Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid Mahmood (academic)

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. No consensus about notability, but the argument that this is very clearly a promotional article (creator: Kmahmood2009) makes the "delete" case stronger. Can possibly be recreated by somebody independent. Sandstein 06:18, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Mahmood (academic)[edit]

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

The professor does not appear to easily pass professor test and basic GNG.. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.. the article has existed for several years now but without ever having any better sources added. Most of the cited sources are either dubious, non-independent or simply unreliable. The article says the professor have authored some books as well but I'm unable to find any of them notable, either.

PS. please refrain from posting links to Google search results because the name "Khalid Mahmood" is common name in Pakistan so namesake is rather obvious. Please try to provide some specific references here which you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also. lets not use Google Scholar to gauge this person's impact because WP:PROF warns against this.

For what it's worth, apparently the subject himself (Kmahmood2009) has been writing this promotional autobio since the page creation. Saqib (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This guy's work is very highly cited. I did this GScholar search on his name in quotes plus the word "information" outside the quotes and it seemed to filter out false positives. On a hand count it appears that his h-index is over 20. I'm not familiar with all of the journals involved, but at least some are published by Sage, which means they're selective. Some of his articles have over 100 citations. I'm going to say he passes WP:NPROF. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For a very highly cited field H-Index 20 is marginal. --Saqib (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe H-index needs to be taken with a grain of salt. --Saqib (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think his academic roles, publishing, editorship, and leadership roles in Pakistani library organizations make him notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially all professors publish something. It's the notable work that counts. In this case, none of the subject's work constitute as notable or remarkable. President of Pakistan Library Association is not some extraordinary office. I cannot verify the subject has been chief ed of Pakistan Journal of Information Management and Libraries. This states him as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board. But even if he's has been chief ed of the said journal, I don't the journal is some major one. I'm afraid none of these position even remotely help establish his WP:N. --Saqib (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem for me is that the tone is promotional - as you'd expect if he wrote it himself. So I'd say, keep, but put a COI notice at the top. Deb (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to hear how PROF or ANYBIO is satisfied? On a related note, I'm curious if WP:BLOWITUP make sense if we are going to keep this page? Because from the day first, the subject himself has been writing this autobio. --Saqib (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a borderline case. Deb (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography written by the subject and his sockpuppets. If the article were to be kept all of those accounts need to be banned from editing it, and it needs to be gutted down to the bare minimum of noteworthy independently citable facts. Softlavender (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notablity is marginal at best while the article fails WP:PROMO quite obviously. Let's not encourage spammers by keeping such borderline articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2018 (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.