Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Fadul

Jose Fadul

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

The subject of the article does not appear to meet notability criteria, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I have been unable to locate independent published sources that would establish notability. Nesbit (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:57, 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%20of%20the%20Skies.pdf where Fadul's work was cited regarding the history of kites. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough there to meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics) - The attempt to make an impressive list of references at the end of the article consists of things like evidence that the institution referred to exists [1] and don't actually even mention Fadul. Or just use as references Mr Fadul's own forum posts [2]. Hunting dog (talk) 08:03, 3 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]

Delete. Add to this that there are 0 publications in WoS. The search "Author=(fadul j*)" does turn up 5 hits, but they are evidently all for a scientist who worked briefly at the University of Uppsala hosp. in Sweden. His journal publications are mostly in something called the International Journal of Learning, which does not appear to be widely indexed. For what it's worth, that journal's page seems to have text bordering on WP:COPYVIO (compare the WP text to the first paragraph at the journal's "about" page and a user called Fadulj has contributed frequently to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agricola44 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 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]
Keep. Even Yahoo Search shows JoseFadul's notability. 122.3.211.251 (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Could you kindly elaborate on the actual results? Thanks. Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Answer: I don't exactly know how to elaborate. But I think http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jose+fadul&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701 is self-explanatory. 119.111.86.75 (talk) 02:39, 5 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. I know for a fact that Jose Fadul is an alumnus of the University of the Philippines and worked as teacher trainer for about ten years in the same school before moving to his present teaching position at La Salle-Benilde. I see no point in attacking Dr. Fadul for something he has no control over. 119.111.86.73 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]