Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iqbal Unnisa

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. Consensus is that this topic fails the notability guideline. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  13:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal Unnisa

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. NikolaiHo^☎️ 04:23, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sadly. Our only source is a self-published book and web, scholar, and book searches found little else. Searching for her at unom.ac.in reveals that she only directed the institute for six months, and anyway WP:PROF#C6 is only for heads of whole universities — head of department is far too low an administrative position to be automatically notable. Single-digit citations for her work in Google scholar are too low for WP:PROF#C1 even in a low citation field. Her association with notorious self-promoter Florentin Smarandache doesn't help. I'm all for promoting the accomplishments of underrepresented groups in mathematics (in this case both women and people from less-developed nations, although calling India "less developed" in mathematics seems a little odd) but we should do so by writing about people with significant accomplishments who might otherwise have been overlooked, not by being indiscriminate about who we include. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein Fails WP:GNG and her h-index is clearly low for WP:PROF particularly WP:PROF#C1 and also fails WP:PROF#C6 as she headed only a department and only for 6 months and not the whole university and could not find adequate coverage to meet general notability guideline either. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find papers with 6 and 2 GS citations. Not enough for WP:Prof, even in the low cited field field of pure mathematics. It would be helpful if people who wrote such articles would create a GS profile for the subject. This would make it easier for examination at AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Is it possible to create GS profiles for people other than yourself? If so that seems ripe for abuse. The more poorly-curated ones of what we have now are bad enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was thinking of ResearcherID. I have not tried with GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total failure of any and all notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 16 October 2017 (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.