Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innocent Gangaidzo

Innocent Gangaidzo

[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)

Had marked this for notability last week, and hoped it would be improved. A single ref was added, which has a very brief mention of the person. There is not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, so it hinges on whether his position as president of ECSACOP satisfies WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you @Reidgreg for a more fair assessment.

@Randykitty: @Headbomb: This is what I meant by, "I wonder why I often encounter resistance whenever I create articles about clearly notable African entities. It's extraordinary as conventional Wikipedia notability criteria no longer apply. These articles are nominated for deletion or deemed not to be suitable as stand-alone articles."

Gangaidzo meets at least four different notability criteria: (1) president of ECSACOP (2) editor-in-chief of an established academic journal, which has been in operation for nearly 70 years (3) former president of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe (4) impact by number of citations. Any one of these alone would be sufficient for Wikipedia notability. I will provide an additional example: Suzanne Crowe is president of the Medical Council of Ireland which makes her rightly notable. In addition to Godfrey Muguti, former president of COSECSA, the next page I was going to create was Medical and Dental Practitioners Council of Zimbabwe, which was established over 100 years ago - in 1905. Such organizations are notable e.g. Uganda Medical and Dental Practitioners Council. Even if one uses independent sources from reputable organizations, it is still not enough. It is thus clear to me that content related to Africa is not particularly welcome on Wikipedia as it's notability is immediately questioned despite easily meeting the criteria. Various tags are then applied to the article(s).

I should not be surprised, after all there is systemic bias on Wikipedia.

BW and good luck.

@Doc James: @I JethroBT: @Bobbyshabangu: @Islahaddow: @DaSupremo:

Ear-phone (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Zimbabwe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A researcher with a substantial number of published articles with well over 100 citations each.Jeppiz (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Scopus gives 1451 citations to his work, but that's spread over some 56 articles credited to him. ECSACOP is quite new (founded in 2015, presumably only has five classes from its four-year program) not sure if it's established with a large enough fellowship to count as 'major'. I'd hoped/presumed there would be more substantive RSS biographical information on the subject but have failed to find anything. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a high-citation field so I don't want to rely too heavily on WP:PROF#C1 but the #C8 case as editor-in-chief of the Central African Journal of Medicine, head of multiple notable organizations, and the case for systemic bias all convince me that there's enough here. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- David Eppstein, I almost always agree with you. In this case, regarding CAJM, I would disagree. It is a very minor journal that is hardly ever cited; its IF is around 0.1 (and not included in JCR). I mean no disrespect to the journal, but #C8 (as I understand it) does not cover being EIC of any journal. Jeppiz (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For CAJM discussion, please see Talk:Central_African_Journal_of_Medicine. Briefly; over 4000 articles published over several decades. It was at least a quartile two journal at some point. Ear-phone (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The CAJM is emphatically not a "major well-established" journal. As for the suggestion that there's somehow an anti-African bias here, I don't see that. To me, such a bias would be that sourcing judged sufficient for a non-African subject would not be judged sufficient for an African subject. As far as I can see, the same criteria that would be used for non-African subjects ae applied here. Unfortunately, it's a fact of live that fewer sources exist for subjects from some parts of the world. The solution to that it getting more sources, not lowering our criteria for some subjects. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]