Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanwal Ameen

Kanwal Ameen

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)

• 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)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

• Keep - Sources and content indicates that this is a national expert in her academic field. Carrite (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Pinging Randykitty for academic analysis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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).
• 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)
  • 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)

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)

• 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)

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. And 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)

• Keep. National expert in her field, sufficient sources to establish notability. Systemic bias is a bug, not a feature. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)