Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Fadul

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Fadul

edit
Jose Fadul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jose Fadul seems to have started several accounts (e.g., User:FadulJoseA) that were blocked due to sockpuppetry. Nesbit (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't search enough. See http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/QAApG.pdf 122.3.211.251 (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also http://www.rukhsanakhan.com/TeacherguideforKing of the Skies.pdf where Fadul's work was cited regarding the history of kites. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Evidence provided by 122.3.211.251 is not enough to establish notability per WP:PROF. Google Scholar doesn't show too much either. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Google Scholar is not that comprehensive yet. Hundreds of significant works of people in the University of the Philippines Libray and De La Salle University, and even the famous Henry Otley Bayer's works, are not yet in seen in Google Scholar. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps 0 publications in Western, Anglo-European hegemony. But in Philippine, Ilocano, Malay, and Chinese circles, his publications are numerous. I don't think challenging the notability of the International Journal of Learning was necessary. The International Journal of Learning is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterion-referenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published. One thing notable about Jose Fadul is that he succeeded in life in spite of his severe stuttering, poverty and poor health. People with such resilience are one in a million. I used Google Scholar and got more than ten hits. 202.57.48.72 (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. <sarcasm>Wow, 10 hits? That many?</sarcasm>. I don't know how you claim to speak on the subject's behalf, but your comments suggest you do not really understand what the academic world considers to be significant. Boilerplate assertions of "...ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published" are just PR talking points of no substance. Mainstream journals are widely indexed and the scientific ones (relevant here, since the strongest claim seems to relate to his work in the psychology of learning) of importance will invariably be listed in at least one of the main indexing services like WoS. The fact that practically nothing shows up in any of the usual places where one would expect find evidence of notable contributions is very compelling indeed. Finally, his background of overcoming various hardships points to strong character, I'm sure, but do not confuse this with notability. They're not the same. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Rejoinder. Agricola44, please prevent this discussion from deteriorating into sarcastic exchanges. Wos has an Anglo-European Christian bias. I hope you won't pit Christians against Muslims, or Euro-Americans vs Asians. By the way, Fadul is a Christian despite his Muslim-sounding name. And I am muslim but I respect Fadul as a human person. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Why on Earth would you bring religion or ethnicity into this discussion? You seem to want to make it into some sort of referendum related to how the subject has overcome all kinds of disadvantages, biases, and prejudices. Nobody is disparaging his character in this regard and you should now recognize and accept this. With all due respect, you also seem entirely ignorant of the consensus-based standards that have developed in this forum regarding academic notability. I'm sorry to say that with what we now know, it is clear that the subject is a long way from satisfying any of the criteria of WP:PROF. Add to that the obvious WP:CANVAS and perhaps other shenanigans at work here (how do so many anon IP eds. know so many intimate personal details about the subject?), and I think the closing admin will not have much trouble in coming to a verdict. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Even Yahoo Search shows JoseFadul's notability. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a nightmare. Many of the references don't support what is claimed; some of the links are to old chess games(!). I did a search for Fadul at his (alleged) university's web site and got zero hits -- it's not even clear to me that he is in fact employed there. There's no citation record to speak of. For news results, once you get rid of the PM of Guinea-Bissau and the guy in Miami, there's almost nothing left. Given lack of obvious notability and the intensity with which this thing is being pushed by someone (Fadul?), I think we are much better off without it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve the article as suggested by 119.111.86.73. Fadul should be noted for his butterfly collection. I've never seen such numerous butterflies preserved in resin that Fadul once displayed in an academic gathering. I think he can also be considered as one of the few surviving Filipino kite artisans. I bought some of his one-of-a-kind miniature kites (that actually fly) which may be considered original works of art. I wonder why the article didn't mention that except for some books he wrote on butterflies and kites. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 03:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is a very relative thing. In the United States or Germany, an author of ten or twenty books is ordinary, while in a Third World country like the Philippines or Ghana, an author of a couple of books is already notable. Jose Fadul may be shit to the Americans but an academic to his people. :) "In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king!" 119.111.86.74 (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bit insulting. Do you believe the majority of the people in these countries are illiterate? They read books too, have public schools, and even some universities which teach the same classes we have over here. He is notable because of his accomplishments, and media coverage, regardless of what nation he comes from. Dream Focus 14:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm very glad everyone where he works thinks he's wonderful - but you're really missing the point about notability. Which is whether people who haven't worked with him or been taught by him or otherwise know him personally would expect to see him included in an encyclopaedia, on the basis of what has been written about him in independent reliable sources. -Hunting dog (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-Comment - I've checked the few but significant independent sources including http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/QAApG.pdf and http://www.viloria.com/secondthoughts/archives/00000217.html. I have also attended some awarding ceremonies in Manila Science High School, University of the Philippines, and De La Salle University where Fadul was one of the awardees. My son told me that he also saw Fadul being one of the honorees in an awarding ceremony in Hiroshima, Japan. I admit that the article should be improved, but the beginning lines are accurate--Jose Fadul is a multi-awarded Filipino, notable enough for at least one of his books, according to the very respectable Prof. Viloria. A Strong Keep. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think Jose Fadul is notable because, among other reasons, he is tenured and ranked Full Professor at De La Salle University-College of Saint Benilde; he is one of the only six Full Professors in this school. The rest of the faculty members numbering more than three hundred have ranks ranging from Lecturer, Assistant Professor, and Associate Professor. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list of De La Salle faculty in Counseling and Educational Psychology does not show a Jose Fadul. He also does not appear on this list of all De La Salle faculty alphabetized under F. In any case, being a tenured, full professor is not sufficient to establish notability in Wikipedia.Nesbit (talk)
Comment The lists you presented are lists of faculty for the De La Salle University-Manila, otherwise known as DLSU-Main. The College of Saint Benilde, an autonomous unit within the La Salle system, would have a faculty list separate from that of the list of the main university, hence why the subject does not appear on that list since he is not a professor of DLSU. --Sky Harbor (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then I repeat that I was unsuccessful in trying to find him on the web site of the College of Saint Benilde. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fadul was featured in Best of Benilde 2003: Special edition Perspective. Marketing Communications Office. 2003. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Full professsors at places considered to be major universities can often be shown to be notable, after a bit of digging. Unfortunately we can't confirm that he is a full professor from any reliable sources, and we do not see anything to show that De La Salle-College of Saint Benilde has a research reputation. His non-appearance on their website might be due to the Saint Benilde website providing no list of their faculty. We know that Fadul has published in International Journal of Learning, but the Social Science Citation Index has not chosen to index that journal, which suggest that articles which appear there are not considered part of the mainstream. The current reference list of the article includes work published by Lulu (publisher), which is a self-publisher. If Fadul's work has been cited by other academics in major journals, that would be significant, but using Google Scholar I could not find any such citations to his work. (Google Scholar gave three pages of results, mostly self-citations or work by unrelated people). EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google scholar is not that comprehensive yet, I believe. Some thirty years ago I read Jose Fadul in at least two leading newspapers in the Philippines (Daily Express and Times Journal) news about him winning the 1978 National Science Fair. He was also featured in Banawag Magazine which is in Ilocano, and in the now defunct Who magazine. I remember having them clipped but I misplaced them. Could anyone look into this? 122.3.211.251 (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the article has been much edited by the blocked user Fadulj and the anons active on this page as have the articles Usog and International Journal of Learning. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep He was once a speaker in our school, and he was introduced by our Dean to be a very notable and respectable person, inspiring each of us to do ur best despite the obstacles of poverty and similar hardships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.83.58.52 (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jose_Fadul&oldid=1080012195"