Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. In this surprisingly long discussion about the notability of this academic, we end up with something like 16 opinions to keep, 12 to delete and no consensus. Given the many and strongly different views about which standards to apply and how to apply them, which is mostly a matter of editorial judgment, this is not something I can resolve by determining the strength of the arguments advanced.  Sandstein  17:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanwal Ameen

[edit]
Kanwal Ameen (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)

Likely fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACADEMICS. Being head of a university department does not satisfy NACADEMICS; nor does being the editor-in-chief of Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries which certainly is not a "major, well-established academic journal". The only possible claim to notability could result from receiving the "Best Teacher" award from a Pakistani government body responsible for higher education in 2010, but I am unsure that alone satisfies WP:ANYBIO - can we call this award a "significant award or honour"? In view of all those doubts, I am submitting this article to a deletion discussion. — kashmiri TALK 20:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Appears to meet GNG for her field and we have to note that she is in Pakistan, so source material may be a little more sparse. Taking in total the published works, plus the university department head, plus the editor position , plus the awards, this collectively adds up to adequate indicia of notability. I don't like how the article is written, it's too promotional in tone, but that's just a cleanup issue, not a notability one. Montanabw(talk) 03:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had a look at the "best teacher award" and tried to find out the criteria for it. The website is really buggy though. I tried to find other sources. This shows that in 2013, 153 teachers were nominated and 63 were ultimately awarded. It seems universities can nominate teachers and then the body decides. I'm not sure what is the weight given to research while giving this award though. The other prize by the Pakistan Library Association may not be notable. It seems she is a member of the very society awarding the prize and has been involved in it for a long time. Other than that, I'm not familiar with the h-index, so it is a bit hard to evaluate this as it doesn't pass GNG either.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. GS h-index for this person [1] is 12, which is probably below par for this field. Notability will have to be found other than in WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete To say that the article strains for crumbs would be to put it charitably. As for "we have to note that she is in Pakistan, so source material may be a little more sparse", see WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED. EEng 11:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Once again, systemic bias is rearing its ugly head. We are using first world standards for articles on notable Third World individuals, who have less access to academic journals than do Americans, less access to a sophisticated University publicity machine than do similarly-situated Americans, and, particularly for women instructors (in general, worldwide) who have to work harder than do men to establish themselves, a very heavy workload that precludes time to toot their own horn. Also, it is really not easy for an individual to be both a notable teacher and a prolific publisher of papers; often, in fact, there are many instances of top-notch, award-winning instructors in the good old USA getting criticized by university bureaucracies for "insufficient publication". There are neutral, third-party sources here, and notability is adequately established. This is a nationally-recognized individual, I see nothing in NPROF that requires international notability. As for professional awards, generally they are given to people who are members of that profession, lawyers honor lawyers, doctors honor doctors, etc. The logic fails here. This individual is a leader in her field, is nationally recognized and easily meets GNG. Montanabw(talk) 00:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to the bit in all that she re you explain how PROF or ANYBIO is satisfied (and these, BTW, are not first- or third-world standards, but WP standards). EEng 05:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure: Over 100 publications, two books, a department head, multiple awards, an instructor, all significant in Pakistan, as far as I can see, and no one has yet demonstrated otherwise. Even if you nitpick one as not notable in solo, combined they equal GNG for our purposes. Also WP:PROF: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." In Pakistan-- so national impact; "2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." In Pakistan. "4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions; Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education."
"5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." (this appears to be akin to a named chair), and so on. My point about the Third World is that what is prestigious in Pakistan may not be something anyone has heard of in the US, so it's important to not try and prove a negative by an argument that this individual didn't publish something in the USA. Again, from WP:PROF: "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed." And for the love of pete, AfD just kept an article on a stupid pornstar that was in a few movies. We have got to get our priorities straight here! Montanabw(talk) 06:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1. Which source shows significant impact in field (broadly construed)?
2. What's the highly prestigious award? I hope you don't mean the "57 best teachers in Pakistan for 2010" award, since if that's the case we'll soon have 57x250=15000 articles on notable recipients of national "best teacher" worldwide. Oh, wait, that's only 2010... Since then there will have been 90000 more such prestigious awards given out.
4. What source shows the significant impact on higher education, affecting multiple institutions?
5. Sorry, but what's her position akin to a named chair? I hope you don't mean department chairman.
BTW her personal page says 70 papers (not 100) and that includes conference proceedings. Any evidence of being highly cited? Also, you seem to be interpreting the "broadly construed" bit backward -- the more broadly construed the field is, the harder it is to have significant impact.
EEng 13:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No answer, I notice. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As for the porn star, unfortunately, yes, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons stated by others, subject is sufficiently notable. Reliable sources establish that she has contributed significantly to her field. Knope7 (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but which sources are those? Because, other than her personal webpage and publications, her department's page verifying she's chairman, links to the journals showing she's on the editorial boards, and her own message as "founding member and patron" of the Punjab University Library and Information Science Alumni Association (PULISAA), the only sources in the entire article are [2] ("57 best teachers off 2010") and "Asian library Leader's Award for Professional Excellence - 2013 from Satija Research Foundation for Library and Information Science (SRFLIS), Delhi, India" [3] -- and one of those is dead. EEng 18:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Pinging David Eppstein, who's got a lot of PROFessional experience. EEng 18:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Silence. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not monitoring this page so I did not respond earlier. Nothing should be read into whether nor not a choose to continue participating in a discussion, so please do not make any further insinuations about my participation or lack thereof. [4] I'm comfortable keeping this article. Knope7 (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The dead link moved to [5], also referenced [6]. You will also note that it is an award to a Pakistani academic from an Indian organization. Given how Pakistan and India feel about each other, I suspect that's not common. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, perhaps you can answer my questions (above) about sources which he or she hasn't. EEng 21:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you can't. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closing admin: The "keep" votes above are a mixture of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ASSERTN and should not be mis-construed for proper deletion discussion. Additionally, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is now being called "systemic bias". Hey, this is ENGLISH Wikipedia and any sources should confirm notability in the English-speaking world. If "systemic bias" makes here only Urdu sources available, Ms Kanwal Ameen is welcome to have a well-sourced bio on Urdu Wikipedia. — kashmiri TALK 00:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources do not need to be in English. But I agree that we can only decide on the basis of actual sources, not on the vague hope that maybe somewhere out there are sources we don't yet know about. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete per NACADEMIC#6 (The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.) See below NACADEMIC#5 is more appropriate. She is the chair of The Department of Information Management at University of the Punjab which is, per our article, "the oldest and largest public University in Pakistan".

    The article should be trimmed to reflect only what we have sources for but she passes the "presumed notability" of NACADEMIC. Per my comment below [7] existing sources are not sufficient to pass GNG and I have become convinced she meets no relavent SNGs JbhTalk 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highest level post is taken to be President or Vice-Chancellor. Chair of a department is insufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
I read #6 as referring to notability which would be equivalent to an endowed chair at a major institution. The academic achievement is pretty much the same regardless of who pays their salary. I suppose NPROF#5 (The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).) (emp. mine) would be more appropriate. JbhTalk 01:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: Size of the university is irrelevant because notability is not inherited, whilst head of department, an administrative position, is not the same as endowed chair, not even remotely similar: being a department head is not a measure of academic achievement. — kashmiri TALK 15:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Size of the University is relevant because the guideline requires "major institution". As to the claim this is admin only position, I believe you are wrong. If you look at the departments page [8] you will notice that she is the only full Professor listed and is the senior academic in the department. That said, per List of academic ranks#Pakistan there are two levels above a full professor, Meritorius/Distinguished National Professor and Professor Emeritus. From what I can find about Distinguished National Professors it is a PR position more that an academic position. Per the linked document they are "appointed on a two year contract" so I would consider a Pakistani DNP to fall under NACADEMIC#2 rather than what we define as a distinguished professor in the SNG, which is a permanent appointment. JbhTalk 18:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jbhunley If you see this resume, it very clearly lists "Chairperson" under administrative jobs. It is an administrative position of a department. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lemongirl1942, However her own resume [9] does not list it as an admin position and per the department information I linked she is a)the only full professor in the department b)the senior academic in the department c) the chair of the department. I do not see how the way another academic structured their CV has any weight as there is no standard way to write a CV, maybe the person whose CV you linked is more interested in moving up in academic administration and prefers to stress that, there is simply no way to know.

