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)[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]

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

• 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)[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]

• Keep per Montanabw. Keilana (talk) 20:48, 4 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]

• 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 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. Jbh^Talk 00:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Last edited: 01:15, 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. Jbh^Talk 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 [4] 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. Jbh^Talk 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 [5] 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. Jbh^Talk 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? Jbh^Talk 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]

• 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 [6]. 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. Jbh^Talk 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? Jbh^Talk 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 [7], [8], [9], [10] 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 [11] 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. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]