Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Khalid Mahmood

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. The only non-weak "keep" argues solely with the subject's publication list, while all others point out the lack of any third-party coverage: this alone precludes us from having an article that meets WP:V. Sandstein 18:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professor Khalid Mahmood

Professor Khalid Mahmood (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I hate to nominate for deletion without total confidence, but this is a special case. I prod'd this article and it was deleted, then it was recreated, and tagged for NPOV and sources (the lack of the latter being why it was deleted in the first place) and 2 months later, no sources have been added. No real claims of notability besides being a professor. The reason I'm unsure about whether he's notable or not is that his common name makes him difficult to research [1], lots of results but are any of these people actually him? I note that what the article gives as an alternate name gets no results [2]. So what we need here are some reliable sources that are clearly about this guy. W.marsh 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I've added what appears to be his website and the list of publications is quite impressive. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 22:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• if this is kept will the closer please move it? "Professor" shouldn't be in the page name. --W.marsh 22:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep He teaches Library and Information sciences, my own field. For some reason, the bio never says so, and calls him a teacher of literature & mentions various other professional interests only. The number of publications is very respectable (about 3/4 of them are peer-reviewed) though almost all of them of purely national interest only. The citations won't be high, but this field has a very low citation density and not all the journals are covered by Web of science or scopus. Of the 5 books, 2 are just indexes to a run of journals. He's just an associate professor, my own rank. I hate to use this criterion, but he's not much more notable than I am. If kept, the qualifier to distinguish from similar names should be (library science)DGG (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't usually see articles that can't be rescued by anyone, but searching on his name is pulling up at least 7 people by this name...so far. There's a core in there leading to notability, so I don't want to delete it but I'm tending that way, but this needs a LOT of work that can't be done by anyone. I'm not entirely certain his life experience is notable within the region he lives in. As to the above comment; all academics have a large number of publications, it's required that they publish every year or two, and so in a CV, he's going to include everything that he can. My roommate has over 100 pub creds to her name, which makes her hireable in academia, but doesn't make her notable. Should absolutely be moved to a page with his last name on it. --Thespian 23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

for all I know, your room-mate is notable. The number of peer-reviewed publications is one indication of notability as an academic: it demonstrates recognition by one's peers. DGG (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what I was getting at was that the publications don't make her notable; notability also comes from other activities, so while pubs can contribute to notability, publication doesn't automatically get you there. --Thespian 01:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 01:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of evidence that he satisfies WP:PROFTEST. The main problem, as I see it, is that the link to the subject's home page clearly indicates that he is an associate professor of library and information science, and his publications are consistent with that, yet this article makes no reference to library and information science being his academic field. This would be like someone writing a Wikipedia article about an economist with an external link that shows that actually he is a psychologist. It does not give me confidence that the biography is accurate. At any rate, as an associate professor, he does not seem to be more notable than the average professor. --Metropolitan90 03:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Does anyone know if "professor" is being used in the American sense (i.e. a teaching member of the faculty) or the British sense (i.e. the head of the faculty) in this context? JulesH 07:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • this would suggest he's an associate professor in roughly the American sense. --W.marsh 13:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no obvious claim to notability, no sources to establish same. --Dhartung | Talk 05:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Fails WP:BIO; not even sure if proftest applies. Eusebeus 11:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep he has an impressive career history and appears to be widely published in his home region. Shame there are no established media sources to ascertain his notability for the English WP. Uranometria 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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.