Also, she says in her CV she Chief editor of Pakistan Journal of Information Management & Libraries. I do not know if it is a major enough publication for NPROF#8 ("chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.") to apply but it is likely the primary national journal for her subject area. We would need RS for the claim but the journal itself would suffice. JbhTalk 18:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can not find anything significant on the journal so that looks to be a non-starter. I can not find any indication that The University of the Punjab in particular nor Pakistan universities in general have "endowed chairs" so I keep coming back to the "or equivalent position in countries without endowed chairs" of the SNG. Do you know if the concept of "endowed chairs" even exists within the Pakistani Public University System? JbhTalk 19:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No actual evidence for notability (via WP:PROF or otherwise) has yet been presented. Subject is only half a dozen years out of a post-doc, a stage at which most US academics would be just coming up for tenure and WP:TOOSOON for notability. Why should we expect (without evidence) that notability comes sooner elsewhere? —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until sources can be presented to establish notability. Wikipedia is not a place for people to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If there is less material about this person, that isn't something we can fix. SSTflyer 02:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We cannot compare notability of academician in Pakistan and America. She is among policy makers for academia in her subject throughout Pakistan. Her notability in comparison to notable professors in other disciplines in Pakistan is considerably much better. She is accepted as key personality throughout Pakistan. - Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 07:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources say she's a policy maker, and which says she's a key personality throughout Pakistan? EEng 09:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably none, it would seem. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A bit late but have found her published interview in which Chief editor of magazine recognized her valuable services to the profession and stated that she is regarded in professional circles of librarianship throughout Pakistan. Please see p.7-10[10].Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what kind of magazine this is? It looks to me like some small-circulation newsletter (perhaps a member newsletter from some society)? --Randykitty (talk) 15:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't comment on magazine and its publishing body. Please have a look on their website for more details [11]. About its circulation i will say that it is circulated throughout Pakistan by means of professional collaboration groups such as on Pakistan Library Automation Group [12]. This group has considerable influence in librarians community in Pakistan. You can see this magazine posting on it.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All looks pretty amateurish to me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • May i ask why? Just for my learning if you like to explain shortly. Another source P.3 [13]. Editor of Research journal of Pakistan Library Association (national professional body) recognized her services in paradigm shift of library education in Pakistan. One other independent source that published her interview. [14]. This source is one out of two research journals of librarianship in Pakistan. To check national listing of journal, p.2 sr. no. 22 and 23.[15]. Other research journal is under Ameen's supervision. This journals list is also available on official website of Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. It may help to check authenticity Pakistani sources. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the website doesn't look very professional and the magazine looks like something somebody put together on their desktop computer. I agree that Pakistani sources may be important here, but the links to the journals that you give would be more impressive if they would be independent of Ameen (she's editor of one journal and on the advisory board of the other). --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Magazine and research journal that published Ameen's interview [16] both are independent of Ameen. Please recheck on the official website of that journal on [17]. Let me know if i failed to make it clear. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Profile-type interviews tend to be puff pieces, and incidental introductory comments have zero notability value. EEng 22:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your personal opinion or WP policy based statement? Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a guideline somewhere, not to mention common sense. As pointed out over and over, the idea that this person is notable is laughable. Other than things she herself wrote, there are no sources other than the "57 teachers" award, a photo, and now this interview. It's absurd. She's a run-of-the-mill academic. EEng 00:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Montana above - I also don't like how the article is written and it needs to be pruned, however that is not relevant to the question of notability. This academic appears to be a nationally-recognised expert in her field, which makes her sufficiently notable for inclusion here. MurielMary (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above.. and Ive pruned it and notabilitry says "5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." Unnn that would be Chair Prof Ameen I reckon Victuallers (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have been on the fence trying to find out more info, but it seems there really isn't. Verifiability is key here.
  1. Article fails WP:GNG by a mile
  2. Fails WP:PROF#C1 as h-index is low
  3. Fails WP:PROF#C2 The award that she got is not selective. 53 winners out of 160 nominations is not very selective.
  4. Fails WP:PROF#C3,WP:PROF#C4 No evidence for satisfying it
  5. Fails WP:PROF#C5 The subject has been appointed "Chairperson" of a department. Note, this is not the same as a named "chair professor" or a "distinguished professor". The same university actually has a position called "Distinguished National Professor" which is more selective (For example this faculty got it). The subject doesn't satisfy this.
  6. Fails WP:PROF#C6 Subject has not held the highest post of the institution
  7. Fails WP:PROF#C7, Fails WP:PROF#C8 No evidence for this, the journal doesn't seem to be important
  8. Fails WP:PROF#C9 Doesn't apply --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about Named chair Jbhunley,Victuallers You may wish to check about the "chairperson" position. It seems this is something like a "head of department" (an administrative position), rather than a named chair professor/distinguished professor. I looked at this CV of another academic at the same university. She was a chairperson even before she had a tenure track appointment. Also note the concurrent nature of the appointments : Professor of Botany, Punjab University (Jan 8, 1998-2008), Professor Microbiology and Molecular Genetics on Tenure Track April 2008– May 17, 2011 along with Chairperson, Botany Department, Punjab University (Oct. 26, 2002-Oct. 25, 2005), Chairperson, Microbiology and Molecular Genetics Department, Punjab University (Nov. 08, 2002– May 17, 2011). More importantly, the university also has a separate Distinguish National Professor (HEC) position which is more notable (as can be seen from the CV). Upon examination, our subject doesn't seem to have attained this Distinguished National Prof position and hence doesn't satisfy WP:PROF#C5. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my notes above [18]. She is the senior academic in the department and the only full Professor. In Pakistan the term Distingushed National Professor refers to something completely different from the SNG's distinguished professor and is more of an award per NPROF#2 from my reading of the material. JbhTalk 18:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley: You are confusing academic titles with academic positions (like named chair). No, a "named chair" is not an academic title, you will not find "named chair" among the ministry-approved academic titles. You don't become a named chair by passing exams or writing a thesis. For Wikipedia, notability of an academic does not depend on the titles gained but on being elected to certain prestigious academic posts. And being head of department is not sufficient to comply with NACADEMIC. — kashmiri TALK 19:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the concept of the "endowed chair" or equivalent exists in the Pakistani Public University system I will happily change my !vote to "delete" but I have not been able to find any such endowments so all there is to go on is that she is the senior academic and head of department at a preeminent national university. What if not that, within Pakistani academia, would satisfy "..or equivalent in countries where named chairs are uncommon" within the SNG? JbhTalk 19:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at List of academic ranks#Pakistan and it seems there are 2 ranks above professor; the one immediately above is Meritorious Professor/ Distinguished National Professor. I found more CVs at the same university [19], [20], [21], [22] where academics seem to have been designated as "Meritorious Professor". So there definitely is an academic rank above a full professor and below an emeritus professor. Additionally, it is interesting that this CV [23] as well added Chairman to an administrative position. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:50, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems that Meritorius Professor is a pay grade (BPS-22 vs a Professor BPS-21) which seems to essentially be a time in grade thing with a points system. That said I did find a single endowed chair in Pakistan The Salam Chair in Physics. Endowed chairs seems to be a bit more rare than hen's teeth in Pakistan. I seems there really is no congruence between US/British accademic honors and Pakistani ones, which seems a bit odd considering. It looks like Pakistani academia is more like a civil service than anything else. From what I have been able to find all department heads are the only full Professors in their department and distinction seems to be by various awards rather than by title etc. Since there is no evidence she attained here position in a way any different from any other civil servant I an changing my !vote to delete. JbhTalk 20:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting on CVs, BPS-22, BPS-21, Meritorious professor/Distinguished National Professor, and Emeritus professor. Meritorious professors or Distinguished National Professors switch their job from one university to the other university. They get the similar position in other university but difference in title because of non-inclusion on professors' seniority list. They become junior most in the university but more experienced professor as compared to some junior colleagues. Simply a nomenclature issue. Have a look on above cited CV [24]. He is Meritorious Professor but has considerably little contributions as compared to Ameen. Emeritus professors are those who have retired from their regular service as professor. None of serving professors can be Emeritus professor. Only regular serving professors have BPS-21 or BPS-22. These are mostly on seniority cum fitness basis. Concepts of endowed chair and named chair do not exist in social sciences including Ameen's subject. No source but set convention in universities. It can be verified by looking on few CVs as has been done by someone.Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jbhunley, I think you are considering the SNGs as having to all be met individually rather than "stacking" and considering the overall picture. Here, we have a high-ranking professor, one who has won awards, and last I checked, most public universities (worldwide) promote people as "civil servants" -- a combination of seniority and achievement. If we take the provisions of GNG to imply a presumption of notability, I am not sure your research rebuts that presumption, in fact, I'd say it proves it. Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per the SNG WP:NACADEMICS is very clear that meeting any one of the conditions would suffice. The subject unfortunately doesn't. The stacking doesn't work here. We have routinely deleted articles about professors who did not satisfy any one of these. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Montanabw: Actually I tried to come up with an 'integrative' approach to get her over the 'endowed chair equivalent' since endowed chairs seem to be uncommon in Pakistan (I could find only one.) and the university she teaches at is high prestige. (As an aside I have a very good friend who is the head of a department at a major public university - there are several full tenured professors there besides her which is why I considered a system like in Pakistan where the chair is the only full professor to be more "notable" than at a US university. My friend also turned down an endowed chair at a lesser university so I am already editorially and personally inclined to look at the overall "notability" of an academic position. ) However, when I looked at the way Pakistani Universities promote academics I found it was based on a point system ie to be a Professor you need X points and received 4 points for a successful PhD student, 1-2 points for 'Best Teacher' etc. The same is used for promotion to "Meritorious Professor". The only truly merit based title seems to be "Distinguished Professor" and that looks like an award more in line with a Fullbright.

    Based on the above I came to see her position as not being enough to make her notable, nor in combination with the 'Best Teacher' since it is common enough to be given 'promotion points'. The other position I looked at is her editor in chief position but the journal looks to be very minor. An example of how it might be OK to 'integrate' would be if her position was also inherently the editor-in-chief of the national journal. That would show that it may be a higher prestige position/more notable position because it 'carried the flag' so to speak.

