited articles, that would not be enough to meet WP:PROF #1 in lmy eyes. --Crusio (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Starts off with some excellent GS cites but there are too few of them. Article created far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Uncertain I rather doubt he's really a notable researcher, and I interpret the highly cited publications as primarily his advisor's. The ones without Duxbury have citation counts no higher than 6., according to Scopus. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Taking the article's claim that he is a leading light on Ghrelin, a Google Scholar search shows that the most-cited papers on Ghrelin have 3274, 1719, 1401, 1135, 1042, 1022, 914, 817, 774, 653, 647, 571, 570, 531, 525, 522, 506, 475, 441, 403, 376, 362, 355, 348, 337, 331, 319, 315, 312, 309, 308, 302, 299, 298, 295, 288, 287, 283, 279, 275, 275, 272, 266, 259, 253, 252, 252, 249, 247, 241, 237, 233, 230, 229, 228, 226, 223, 222, 221, 220, 219, 218, 215, 210, 206, 199, 197, 195, 193, 192, 190, 188, 182, 182, 181, 179, 179, 175, 173, 172, 171, 171, 168, 164, 163, 158, 158, 157, 156, 152, 150, 149, 148, 146, 146, 145, 144, 144, 138, 141, 139, 139, 139, 138, 138, 136, 136, 135, 134, 134, 132, 129, 127, 127, 126, 125, 124, 125, 123, 122, 122, 122, 122, 121, 120, 120, 119, 117, 116, 115, 114, 114, 114, 114, 113, 113, 112, 112, 112, 112, 112, 111, 111, 111, 111, 109, 109, 108, 107, 106, 106, 105, 105, 105, 105, 104, 101, 101, 101, 101, 100, 99, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 98, 97, 97, 96, 96, 96, 96, 95, 95, 95, 95, 95, 94, 94, 94, 94, 94, 93, 93, 93, 92, 92, 92, 92, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 91, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 90, 89, 89, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 87, 86, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 85, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 84, 83, 82, 82, 82, 82, 82, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 81, 79, 79, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 78, 77, 77, 77, 77, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 76, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 74 ... citations. So Dr Waseem's most-cited paper on Ghrelin is number 277-285th on this list. I hope this clears up any uncertainty for DGG. Abductive (reasoning) 09:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The citation record for his work, while not at all bad, does not rise to the level of passing WP:PROF #1, and there seems to be no other plausible reason for keeping the article. And, even for an academic of this level, the amount of sourceable information we can find about him other than "he wrote these papers" seems to be very minimal. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I, at large, agree with David Eppstein’s review that Dr. Waseem is still too young and less notable to be part of an encyclopedia. However, when I see through his work at the age of 32, it appears to be significant. Most of his articles explain the role of ghrelin in gastrointestinal inflammation, stress and malignancy. I believe his work is at least worth merging with main Ghrelin Wikipage. Below is the list of his publications as first or second author in peer reviewed journals.

1. T.Waseem, M.Duxbury, H.Ito, F.Rocha, D.Lautz, E.Whang, S.Ashley, M.Robinson. Ghrelin ameliorates TNF-a induced anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects and promotes intestinal epithelial restitution. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Volume 199, Issue 3, Page 16. (Original Research) 2. Waseem T. Commentary: Ghrelin's role in gastrointestinal tract cancer. Surg Oncol. 2009 Mar 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 19324542. (Editorial) 3. Waseem T, Javaid-Ur-Rehman, Ahmad F, Azam M, Qureshi MA. Role of ghrelin axis in colorectal cancer: a novel association. Peptides. 2008 Aug;29(8):1369-76. Epub 2008 Apr 7. PMID 18471933. (Original research) 4. Waseem T, Duxbury M, Ito H, Ashley SW, Robinson MK. Exogenous ghrelin modulates release of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines in LPS-stimulated macrophages through distinct signaling pathways. Surgery. 2008 Mar;143(3):334-42. Epub 2007 Dec 27. PMID 18291254; PMC 2278045. (Original Research) 5. Duxbury MS, Waseem T, Ito H, Robinson MK, Zinner MJ, Ashley SW, Whang EE. Ghrelin promotes pancreatic adenocarcinoma cellular proliferation and invasiveness. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003 Sep 19;309(2):464-8. PMID 12951072. (Original Research)

In google search, I came to visit a website of ‘2009 International Symposium on Ghrelin’, which pretty much explains his position in the hierarchy of ghrelin research. Kojima & Kangawa are the guys who discovered ghrelin, while Dr. Waseem is the one who has mainly worked on its role in gastrointestinal tract (1,2). In that particular conference, he was neither an invited keynote speaker nor an organizer; however, he presented 3 papers given below (the maximum number of the papers from any participant).

1. Exogenous ghrelin induces intestinal mucosal hypertrophy through GH-IGF axis independent mechanism. 2. Ghrelin promotes intestinal epithelial cell proliferation through stimulation of PI3K/Akt pathway & EGFR trans-activation leading to ERK 1/2 phosphorylation. 3. Ghrelin prevents oxidative stress-induced intestinal epithelial cell apoptosis through stimulation of PI3K/Akt and inhibition of cytochrome-c mediated caspase-3 activation.

References:

1. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/program_day2.pdf 2. http://www.2009ghrelintokyo.com/program/poster.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.142.41 (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — 115.186.142.41 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. The citation record though may not rise to the 'conventional' level of passing WP:PROF #1, the references point towards significant contribution of Dr. Waseem to ghrelin research. A person writing editorial in Surgical Oncology and presenting 3 papers at the highest level ghrelin forum at age of 32 must be special. Secondary source referencing however needs improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC) — Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. I went through the main Ghrelin page, where the Dr. Waseem's research almost makes a paragraph with full fledge heading. As a biomedical researcher, I feel this work is quite interesting and forms a good basis for him to stay on Wikipedia. I also feel that his work is lot more important than many of the celebrities finding projection on Wikipedia, whose legacy would die with them. The important addition of knowledge about ghrelin by Dr. Waseem likely would live forever. For me two thumbs up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenchill (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — Brokenchill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Althogh Dr. Waseem seems to be a promising researcher, the WP criteria for notability are currently not met as shown above; maybe later. Furthermore, the article lacks of NPOV at the moment. A lot of work is needed if it shall be kept. --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 05:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete, just kill it Well, I think I now do understand the reviewer's comments about this page. Please, just visit Maria Kanellis. She looks so beautiful on this objection-less wiki page. Does not she? I think her work is more important than Dr. Waseem's!!!!!!! is not it???!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brokenchill (talk • contribs) 13:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That is very valid point raised by Brokenchill, I should say. Dr. Waseem deserves more than such celebrities do... PERIOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are two responses to the above remarks. 1/ OTHERCRAPEXISTS. 2/ We are not determining here whether Dr. Waseem is "deserving" or not, just whether he is notable in the Wikipedia sense. It is a (perhaps unfortunate) fact of life that entertainers like Maria frequently appear on television, are interviewed in newspapers, and are know by thousands of people, whereas deserving hard-working scientists remain obscure. We just have to live with it, though. --Crusio (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Response Well this is the basic defect. If an encyclopedia cannot entertain such a practical man, who would do it? Secondly, you do not have to necessarily live with this trend, which cannot effectively gauge the importance of a man! Just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nida zulfaqar (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 January 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.