Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Opinions are divided but there is a clear balance of consensus that this does not meet the demanding standard of WP:PROF JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Khurshid Ahmad (Professor of Computer Science)

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

Procedural nomination. It has been repeatedly asserted, since August 2011, that this article about a living person (see WP:BLP) should continue to exist with a template at the top of it questioning whether that living person meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. Time to decide. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep two UK professorships, editing of several works published by a premier publisher, fellowship (not just membership) of British Computer Society. . Multiple refereed publications. Together that makes him an expert in the subject and meets WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both major books published are edited anthologies not his own work. This typifies what appears to be his contribution: synthesis of fields, not far-reaching research. Re: DGG, his CV lists only two publications in EGC rated A-journals, and his H-score is only 8 (very weak for a end-term academic.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.80.237 (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — 46.7.80.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

agreed that books edited are not as important as books authored. I see 4 articles listed on the first p. his web site (IEEE Transactions are peer-reviewed publications) but the link to the continuation p. shows about 190 more. I very much doubt that all of the conference papers listed there were truly peer reviewed in any rigorous sense, but some of the ones listed are peer-reviewed journals,some of them of high standing. Conference papers , are, of course, is his subject a major form of publication. The name is fairly common,so citation analysis is a little tricky. DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more productive (perhaps even less so) than other professors in the same institution. Did become notable some years ago due to controversy within Trinity College but has become quiet since. Does not hold positions of academic note within learned societies, nor positions of importance within College administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.34.220 (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ACADEMIC. ukexpat (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Low performance on standard metrics including citations, H-index, G-index, I10. No other criteria of WP:PROF are met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.252.160 (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I searched his publications using Google scholar (please see the last bullet in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation metrics for reasons to avoid other databases for this subject), and unfortunately restricting GS to computer science publications cuts out some of his most highly cited ones, so it was necessary to take some care sorting out his pubs from some other papers by similarly-named people in other subjects. Doing so, I found 198 citations for his jointly-authored book "Computers, Language Learning and Language Teaching", 73 citations for what looks like a survey paper, "Corpus linguistics and terminology extraction", and an overall h-index of 16, significantly higher than what is reported above and enough to make a plausible although not terribly strong case for WP:PROF#C1. The personal chair might also be enough for WP:PROF#C5, I'm not sure. My feeling is that the BCS fellow isn't good enough: the BCS sets their bar too low [1] to compare to more prestigious society fellowships such as in his case ACM or AAAI fellowship. But only one WP:PROF criterion needs to be met for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per David Eppstein who, I think, nailed it. He's borderline on a bunch of different criteria. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with additional pubs hindex is low for this stage of career. Other awards unnotable. Does not stand out within institution or in the research community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.245.27 (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – On the same reasoning as David, above, but with a conclusion just a hair over the delete line. I panned citations for a but found no gold as far as WP:PROFESSOR; the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO otherwise for lack of substantial third party coverage as well as an apparent lack of notable achievements, awards, and positions. JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 28 April 2012 (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.