    I would say an 'integrative' assessment would get her about half way to wiki-notable so even one good independent RS article drawing attention to her in some detail would be enough. I would then be comfortable "presuming" other sources per SNG but she still needs something to separate her from the pack before I can see presuming that there is more out there. JbhTalk 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley, a "point system" is used in the USA for academic promotin also, particularly in public universities where they are sensitive to (wait for it...) bias accusations and want to demonstrate the fairness and objectivity of their promotion standards. So that is not a slap. (in fact, I fail to see what that matters at all) I can tell you two things about such a system: 1) Points can be earned by legitimate accomplishments, such as publications and awards, thus, as such this adds to the potential notability of someone. 2) Such a system can be gamed just as much as anything more openly subjective, so one cannot say that it is somehow a pure, automated-and-therefore-meaningless approach. She had some human being do an objective review, it wasn't a promotion assigned by a comptuter. Montanabw(talk) 17:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then in such a case, when there are no "endowed chairs", then notability has to be ascertained using the remaining criteria. Same applies to countries with no universities: we don't try to approximate a university there but just use other criteria. — kashmiri TALK 21:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it is not really applicable any longer to this AfD, NPROF specificly speaks of "equivalent positions in countries where endowed chairs are uncommon" so, yes, we do indeed approximate. We are, in fact, enjoined to approximate by the very wording of the SNG. JbhTalk 21:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The WP:PROF uses an international standard, we do adjust somewhat for relatively unpuliciszed d fields and countries with fewer reliable sources of information. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my rationale later in the page on July 18 for changing this to a keep.
This is beginning to take on aspects of the absurd. There are two sources in the article that aren't written by, or under the control of, the subject herself: [25] and [26]. One is a dead link, and the other is a photograph of the subject receiving the one-of-57-best-teachers award. How can this possibly be a keep? EEng 04:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our inclusion criteria for academics are weak enough as it is, I don't see any need to lower the bar even more for persons from some countries. I am disappointed by the vast majority of the "keep" !votes above. Some don't know what a "named chair" is. Most don't cite which sources show that this person is a "policy maker" or otherwise wields significant influence. Even in countries less developed than Europe or the US, newspapers and such do exist and a "policy maker" would be suspected to hit the news from time to time (and Urdu sources are welcome, Google Translate has become good enough to at least give a rough idea what a text in a language that you cannot read is about). But the sources don't seem to be there. Armeen's Google Scholar profile (here) indicates a fair number of publications (but far removed from the 100 claimed in the infobox) and a decent citation record, but not close to what we usually take to indicate notability. Quite decent for somebody just 11 years after their PhD, but nothing more than that. Given that she's mid-career at best, this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but I dropped my crystal ball yesterday, so I can't be certain that she'll become notable in the future. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep An award winning teacher and professor. Nothing gained by destroying the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Research fellowships are a dime a dozen. So, just for my edification, could you perhaps tell me which one of her awards do you think makes her cross the bar of notability? And which source confirms that she actually got that award/those awards? At this point, the only reference in that section is a photo on a website that looks like it has been concocted by the OMICS Group. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even the nominator seems to admit the 2010 best teacher award from the HECoP confers some noteability. Anyway, it's not just about her awards, I also find the analyses of Montanabw more convincing than the delete arguments. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That award has two references, one giving a "page not found" message. The other one is Ameen's faculty page and only says "HEC Best teacher Award 2010". We don't know what this award means, we have no information on how many of these awards are given each year, basically, we know nothing. And with all due respect, I don't follow Montanabw's "analyses" at all. Basically they're just an argument to lower our standards and just assume that this person's position is equivalent to that of a named chair, without us having any evidence for that position. --Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: both the article and her online CV state that she's a "Professor (Tenure Track)". Unless "tenure track" in Pakistan means something else than in the rest of the world, that means she's not even tenured yet! --Randykitty (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do have information on how many are given: 75/yr in Pakistan alone. See [27]. EEng 19:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At that number, that most certainly is not the kind of award intended in PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 19:40, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started a cleanup of the article, encountering some interesting tidbits. The book she edited was published by the local branch of a national society. Another book that she wrote was published by the notorious VDM Publishing (have a look at that article to see what that means). I've also cut some trivial stuff, like what societies she's a member off. I wouldn't even mention stuff like that in a CV! --Randykitty (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable professor. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources addressing the subject in detail as required by WP:GNG. Sources cited are either clearly primary, mere listings on editorial boards and announcements of minor awards. Googling turned up nothing useful. As others have pointed out, being department chair is an administrative job, not at all the same as a holding a named chair. And with only 451 citations, her best article only getting 34 citations, there's simply no way I would regard her as qualifying for presumptive notability under WP:SCHOLAR. I came here from the discussion of systematic bias on the WP:N talk page but the problem here is the lack of any credible evidence the subject is notable, not any likely "systemic bias". Msnicki (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After long examination notability is not supported by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • [OT] We have a very similar case with NPROF at WP:Articles for deletion/Michael J. Yaremchuk (2nd nomination) if any of the distinguished Commenters here fancied to take a look. — kashmiri TALK 23:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at that AfD and have suggested that the nominator deserves a WP:Trout for nominating it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - She's a multiple award-winning professor with lots of publications. And we clearly have not plumbed the depths of articles about her. For one thing, her son is a major actor (!), Ali Zafar; see [28], [29], etc. Yes, yes, notabiliy isn't inherited, and having a famous son doesn't make her notable directly, but it does clearly show that we haven't done a very good job of researching the sources about her, because of systemic bias. --GRuban (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED -- if you can't show us any of these sources, what you're saying is worthless. And her publications are lightly cited, to put it charitably. EEng 23:22, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I don't think that sources discussing her son, who's an actor, demonstrate in any way that we haven't "plumbed the depths of articles about her". I think it shows that the rest of us realize that articles about her son are not about her and do not contribute to her notability. Msnicki (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not sufficient for notability, surely you'll agree it deserves mention in the article? It's not. So clearly it hasn't been even looked at. Her article doesn't include that she was a professor at the University of Tsukuba, Japan [30]... does the common Pakistani professor teach in Japan and in the US? Here is a blog saying she is the first Library professor to receive the Best Professor award. Yes, you disagree, but I think it's a clear keep as a notable professor. The sources are out there, they're just in Pakistani books, newspapers, journals, and television programs, which aren't as well represented on the English language web. "editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search." That's not WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED which you'll notice is a red link. That's WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is an actual link to a section of Wikipedia:Notability. All these things strongly indicate the possibility, even likelihood, of existing sources. Which is the rule we are supposed to follow. Unlike WP:NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED; which doesn't actually exist, much as you clearly wish did. --GRuban (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to NOTABILITYISNOTCONJECTURED, as you will now see someone has turned it into a blue link. That was very helpful of whoever did that, but not really necessary. I often reference WP:SOMETHING pointers that I know are red, as a shorthand way of invoking concepts no one needs explained to them, such as WP:FUZZYTHINKINGEDITORSOFTENMAKEVACUOUSARGUMENTSATAFD. No doubt you get my point. BTW, you apparently didn't actually read NPOSSIBLE, which merely says that notability may be based on sources not yet in the article‍—‌but they still have to exist, and you still have to actually point to them, which you cannot do, much as you clearly wish you could. EEng 01:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, absolutely NONE of that contributes to a keep of any sort, much less a "clear keep". To keep an article, you must demonstrate notability, meaning that others not connected with the subject actually took note of the subject and wrote about her in reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control, NOT that you think she's important because she got a best professor award on her campus or taught in Japan or wherever. Those sources do not appear to exist and what you've offered instead is completely irrelevant. Msnicki (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I love GRuban's reasoning, this will save us so much time! We can now speadily close all Pakistan-related AfDs on the assumption that sources haven't been found because of systemic bias. Stop those time-wasting AfDs! While we're at it, perhaps we can do away with that pesky requirement that awards need to be something special and verifiable, too. Saves us even more time! --Randykitty (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, folks, a day later I realize my last post was too attacky; you don't deserve that, we're each just trying to make the encyclopedia better. May I take that back and try again, without any attack on your argument directly?
  • WP:NPOSSIBLE tells us: "editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."
So that's what I did. I looked for sources. I didn't find great sources, enough that they would suffice to meet our standards themselves - but I did find lots of them, lots and lots that aren't in the article. And they're in English - I don't speak either Urdu or Hindi. And then I considered the possibility of existent sources that couldn't be found by a search. My reasoning was:
  • She is an academic from a third world country, however she teaches in multiple first world countries that are very far away. Someone above writes that having a visiting fellowship is no big deal, but that's from one first world position to another. From Pakistan to Japan and from Pakistan to the US isn't at all the same thing as from Montreal to Chicago.
  • She has won multiple awards from nationally notable organizations.
  • She has 70 publications.
  • She has a very famous son, enough so that we have an impressive article about him, in English, even though he acts in Hindi, and he talks about her in articles, and photos of her with him are published by American based media.
So, given all that, I consider the possibility of existent in-depth sources that would fulfill our requirements for notability, but which exist in Pakistani media, so can't be found by a trivial English language web search quite, quite high. We'll get the sources, but we won't get them during the course of an AFD due to close in a few days. So as long as WP:NPOSSIBLE tells us to "consider the possibility of existent sources ", and not just the ones that we can actually point to during the AFD, it is a clear keep. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You completely misunderstand NPOSSIBLE, which warns against nominating for deletion before searching for additional sources that aren't currently in the article; it does not counsel just imagining that sources might exist. And its last sentence reads: "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." Tick tock, tick tock. EEng 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow for editors to respond to queries, pings will follow shortly. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:23, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But that's the thing: you don't reasonably disagree, you're merely made counterfactual statements which, in an abundance of AFG, we've asked you to back up just in case we've missed something. Obviously we haven't. EEng 01:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to repeat once more--we often do adjust the standard slightly for people outside the West Europe-America culture area. I think this is an appropriate case , but it's a matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I'm willing to repeat: "This is beginning to take on aspects of the absurd. There are two sources in the article that aren't written by, or under the control of, the subject herself: [31] and [32]. One is a dead link, and the other is a photograph of the subject receiving the one-of-57-best-teachers award. How can this possibly be a keep?" -- "adjusting" doesn't extend down to "nothing". EEng 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You probably didn't notice that the statement you're repeating was replied to and the link isn't dead. Multiple other sources not under control of the subject have been given in this discussion.--GRuban (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFirst off, WP:N present a presumption of notability, not the other way around. Here, the AfD filers have not met their burden. This is, to be honest, the usual non-policy-based IDONTLIKEIT arguments that plague AfD. The policy is WP:N, which is astonishingly simple: neutral, third-party sources independent of the subject. We have those. In addition to the multiple independent sources, the university itself is also largely "independent of the subject" as, clearly, the subject doesn't own the university -- they will have their own internal standards for who on their faculty gets print space and who does not. They may not be disinterested, but they also are not under her control. They are her employer, not her employees. The rest of this debate seems primarily to be a question of whether this article meets the NACADEMIC SNG, which is a guideline, not policy. But further, the policy is clear that "stacking" of assorted SNG criteria can meet GNG. Here we have a professor who is a department head, an award-winning instructor, and someone who has published. She is also a groundbreaking person in the field of Library studies generally, a woman from a third world nation that has traditionally placed a lot of barriers to the advancement of women in the professions, and these criteria all add up together to more than meet the GNG of WP:N regardless of whether she precisely fits a single SNG guideline to the satisfaction of the AfD crowd. The presumption of notability has been met. Montanabw(talk) 17:15, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to get into too much detail here, as this is starting to become quite exasperating. Just one thing: on what independent reliable source do you base your assertion that this person is "a groundbreaking person in the field of Library studies generally"?? The photo of her getting an award (alongside a whole crowd of other people, too)? As for the university website being more or less independent of the subject, as was present at soe point in the article, she "convened" the committee that re-designed it... --Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Montanabw:, I think that's a rather broad slam on all of us who've argued for delete. The multiple secondary WP:RS discussing the subject in anything close to the detail contemplated by WP:GNG simply do not appear to exist. The employer is not independent. It's just not. Faculty write their own bio pages (doesn't everyone know this?), making hers, like everyone else's, WP:PRIMARY and completely unhelpful in establishing notability. Being a department chair is also not helpful. Department chair is a rotating appointment to an administrative role assigning instructors to offices and courses, running department meetings and attending meetings with the dean, creating and managing budgets and headcount plans, hearing complaints, etc. It is not an academic role. Because it's purely administrative, it's not that unusual for a relatively junior faculty member (e.g., a lecturer in a department filled with assistant, associate and full professors) to be appointed department chair. It is absolutely positively not the same as an appointment to a named or endowed chair. Also, her citation count [33] at 451 (34 on her best single article) is simply too low. She's writing about technology and software and there's enough global interest in those topics that I'm just not persuaded that's enough to satisfy WP:SCHOLAR, even allowing for the fact she's writing about technology and software in Pakistan. I'm not even convinced her university, University of the Punjab, is all that notable. (Check the sources for that article.) A rotating "best professor on campus" award wouldn't make her notable even if it happened at a clearly notable school. So far as I can tell, she's a non-notable professor at a non-notable school who's gotten a non-notable award. Sorry. That's what the evidence seems to say. I'm still delete. Msnicki (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Msnicki: I fully agree, also as the nominator, with all your arguments except that regarding the university which, by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, is considered automatically notable for Wikipedia purposes if it exists. Of course, on account of WP:NOTINHERITED, this does not make the lady any more notable. — kashmiri TALK 20:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good point on policy, that the university is given presumed notability even in lieu of sources (and should not be AfD'ed. :) Msnicki (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montanabw, the vast majority of universities have profiles of all of their academic staff on their websites. Why would they keep the research and teaching activities of their staff private? As has already been noted, staff typically write their own web profiles. They really aren't independent of the subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are missing the point. The university is one of several indicia and it is irrelevant how the bio got there, it clearly was authorized and whether she wrote it or the PR department wrote it is irrelevant; it's not just random made-up material, it is reliable and fact-checked. WP:GNG supercedes WP:ACADEMIC, so though I think this individual does meet the SNG, we also can look beyond only her university credentials to establish notability and "stack" different categories. There are outside, independent sources, check. The closer sources verify that she has notable accomplishments and no one is claiming that the University is unreliable or that they make stuff up, hence it is reliable. Check. She is clearly a leader in her field and a woman of standing in a nation that is not noted for being particularly open to the general advancement of women (Benazir Bhutto not withstanding). Check. GNG met. Now, let's quit hashing over the same material again and again. Montanabw(talk) 06:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it might not even be fact-checked. From personal experience, university academic profiles aren't subject to checks by the institution and are pretty much left to the person themselves to write (although they would act if someone pointed out falsehoods). Perhaps it's not like that in Pakistan, but I don't regard a biography on a university website as independent because she is part of that university. So, that leaves the "outside, independent sources". Which are those? If I see evidence of significant coverage, then I will change my mind on deletion, because I agree with your comments on WP:GNG (hence why I mentioned it in my rationale for deletion). Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can promise it hasn't been fact-checked. Faculty web pages are like personal websites, merely hosted by the university. Faculty write and edit their pages themselves and it would be pretty much unthinkable for the university to review or question anything a faculty member posted on their webpage unless there was some genuinely grave concern about the content. Msnicki (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked at several reputed institutions. Each time I wrote my own bio for the website. Nobody ever fact checked anything. For the University of Punjab to do otherwise would be very exceptional and I'd like to see proof of that before assuming it. As EEng says below: self-published bio: check. Another note about the department she's heading: there are departments and departments. I know of departments that have sometimes more than 100 professors. About a dozen or two is a more regular size. Now just to amuse yourself, have a look at the size of the department that Ameen heads... --Randykitty (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity-published books. Check. Essentially uncited publications. Check. Self-published "accomplishments". Check. (We never use self-published materials to establish notability.) Delusional smoke and mirrors. Check! EEng 06:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Settle down cowboy. It's maybe not a good idea to make insinuations about delusion in a discussion where you've made demonstrably false statements, as GRuban has diplomatically pointed out. We get that some here don't like this article. Let's try and get away from the personal stuff, and focus on compliance with policy. To exist this article only needs to pass one notability guidelines - it actually passes three, including GNG itself.
As arbitrator DGG has repeatedly said "we often do adjust the standard slightly for people outside the West Europe-America culture area." and with that in mind, Kanwal is a pass for WP:NACADEMIC. Per her awards, she's a pass for WP:ANYBIO#1. While Montanabw's analyses is overall excellent and compelling, I would admit the least strong point is on the university profile being independent of the subject. I'm inclined to accept that Msnicki, Cordless Larry and Randykitty have made the stronger case on that one point. Yet it's of little relevenance, as Kanwal passes WP:GNG per coverage in the many other sources cited above. Just to throw one in I've not noticed being mentioned above: Daily Times. That article is almost entirely about an aspect of the subjects work, is from an independent source, and it would be taking systemic bias to a whole new level to assert Daily Times (Pakistan) is not reliable.
Seen through the lens of policy, the case for keeping this article is clear. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, and no! Sorry, but you are wrong on all' points you raise. DGG's assertion of relaxing our criteria for people outside Western Europe/North America is highly contentious and I seriously doubt that it would be accepted if we would try to add that to any of our notability guidelines. (and DGG will be the first to tell us that the fact that he is an arbitrator is irrelevant here, just as is the fact that several of us (at both sides of the debate) are admins. So: No pass of ACADEMIC. Please show us the in-depth coverage in reliable sources that GNG requires. The one-paragraph article that you present mentions Ameen exactly once, in-passing. So: No pass of GNG. The awards? No independent sources and the only reliable info that we have shows that each year a lot of people get these awards, so: No, pass of ANYBIO. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right the word 'Ameen' appears only once in the source I presented. Yet the subject is refered to five times in total, mostly just by her first name 'Kanwal'. There's no shame in you not knowing that in Islamic countries like Pakistan, especially in the case of females, it's customary to mostly refer to them by their first name. Most western accademics would not know that, unless they specialise in relvent social sciences. However, perhaps you'd agree that as you so blatantly misinterpret sources due to your lack of cultural specific knowledge, you could maybe be a little less emphatic about your interpretation of policy? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I stand corrected. Her first name is indeed used several times in this huge article of about 10 sentences. You really want to argue that this academic is notable because of this coverage of a rather trivial task (redesigning a website)? I really don't see how my "blatantl misinterpretation" of this source changes anything about what I have written about this person not meeting a single notability guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. I also agreed with your point about her university profile not being independent. Glad we're approaching agreement on some points. Can't agree that her leading role in the constructing her university's webiste is trivial. This is 2016 not 1996, a uni's official web site is now a key instrument in the struggle to attract funding and the brightest students and academics. Perhaps you're at an Oxbridge tier Uni where success in that competition is sometimes taken for granted? For most universities, it's a very non trivial concern. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cordless Larry! Step on for improvements. I have short list if it is acceptable for improvements/refinements. She has listed 98 plus publications on her profile page [34]. Her publications are not seventy as has been mentioned on Wikipedia. (Please note that the list included only publications in HEC recognized journals. HEC does not recognize any international social sciences research journal that is not on Web of Science impact factor journals list). She is member advisory board of research journal of Pakistan Library Association; only national professional association.[35]. She has Fulbright Post-Doc, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA (2009-2010), and Fulbright Pre-Doc, University of Texas, Austin, USA (2000-2001) awards [36]. Research fellowship as professor in University of Tsukuba, Japan (2013). Can these be written under heading honours and awards? Her role as policy maker in her discipline, community services on academic and administrative committees of the universities, professional affiliations to ALA, SLA, ASIS&T of USA, CILIP of UK have been recognized by international publishers in note on contributors of published books; [37] and [38]. She has other notable professional affiliations to International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)’s Special Interest Group on LIS Education in Developing Countries as secretary [39], Patron of Punjab University Library and Information Science Alumni Association (PULISAA), Life member of Pakistan Library Association [40]. If it can be considered as independent of subject. She is member of many administrative and academic committees in her university and in few other universities. Let me know if press clippings work as independent to the subject. There are many clippings on her subject such as; [41] and [42].Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those "clippings" only mentions that she attended a meeting, Rahmatgee. What I'm talking about is more substantial coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kashmiri , please don't encourage them! Every time an article on a noteable accademic is destroyed, our credibility and utility as an encyclopedia suffers. The fact so many non west`ern accademics are being targetted only makes it more embarrasing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Please stay on topic people. Think of the poor admin who'll have to wade through all the things we have posted above and don't add more clutter than necessary. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every time an article on a non-noteable accademic is kept, our credibility as an encyclopedia suffers.What might increase is our usefulness as a Directory--if one thinks WP ought to be a directory. . In this particular instance, notability is borderline and a rational argument could be constructed one way or another, so our credibility & usefulness as an encyclopedia is not in question at all, no matter what gets decided here. Lets keep thisin proportion.
I suggest to those arguing for keep, that it does not help and positively hurts the case for keeping when inapplicable or rejected arguments get used. We normally do not include the accomplishments of people's children in the articles about them, except for famous people-- and entertainers and politicians, where pretty much anything goes. A best teacher award is almost never an indication of notability, though a true first place national award of this sort might possibly be. Having taught for a year in another university is irrelevant to notability, tho it is a valid part of the article-having held guest professor (not postdoc) positions in several very famous universities does contribute to notability.
More generally,we need to decide whether we want to change the WP:PROF standard to be based on notability in a particular country by that country's academic standards. A good argument can be made in either direction, but at present there is consensus that the standard for WP:PROF is international. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back, DGG. Someone was making somewhat puzzling comments over your signature earlier in this discussion. EEng 02:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You know, Feyd and Ramatgee make good points about sourcing and found some solid material; taken in total, it expands notability here. DGG, no one is about "relaxing" standards, including me (there was a malformed RfC that made that suggestion, but that is merely evidence of how poorly understood the issue is). The goal is not to apply a double standard or an artificially impose "glass ceiling." It is about a fair standard and taking a thorough look before an AfD. I just saw this article, directly addressing the question of articles about women academics in South Asia -- in that case, India. I think it is worth a read here, as it outlines the precise issues I've been raising. Montanabw(talk) 03:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fulbright has 325,000+ alumni; I doubt they are all automatically notable. HEC Best Teacher Award was given to 57 out of like 160 nominations - that's hardly selective. Neither is the NORAD grant. A chair person is a head of department - not automatically notable. An article about an academic in a Western country wouldn't be kept simply with these credentials. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Atsme: Notable because her department received a grant? Are you kidding? — kashmiri TALK 09:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - she certainly passes the "average professional baseball player" criteria. The arguments above that support delete have failed in other AfDs per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)/Precedents. There is also a very simple set of criteria in WP:PROF that appears to have been overlooked so I'll reiterate those that easily jump out at us beginning with: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable....The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon). In that regard, it is necessary to look at the relevant status of University of the Punjab which is located in Lahore, Pakistan because it is the oldest and largest public university in that country. We also have to consider how that it is uncommon for women to hold chairs in that part of the world, which is easily determined by the status of women in that country and the way they are treated, [43], all of which should be relevant when determining Ameen's level of notable achievement per WP:PROF. The argument that "HEC Best Teacher was given to 57 out of like 160 nominations" is an argument for keeping because as a woman, she overcame some incredible obstacles and to say few nominations are not notable demonstrates a lack of knowledge in the nomination process. See the following images to get an idea of the male to female ratio [44]. The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias and the serious issues WP faces, especially in determining notability of scholars such as Ameen in countries where women are oppressed and highly discriminated against. But aside from the latter, she still passes the criteria of WP:PROF and not just by passing one of the criteria but because she has passed at least 3 including being a women professor, holds a distinguished chair at a notable university, is an international Fulbright scholar who has received the award pre-doc and post-doc in Pakistan as well as receiving for post- doctoral visiting scholar and researcher at the University of Missouri,Columbia, USA, which easily meets the criteria for highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The aforementioned doesn't even count the numerous times she has been published in academic journals. This is actually a snow-keep.Atsme📞📧 13:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • She doesn't appear to hold a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment - she's "just" a regular professor. That's impressive, but it doesn't make her notable according to Wikipedia's criteria. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See! See! "For Pete's sake!" -- how obvious are your biases borne of male-dominated Eurocentric chauvinism! Why not "For Petrina's sake" or "Penelope's sake"? Huh? Huh? EEng 18:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least whoever's sake was being advocated wasn't based in religion, for Christ's sake. Ooops. Atsme📞📧 18:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Strange. I actually was thinking that, having seen all comments pro and con, this is a very clear delete. Your comments show a deep misunderstanding of the criteria in WP:PROF. And, please, just !vote only once, don't make things even more confusing than they already are. In addition, I must say that I deeply resent your aspersion that the "delete" !votes are expressions of gender bias. --Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to hat the disruptive PAs against me to avoid further attempts to stray from content but my edit was reverted by Msnicki and I'm not about to get into an edit war with either of you. See my comments on your respective TPs. I consider the comment above that you "deeply resent" what you alleged is an aspersion cast by me as overly emotional and violative of AGF. To make matters worse, you actually cast an aspersion against me by falsely stating that I said, "delete !votes are expressions of gender bias" which I did not say. My actual statement is quite clear - The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias - which is completely different from the allegation made by Randykitty who also reverted my removal of a wrongful tag in the article that was added to a legitimate published CV [45] that was used as a cited source in the article. I removed that tag because CVs are acceptable sources and are used in GAs throughout WP, possibly even FAs, but I don't have the time to research the FAs. For quick reference, see Elizabeth Warren, a GA wherein her CV is cited twice. I find some of the behavior in this AfD disruptive and rather disconcerting. For one thing, some of the claims being made against this BLP are unsupported including the most recent, "She's not even tenured", because the website of the University of the Punjab clearly states that she is a professor at University of the Punjab, Chairperson Department of Information Management, Faculty Member in her published CV which tells me she is indeed tenured. If that isn't true, then please provide supporting evidence or risk being in violation of making a contentious statement without citing a RS per WP:BLP, specifically under the section, "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", which applies anywhere on WP. Atsme📞📧 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue with the CV is that it's on Academia.edu (a social network), and so is user-generated content, Atsme (although CVs by their nature aren't independent of the subject, so perhaps it is irrelevant where it is hosted). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are other RS such as [46], scroll down to #38. Atsme📞📧 15:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what does that prove? I've repeatedly pointed out that we need independent sources to demonstrate notability, but they don't seem to be forthcoming. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of RS out there for this academic. Start with this one [47], and this one [48], and [49] and others if you'll just take the time to Google and try to expand the article rather than wasting valuable time with this AfD. This is a snow-keep if there ever was one, even if it was just based on her published works. Atsme📞📧 16:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, can I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability? Demonstrating notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. Those three are an interview with her (so not independent), and two articles by, not about her. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Her CV to which you've linked indicates she's been "tenure track" since January 2013. Tenure track means she's being considered for tenure, not that she has it. If she's only been tenure track since 2013, it's pretty obvious her "professor" title before and since can't possibly be equivalent to a full professorship (which always includes tenure) as it's normally understood at any major institution.
But also, I question whether she's compiled the publication record that would get her tenure (which normally comes at the associate professor level) at most major institutions. A rough rule of thumb is 1000 citations for tenure, c.f, [50], and she's not even halfway there.[51] Her best paper only got 34 citations, which is nothing. Yes, she's in Pakistan, but her papers are about open source software, digital literacy and so on, for which there's global interest. I guess I would put it this way: She might get tenure some places, but my guess is she wouldn't at a top school. Either way, she doesn't appear to have it now.
I also had to laugh at an argument made earlier on this page (not by you) that she's notable because she chaired a committee to redesign their website. Setting aside that designing a website is an unremarkable accomplishment, that's called service. All faculty have service requirements in addition to their teaching and/or research responsibilities, meaning they're expected to serve on committees to review curriculum, choose textbooks, review applications for admission, search for new faculty, help design the new new building, develop guidelines for promotion and tenure, blah, blah, blah. A department chairmanship is a service appointment and so is serving on a committee to develop a better website. Every faculty member anywhere has a service requirement. We all do this. It does not make anyone notable. Msnicki (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CVs can be used to source neutral information. We do not use them to source awards, accomplishments, etc. The obviosu reason for this is that academics (and politicians, and entertainers, etc, etc) have been known to falsify their CVs (just to avoid misunderstanding, I am talking about CVs in general, not about Ameen's). So the source added by Atsme earlier (to academia.edu) is not a reliable source (social media) nor is it independent of the subject. (I guess many of us here who are academics have uploaded their CV there). As for the tenure thing, I do know full professors that are on the tenure track, or not even that (research professors at large research universities, for example). So while not having tenure doesn't prove lack of notability (that is something nobody can prove: you cannot prove a negative, that's why the burden of proof in these discussions lies with the people arguing for a "keep"), it does mean that the fact that her CV states that she's a full professor does not make her notable. If a professor really is judged distinguished by their university, they get tenure. AS for the rest, you wrote "The way Ameen is being judged by the deletists is an ongoing issue concerning gender bias". I cannot but interpret that as claiming that the "deletists" are guilty of gender bias. I stated that I resent that statement (and I still do), but did not make any remark about you, so this really is not a personal attack. As a final note, I think you have to unbold the "keep" and "snow keep" in your comment above, as this gives the strong impression that you are !voting multiple times. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than pick apart a single source I cited and have long since replaced with a higher quality secondary source, the following academic publications meet the requirements for both WP:RS and WP:V, and have been editorially reviewed. They all substantiate her tenure without violating WP:OR:
  • "About the Authors" which gives a short bio on each author and identifies Ameen as Professor and Chairperson, and it is in the book, LIS Education in Developing Countries: The Road Ahead edited by Ismail Abdullahi, C. R. Karisddappa, A. Y. Asundi, clearly a RS source that has been edited and published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
  • "About the contributors" pg 338 in the book Library and Information Science Research in Asia-Oceania: Theory and Practice available here, published by IGI Global.
  • Google Scholar further verifies she's a Professor.
How many more sources is it going to take to verify that she is tenured and the director of a department? I cannot believe the time sink. As for unbolding, I don't feel it is any more necessary to unbold my comments than it is for you to strike your PAs against me. My position has not changed in that regard, and I strongly believe that it will be far more beneficial to the project if you will please AGF. I tried to hat what I consider to be contentious remarks to avoid unnecessary argument, but here we are, and the contentious material remains. The real question I see now is why are editors trying so hard to prove this BLP is not a notable professor, especially when her notability is rather obvious if editors will simply invest a bit of time researching it rather than wasting time trying to prove she isn't? Instead, we should be collaborating to find whatever it is the article requires for improvement and expansion. Atsme📞📧 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors of chapters in edited books write their biographies for the notes on contributors section themselves, Atsme. Her Google Scholar profile isn't independent of her either. I have one too, and I can describe myself however I want on it. However, I don't doubt that what she has written in those places is correct. I believe that she is head of her department and is a professor. That does not make her notable. The relevant criteria at WP:NACADEMIC states "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)". Being head of department is not the same as holding a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment. A named chair is something like a Regius Professorship or a Canada Research Chair or a James B. Duke Professorship. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for unbolding "snow keep", Atsme. You still have two bold "keep" comments, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not an acceptable argument to dismiss the fact that she is a distinguished chair as stated in high quality, editorially reviewed academic sources, and again here under the Department of Library and Information Science which again verifies her position as Chairperson, Professor under "Teaching Faculty" published by the University. Furthermore, the books I cited are editorially reviewed. This is getting to be a ridiculous an argument as would be denying notability for the appointments you mentioned. I will reiterate her notability qualifications:
  • She is notable as a named and verifiable chair appointment at the website of the University of the Punjab. WP:PROF states, The person holds or has held a named chair appointment. The appointment is what satisfies "notable".
  • All that is needed to meet the notability requirement for an academic is ONE of the criteria listed in WP:PROF, and she has met at least THREE clearly diffusing the arguments for delete.
Can we please get an admin to close this AfD? PS: I couldn't find a 2nd bold keep. Atsme📞📧 18:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair Atsme, admin Coffee did extend this AfD only a few days ago, specifically pinging voters requesting more discussion. They have certainly got their wish, and this has resulted in a useful and classic example of systemic bias. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: More !votes follow the random break below.

Random break

[edit]

@ Msnicki It's great to hear this AfD has caused you to laugh - it's the best medicine after all. However, you are laughing at a phantom. No one said leading the redesign of a website makes you notable on it's own. There would be no bases for that argument in policy! I merely argued against the side point that such work trivial. Only an academic with no involvement in senior decision making, or perhaps someone at one of the elite institutions where success can sometimes be taken for granted, could fail to appreciate the key role a uni's official web site play's in the battle to attract funding & the best students and scholars. But that's a side point. It's actually a delete voter who articulated the policy based reason why the activity provides notability. They said it would confer notability if "her role in redesigning the website received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources" . (You'd have to go into the history to see this, for some reason the delete voter deleted their comment after pinging me about it.)

In Alanna's AfD, you advised that you'd came to these discussions due to some discussion of systemic bias. I'm here because of you Msnicki. I have my friend NorthAmerica1000 on my watchlist, where I saw your well argued points against DGG. DGG is someone I've greatly admired for almost a decade, mainly due to his unflinching loyally towards the legendary editor ANobody. Your discussion caused me to check his contribs to see what he'd been up to, where I saw with horror that Alanna, a household name in dev circles, was up for deletion. I just voted in this AfD for good measure - but it has turned out to be most instructive.

This AfD has provided a perfect text book example of systemic bias. Systemic bias is partly about factors that favour racist or sexist outcomes, even when the folk driving that are not sexist or racist. Such as if they misinterpret situations to a minorities disadvantage, due to lack of cultural knowledge. In much of Asia, there are different conventions regarding first and last name. In Islamic countries, especially for females, it's often customary to refer to them just by their first name, not by their last name as might be more common in the west. Lacking that knowledge, a delete voter examined this source and came to the conclusion it only mentions her once, as they just searched for her last name. In fact, the source mentions Dr Kanwal throughout, though using her first name per the cultural custom. It's also unquestionably a reliable and independent source, hence it confers notability, as per the policy based reasoning above.

After seeing the compelling arguments and sources recently mentioned by good Atsme , Rahmatgee and Montanabw, Im forced to admit that Atsme has called this right. Per GNG and especially WP:BASIC , this is now a snow keep. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please help me, FeydHuxtable. I have asked several times to see evidence that there are independent sources demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG. Since you have just made that argument, I'm sure you have sources in mind. Could you provide me with some links, so that I can reconsider my opinion of the subject's notability? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time: Daily Times. This source confers noteability per your own words: her role in redesigning the website received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources The source is largely about her role in the design of said website, and Daily Times (Pakistan) is unquestionably a reliable and independent source. Many other policy compliant sources have been provided above. Normally, I'd integrate some of the best sources into the article, which would make it easier for you. But as adding ~5k of words & sourcing to Alanna's article a few days back bore no fruit, Im not inclinded to do so in this case. If you're truly interested, you'll have to sift through the many good sources provided above yourself. Yes some are of minimal use, but some are good. Don't forget the default position here is for the article to remain. It's the delete side that has to convince constructive editors, and form a concensus to delete, a task at which you're so far utterly failing. It's a shame you're not recognising the compelling policy based case to keep. Yet per Atsme's suggesting that this AfD is getting too long, and as I think the keep side has already expended enough of our energy on this, Im unlikely to reply further. Unless you do manage to make a successful case for delete of course, as this is a collaborative dicussion, I would acknowledge if you made any useful points, as I did in conceding you were right about her uni profile not being truly independent. Happy editing! FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FeydHuxtable. That's one independent source, but I don't consider one source to constitute significant coverage. If there were three or four national newspaper articles, I would change my mind. I don't see that kind of source, in those kinds of numbers, being identified anywhere in this discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Times is not significant coverage. It simply mentions the subject's 2 administrative positions and quotes her. Significant "secondary" coverage is required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some other links. Not all but few may be convincing. She has been mentioned as chairperson of one of the major academic position; Doctoral Programme Coordination Committee (DPCC). In 2016 [52]. Publishing source is from the largest electronic and print media group in Pakistan. Another top print media group in Pakistan also mentioned her as chairperson DPCC in 2014 [53]. Daily The News mentioned her in promoting books and reading culture [54]. University of the Punjab mentioned Ameen in the annual report 2009-10 of the university with reference to her links to external organizations. This source is independent to Dr Ameen [55]. She was acknowledged in a PhD thesis by an international research scholar in USA [56].Other news may be helpful. [57], [58], and [59]. Simple google search can add more into them. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 06:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, FeydHuxtable, it contributes to notability, it does not confer it. WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources and best case, I count this as only one. And frankly, that is a best case because all it reports, in its 236 words, is that the subject was the chair of a redesign committee and supervised the work done by someone else to make their website more "user-friendly". Oh, and she thanked the other committee members. I appreciate we have a difference of opinion here but if we already had a solid 1000+ word first source (which we obviously don't), maybe I'd accept this as a second source to satisfy the requirement for multiple (but a lot would depend on what that first source reported!) As the first of the multiple WP:RS required by WP:GNG, there's no way. It's simply too short and it doesn't report anything at all remarkable or in any depth about the subject. Msnicki (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WARNING. The next person who directly or indirectly suggests that my delete !vote here is consciously or unconsciously motivated by gender-based or racial bias will find themselves at ANI pronto. I will NOT tolerate such aspersions on my character! --Randykitty (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know I was just kidding, [60] right? EEng 20:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:-) I didn't loose my sense of humor at the same time that I became a raging paternalistic racist... --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING - we're going to have to take you to AN/I for that racist comment against Randykitty. [pause] ??? Hmmm. Atsme📞📧 21:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be less attention paid to randy kitties, and more to horndogs. EEng 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and that is a completely inappropriate comment. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At long last, what in the world is wrong with you? It's bad enough you harrumphing around demanding apologies on your own behalf [61] without also butting in on others' conversations as well. Can you please just go sulk somewhere and let the adults police their own interactions? EEng 03:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to your own talk page, not here. This isn't a chat room. Clearly, policing was needed... checking ... yes, this is AfD. Not your talk page. Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Msnicki, it appears you're giving far too much weight to what you consider "requirements" for GNG. Keep in mind, GNG is a suggested guideline, not a policy with requirements. Regardless, WP:PROF is far more relevant as a guideline for determining notability in this case as it clearly states: Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. Also, since we are dealing with an international Fulbright scholar at the University of the Punjab in Pakistan who is also a female subject to biases arising from the prevalent ideology we know exists in Pakistan, some of which were partially remedied less than 2 years ago with the passing of the Punjab Fair Representation of Women Act 2014 (IV of 2014), we can readily apply the "equivalent" to what we know in the West as an honorary chair per #5 in the WP:PROF criteria (for which she only needs to meet one): "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." The equivalent position to that criteria in Pakistan would be her appointment as Chairperson of an entire university department per University of the Punjab Act 1973:

  1. 3. Teaching Departments and Chairmen.– (1) There shall be a Teaching Department for each subject or a group of subjects, as may be prescribed by Regulations, and each Teaching Department shall be headed by a Chairman.
     [49][(2) The Chairman of a Teaching Department and the Director of an Institute shall be appointed by the Syndicate on the recommendation of the Vice-Chancellor from amongst the three senior most Professors of the Department for a period of three years and shall be eligible for re-appointment.

I believe 2015 signifies her 2nd or 3rd reappointment, so again, she passes the notable professor test. I have already provided RS that further provide for WP:V. We have now reached the point of beating a dead horse. I've provided numerous sources, confirmed notability based on WP:PROF and considering that it appears further discussion is resulting in nothing but rising tensions, I'll motion that it's time for an admin to close this AfD. Atsme📞📧 21:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as she meets neither GNG nor PROF at this time, as has been explained in exhaustive detail above. The argument that she should be found to meet either notability guideline (even though she does not meet the requirements) because she's a woman is an argument to lower notability standards which the community has not agreed to do (and which consensus is against, if this RfC is anything to go by). Finally, there is a difference between reliable sources and sources establishing notability: all sources establishing notability must also be reliable but not all reliable sources also establish notability. There are reliable sources for the subject but a dearth of sources establishing notability. Ca2james (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to this study Ameen is one of the top three most cited Pakistani academics in her field. For that reason, I think this article satisfies the first and fourth criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. Assuming, arguendo, that she did not meet WP:NACADEMIC, the sources cited in this article still satisfy WP:GNG's significant coverage requirement. These sources include the University of Missouri School of Information Science and Learning Technologies interview, the Pakistan Library & Information Science Journal interview, and the article in the Hindustan Times about her impact on her son's career. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That study you've cited remarks (page 7) that "Less than half these faculty members [at the eight universities studied] hold post-master degrees" and (page 8) that "It is very disturbing to know that all 12 faculty members from two universities had no publication that received any citations. ... Overall, the situation is not good and the authorities need to give serious attention to this." They do identify the subject as coming in 3rd their in list of only 11 faculty who received any citations at all (beating out someone with only 17 citations). But further down the page, they remark on the self-citation rate and guess who leads the pack? Nearly 38% of the subject's 61 citations are self-citations. Subtract those out and you're left with 2.5 citations/paper. This is just not the way to convince me she qualifies for presumptive notability under WP:SCHOLAR. Msnicki (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Msnicki: I share many of the same concerns with the study, and I find it particularly telling that one of the authors of the study just happened to be the #1 most-cited scholar in the field. Nevertheless, I still think the study demonstrates that her work has had an impact on a field where, admittedly, few participate in an ongoing scholarly discourse. Indeed, WP:NACADEMIC notes that "[d]ifferences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." But even if she wasn't notable per WP:SCHOLAR, I still think there is sufficient coverage of her to satisfy WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an interview she gave while visiting another institution is independent of her Notecardforfree, so it doesn't contribute to establishing notability. I don't have access to the other interview, so I can't really judge, but interviews in general are not independent of the subject. It might be that it contains some secondary analysis, which would contribute to notability. The Hindustan Times piece isn't a whole article about her impact on her son - only one paragraph of it is about them. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While everyone here is making circular arguments, let me point out that The world notices. While this article is about women in India, not Pakistan, and scientists, not librarians, the points about coverage and sourcing problems are precisely what we are dealing with here. Montanabw(talk) 09:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This kind of initiative is great, and it is good that the organisers seem to have a good understanding of Wikipedia's notability requirements. I would be happy to contribute to efforts to increase our coverage of female academics from India and Pakistan (and elsewhere), providing that good, independent sources exist for them. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: Respectfully, I don't believe this case offers an example of "coverage and sourcing problems" at all. Universities redesign their websites all the time. Is that normally a hot news item? Is it even something the local press would usually cover? How many stories can you remember seeing, in say, the last year, or make it 5 years, about a university redesigning its website? In the unlikely event you can remember even one (I can't remember any), if there were any names in there, did you come away thinking, well, we certainly need WP:BLPs on these people pronto? Yet that same mundane event did get coverage in Pakistan.
I'm completely satisfied we have a likely selection bias in the kinds of articles found here on WP arising from our overwhelmingly male population of editors. I'm also completely satisfied there is an even more serious bias against women in the world at large. There is bias against women in science, engineering, business and other fields, it exists in the West and there is even more bias against women outside the West. So yes, there are and will be fewer women going into these professions and fewer at the top in every one of them. But we are not here to right great wrongs. We are here to decide if this subject is notable. I still don't see the evidence of notability and I don't think it has to do with lack of coverage. In the case at hand, if there actually was some evidence of notability, I think it would have been reported and we'd have found it. Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering your satisfication over the systemic biases as you noted in your comment above, you may not have noticed the blinding evidence of notability, or the PROF guidelines that are applicable in confirming her notability. At least you're forthright about your position. Atsme📞📧 17:19, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:GNG vs WP:PROF - the following should take precedence in this AfD, particularly as it relates to RS and acceptance of selfpublished, etc. The BLP subject of this AfD is an academic; therefore PROF is the applicable guideline not WP:N, or WP:GNG which has been applied throughout this discussion.

PROF clearly states:
This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the General Notability Guideline.
The footnote for the GNG reference states: From WP:GNG, emphasis added: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right," which includes this document, "and (2) It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." PROF states: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow. WP:RS allows the sources that have been cited for this BLP which includes the bios in published books, primary sources, the published CV, self-pubished, etc.

  • Based on the specific criteria in both PROF and RS this AfD warrants a snow-close which is an action intended exactly for this purpose. Atsme📞📧 16:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that you state "PROF is the applicable guideline not WP:N", the outcome should clearly and obviously be a delete close, the opposite of what you have been arguing. No significant citations have been found, so the subject fails WP:PROF#C1. The teaching award has clearly been shown to be too unselective for C2. She has no major society fellowships (C3), no evidence of significant outside impact (C4), only an ordinary professorship, not a distinguished professorship or named chair (C5), and head of department is far below the head-of-whole-university level demanded by C6. She did not significantly reform the curriculum or introduce a widely-used textbook (C7), nor is she in literature or fine arts (C9). The only case that is even vaguely plausible is C8 (editor-in-chief of a "major, well-established academic journal") and I would argue that a four-year term on a seemingly non-notable journal published by her own department is not good enough to pass even that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, given that you are of the opinion that "No significant citations have been found", let's go over the citations that you allege have not been found, and maybe you can tell me why they aren't significant according to the very clear guidelines of PROF. I will include only those sources which are cited in the article, plus the ones I referenced in this AfD:
      1. Acceptable RS which also satisfies WP:V
      2. Another RS for further V
      3. University of Missouri-Columbia, another academic A/V source
      4. A published academic book with editorial oversight which contains her bio, and a chapter she authored
      5. A published academic book with editorial oversight which contains her bio, and a chapter she authored
      6. On editorial board of academic journal, which satisfies PROF for notability - no further verification is needed to substantiate notability. For info about Journal IF see: [62]
      7. On editorial board of another academic journal, which further satisfies PROF for notability
      8. Academic report on the "Impact of Pakistani Authors in the GOOGLE World: A Study of Library and Information Science Faculty" which is her area of notability and again satisfies PROF = 3 criteria met for notability.
    • One would think that satisfying 3 criteria when it is only necessary to satisfy 1 would have ended this AfD in a snow-keep early on. There are more cited sources in the article and scattered throughout this AfD but is it really necessary for me to list more than what I just did to prove notability under PROF? Seriously? Other editors are certainly welcome to add to the list. I've grown weary of the fallacious premises used in some of the delete arguments. Atsme📞📧 18:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, you are really confused about WP:PROF, even after spending so much time and effort on this discussion. Perhaps your failure to read and understand comes from your wrong attitude to this AfD — we are not here to twist our standards beyond the point of recognition in order to justify keeping the article, but rather to neutrally evaluate whether the subject actually does pass the standards. By "citations", of course, I (and the criterion) refer only to academic works that cite the publications of the subject. None of what you list are of that nature. And as for your claim that merely being on an editorial board "further satisfies PROF for notability": just no. That is nowhere in the guideline and is just false. And your link to indianjournals.com means nothing — that site is purely a web-scraper with no original content of its own (see discussion in https://scholarlyoa.com/2015/10/08/publisher-acts-suspiciously-like-omics-group/) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You just made it quite obvious that I'm not the one with the wrong attitude. Your PAs crossed the line of acceptable behavior in a debate, not to mention unbecoming an admin. Shame on you. Atsme📞📧 19:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. User:Xxanthippe asserts h-index of 12, which I learn means this scholar has 12 pubs that are each known to have been cited 12 or more times. IMO that is hard to achieve. I read that in the hard sciences 12 is substantial, but I know that in hard sciences there are huge papers with many co-authors. Lower numbers like 4 or 2.8 are very substantial in social science areas. --doncram 17:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you please take a moment to read our article on the h-index? An h of 2.8 is not even possible. I know grad students that have an h of 12. In the "hard sciences", 12 is absolutely forgettable. In the present case, 12 would be more impressive if a large part of the citations leading to this h of 12 were not self-citations (mentioned somewhere in this sea of text). --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is very field-specific. Average for grad students in some social sciences fields that I know about must be below 1. My mention of 2.8 was referring to an average given in the article: "The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics)." --doncram 18:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, Doncram but all is not lost because regardless of the h-index, Criteria 1 has already been satisfied: 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. See my list of cited sources above which includes an "impact study" by the U of Nebraska. [63] Atsme📞📧 19:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Information science is very far from being a low-citation-count field. See [64], where the top 50 people listed all have h-indexes in the high teens at least, or [65] for similar numbers in information management. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That study demonstrates precisely that her research hasn't made a significant impact in her scholarly discipline. Table 2 indicates that, at the time of the study, she had received 61 citations, or 38 excluding self-citations. That is not indicative of a significant impact. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is plausible that I may have given less weight to the conclusion of a US based study and too much weight to the fact the topic drew enough attention to warrant a study. I echo the concerns of Notecardforfree [66] regarding the study, h-indexes, etc. That same sentiment regarding a distrust for h-indexes followed the most recent keep argument above. PROF also dismisses those same indexes which gives editors more leeway in determining notabiity based on the differences between countries and other surrounding circumstances. Are we to automatically decide that an international Fulbright scholar has no impact in their scholarly discipline? I think not based on the aggregate of the sources and what has been accomplished despite the odds. We can't all be olympic gold medalists and we certainly shouldn't dismiss the bronze medalists either. PROF affords us such leeway when it comes to academia. Atsme📞📧 20:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked up some big names in the USA library field, and got h-indexes of 21 and 22. Ironically, it's not a very "write-y" profession. So I'm taking that h-index of 12 from Pakistan to be reasonably high. Ranking #3 in Pakistan's library world would put her very high up. I honestly don't know how to compare notability across these cultures, but this is someone who represents her country internationally (that's the IFLA mention). LaMona (talk) 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Keep in mind that notability criteria "stack." While each individual SNG may fall into a gray area (though I don't think they do, for the purpose of argument...), the combined effect of 1) Nation of origin with its extra hurdles for any academic, let alone a woman, 2) Published works, 3) Academic standing and administrative standing, 4) National significance (top 3 in Pakistan is quite impressive), 5) Fields -- library science and information technology, not the same as a hard science field, 6) Awards and recognition, and 7) Amount of third party coverage, we clearly get to WP:N. Montanabw(talk) 01:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, SNG criteria doesn't stack. One of them has to be satisfied. The subject doesn't pass GNG here (in GNG we can stack multiple articles). The amount of third party coverage is extremely low that an American academic with these credentials would not have an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can stack sources (provided they are "reliable, independent and secondary" and addresses the topic in detail) for the purpose of GNG. We do not stack criteria. The issue here is that the sources are problematic - not enough significant secondary coverage in independent RS to pass GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • LaMona, please keep in mind that h-indexes are highly nonlinear. 22 is significantly higher than 12, not just a little higher — when you roughly double the h-index, that actually means that you need more like four times as many citations: twice as many papers, each cited twice as many times. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaMona hopefully the following response from DGG will provide a bit more clarity regarding h-indexes in this particular field, and I quote: [67] Information science may have a decent amount of citations, but the more traditional library science in which she works does not. DGG continued his evaluation and dismissed all but one of the sources I cited. He summarized my notability argument by saying: #8, however, is the key point. Normally we regard notability under WP:PROF as a worldwide standard, unlike such things as politics where we [go] country by country; if we did so here, there is no question but that she would be notable. But three is no consensus to do so as a routine matter, and hundreds of articles have been rejected on this basis. Perhaps we should change the rule, but I doubt that we will have consensus for doing so. What we can do is make exceptions. Keeping the latter in mind, can-do is a wonderful thing!! I have co-authored and/or reviewed a few Middle Eastern articles on WP, and I have been (mostly politely) when confronted by editors who don't see gender bias as an substantive argument. Fortunately, scientific studies have been published (2007-2013) without the fear of a Salman Rushdie backlash, and those studies confirm the issues discussed in this AfD. It has nothing to do with lowering standards, and everything to do with recognition of notability based on the "national" merits of one's accomplishments as they relate to their field of expertise rather than the amount of "international" media coverage, or "coverage in the Western media". Therein lies the a big part of the issue. Atsme📞📧 23:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for all of the schooling on h-indexes and advice about library science. But it so happens that I've been in that field for about 45 years now, and my own h-index is 22. So I think you can assume that I know what I'm talking about. :-) LaMona (talk) 00:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay, I'm changing my !vote. I will accept Montanabw's argument that the various criteria should stack. I still think the evidence to support WP:SCHOLAR is weak and that the coverage in WP:RS to support WP:GNG is even weaker. But I have reread the article and reconsidered the advice at WP:NACADEMIC that the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. I now agree that Montanabw is correct in her interpretation of the guidelines and that there is enough verifiable material for an academic. Let's not kid ourselves. There is a bias in how we interpret and apply the guidelines. Anyone who's been to enough AfDs knows that if this was about a nerdy guy who's written a how-to book about programming in Perl, it'd be sure keep for articles on both the author and the book. We routinely keep stuff on far less. Msnicki (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Probably does not meet WP:PROF as a scholar, but might as an administrator. @David Eppstein: Information science may have a decent amount of citations, but the more traditional library science in which she works does not: there are two few people publishing papers and too few journals. However in this case, we need to go beneath the numbers--too many of the citations are self citations, too many of the papers are written by her students to which she added her name; too many of the papers are very closely repetitive. But @Atsme: Almost all your numbered arguments above are every one of the unconvincing: #1,2, and 3 are of for Verifiability, but not for notability; #4 and 5 --so far from being significant, publishing a chapter in an edited book is considerably less important than a peer-reviewed paper, so much so that we normally remove them from articles where they are listed. #6 and 7 are also insignificant--only being in chief of a journal is grounds for notability, and editorial board memberships are so insignificant and so easy to acquire that we normally remove these also from articles on academics. #8, however ,is the key point. Normally we regard notability under WP:PROF as a worldwide standard, unlike such things as politics where we g country by country; if we did so here, there is no question but that she would be notable. But three is no consensus to do so as a routine matter,and hundreds of articles have been rejected on this basis. Perhaps we should change the rule, but I doubt that we will have consensus for doing so. :What we can do is make exceptions. As Msnicki says, we can interpret the rules in any one case however we please. IAR is a much more basic principle then WP:N. We make our own rules; we make whatever exceptions we decide to--all we need is consensus in an individual case, whether to keep despite the usual interoperation or to delete. WP is not a place where immutable rules are handed down from a higher authority; but it's not an anarchy either, and when we make exceptions we should know and say what we are doing. In this case we would be making an exception for a relatively under-covered field and country. On what basis can we decide that--though we can do as we please, we should be rational about it? I'm deciding here on the basis that as compared to most such suggested exceptions for academics from this and similar countries, this is a relatively strong record. If we're going to make an exception, this is a reasonable place to do it. But I would strongly oppose changing the basic rule, and I would not try to argue in a way that makes no sense in terms of the standards. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some interesting arguments that we should make an exception from Msnicki and DGG, which I find more convincing than any of the previous keep rationales made here. Nonetheless, my view is that if we are going to make exceptions, it shouldn't be for scholars whose books are published by VDM Publishing (you may remember them from their print-on-demand books of Wikipedia articles - just Google them or read this or this to find out what they're all about), but rather for those who have published with recognised academic publishers. That doesn't have to be a university press - just not a predatory, vanity press. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG, my sincerest thank you for your intelligent, even-tempered clarity in describing why you believe the sources I listed were/were not acceptable for determining notability, and for your common sense approach in properly weighing the differences in the way certain things are handled from country to country. I think there is a lot to be learned from this discussion. I certainly am one editor who has been enlightened by it. Atsme📞📧 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reminder for DGG, you !voted twice. You have a !weak keep earlier up the page. 🙄 Atsme📞📧 13:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, fixed. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I confess to not having read entirely through the WP:WALL, but in spot checking, I saw some ridiculous arguments like that she is notable for redesigning a website because there is a source that says as much. This is one of the problems of equating notability with sources rather than with accomplishment (for which sources are a by-product). In taking a disinterested look at the article, I see what is essentially a CV with no real assertion of notability. GS h-index appears to be 12 and bibliography is mostly lists and web sites. Agricola44 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    • Agricola44, you don't "spot check" the arguments, you assess the article itself. While I disagree with your assessment of the article, at least consider the arguments that have been advanced ... and yes, nowdays, most wikipedia articles are sourced to "web sites." You may want to clarify... Montanabw(talk) 02:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually that isn't what I was suggesting. Are you not aware that "disinterested" is still ubiquitiously used to mean "having or feeling no interest in something"? [68] Your framing of the syntax leaves one with the impression that the latter is what you meant. Perhaps it's a matter of semantics between the UK and US. Atsme📞📧 06:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really going to use this space to debate the meaning of disinterested, Atsme? Let's assume good faith and that Agricola44 meant the first definition here. Frankly, I don't see why anyone would assume otherwise. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now why in the world would someone devote time and effort to impartially assessing an article if she were uninterested? It's always a shame when these discussions veer off into such childish nitpicking. Agricola44 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Simple answer, your explanation accompanying your !vote speaks volumes: I confess to not having read entirely through the WP:WALL, but in spot checking.... When one doesn't take the time to read all the arguments in an effort to garner a comprehensive understanding of the issue, it begs such a conclusion. Atsme📞📧 15:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confused here. We're evaluating the article, not the comments on the article. There's no obligation to read the latter (though most people do, provided it doesn't take an hour to wade through prolix bickering), but every obligation to carefully and in a disinterested way read the former. It's crucial to recognize this subtlety. Indeed, one could make the case that complete impartiality requires assessing and comment on the article before reading others' comments...some food for thought. This is now my limit for childish bickering, so I'll watch the remainder from the sidelines. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • (ec) Please Atsme, give it a rest. Agricola44 has made it plenty clear that they carefully evaluated the article, but only spot checked the huge wall of text that we have produced here. You really can't blame anyone for that, especially since many of the arguments that we've produced keep going in circles. But can we stop this fruitless discussion about Agricola44's !vote now? The closing admin has already enough stuff to read through (that person cannot use WP:TLDNR, but will have to wade through all of it) and certainly will be experienced enough to see which !votes they should ignore because they were not carefully made. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was my initial intention to not respond after Agricola44's last comment because my questions were answered satisfactorily but now I feel as though I'm being ganged-up on for simply asking a legitimate question which for all intents and purposes is the reason for this AfD. I'm not sure why you and Cordless Larry feel the need to police my discussions as you have been, such as with the Agricola44 discussion and comments like "give it a rest", and "Let's assume good faith..." as noted above, both of which suggest that I haven't AGF. For the record, I was politely answering questions that were asked of me, nothing more. My responses to those questions were made in good faith and what I expected to receive in return. My seeking clarification for an editor's !vote was not out of line, does not need policing and falls well within AfD guidelines: Reasonable editors will often disagree, but valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements. When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. I hope you understand why I feel ganged-up on, not to mention the other unpleasantries I recently endured with you on my TP, [69]. I'm asking you to please refrain from making further contentious statements regarding my participation in this or any other AfD. Thank you, kindly. Atsme📞📧 17:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as she does not, at this time, meet neither GNG nor PROF; someone may want to keep a draft as a thumbnail for the future just in case but otherwise, not notable as to English Wikipedia. Kierzek (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2016 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kanwal_Ameen&oldid=1254680001"