Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Arif Butt

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. Some of the keep votes reflect a view of notability that does not mirror actual practice. Having discarded them, the delete side had better arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Muhammad Arif Butt

Muhammad Arif Butt (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)

As per WP:PROF, chancellor or vice-chancellor are usually given an automatic free pass over WP:BIO but acting chancellor or acting Vice-chancellors are not something that would be expected to have an article on English Wikipedia, unless they meet GNG. (as per a brief discussion here). The subject was acting (or temporary) VC of the University of the Punjab as per Pakistani newspapers ( ref here, and here). I don't see him meeting other WP:PROF criterion.

Search doesn't produce any significant coverage and information in the independent RS about the person which help meet GNG, therefore I can't see any good reason to have this BLP on a low profile individual. Most of the cited sources in this BLP is either namechecking (mention in passing) or non-independent of the subject.

For what it's worth, an article of similar nature is being discussed at AfD is Dr . Ikram Ullah Khan. Saqib (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 08:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. I think the article passes WP:GNG anyways, So many dawn references, brecorder, thenews,etc. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8], and all these references are not just namechecks, they describe him as a holder of a post. As for acting VC issue, i think he was acting VC before September 2007, as desribed by the nom, after Sep 2007 he was simply referred as VC or former VC as by these University site(s) [9], [10] and these dawn references [11], [12] also brecorder simply referred to him as VC after Sep 2007 [13]. Also criteria 5 of WP:NPROF reads 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). He is also Professor emeritus a(Distinguised_Professor) per these sources [14], [15]. So many reasons to keep the article.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: User:Ma'az is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

None of the provided press stories discuss the subject directly and in detail as required by GNG. It is namechecking and mention in passing which is not enough to establish WP:N. He became chancellor of the versity in September 2007 as per this news story and quit in January 2008 as per this news story - which means he held the position for around 4 months. This news story dated March 2008 clearly mentions Prof Dr Muhammad Arif Butt worked as acting vice-chancellor of PU from September 24, 2007 to January 2, 2008 So it is clear he was acting and temporary VC. It appears you misinterpreting criteria 5. There is a difference between professor emeritus (basically just means "retired professor") and a full professorship the way a distinguished or named chair are. In US academic usage, professor emeritus does not denote any special distinction. --Saqib (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep satisfies NP:Academic. Professor emeritus. FloridaArmy (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Simply being Professor emeritus is not notable. It is a special status but it is not proof of notability. There must be thousands of emeritus professors in Pakistan alone at this moment. --Saqib (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

While it's certainly not the only basis for his notability it does seem to satisfy criteria 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)." FloridaArmy (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

But I'm still not convinced whether Professor emeritus = distinguished professor appointment. Don't confuse professor distinguished with retired professor distinguished. Please do not consider it canvassing but I would like to hear what professor @David Eppstein: have to say about whether being "Professor emeritus" confers automatic notability. --Saqib (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I see your point that emerotus is not always an honorary title, but he was also dean, vice chancellor and such. I don't think there's any question that he has is distinguished. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As for whether acting VC meet PROF#5, please see the discussion here. Dean is a lesser administrative post and is are generally not sufficient to qualify under any criteria list on WP:PROF. --Saqib (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Professor emeritus means, more or less, the same thing as "retired professor in good standing". It is not a special honor of a type that would confer notability. And while actual VC would pass C6, I don't think acting or temporary positions are enough for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Professor David Eppstein for your 2¢. @FloridaArmy: As you read on David's bio, he is a Chancellor's Professor himself and an admin here so I believe he has sound understanding of academic related AfDs. --Saqib (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't any sources or even recall specific examples but I think that there are some institutions that are somewhat restrictive with the awarding of emeritus status so I am wary of that generalization. ElKevbo (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Keep The subject appears to have the requisite experience and sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Further, the article as it currently stands doesn't say that the subject was an acting VC and at least the couple of sources I glanced at don't say that, either. ElKevbo (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@ElKevbo: See this news story.--Saqib (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the heading, it simply suggests ex-VC. And there's a problem with the source, as the word former is never written for acting posts but only for held posts. And what about all the majority of sources simply referring him as VC or former VC [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. At best, its a case of Wikipedia:Conflicting sources and WP:DUE suggests that majority sources should prevail.  M A A Z   T A L K  05:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

See this dated January 2008, this and this dated Dec 2007. There're several more news stories which verifies he was acting VC but it just does not make sense to list of all of them here. --Saqib (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I think, that's just a political way of saying it, while WP:DUE is not in your favor. Another uninvolved editor also agrees on this [23].  M A A Z   T A L K  13:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ma'az: That editor removed the term because there was no RS cited at that time but now we've plenty of RS to support the acting VC claim. --Saqib (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment. I just found out that the subject is also quite notable for his research. He was awarded the Dr.A.Q Khan award per this source [24] for his works in research and is also a chief editor per [25]. And just a word for the VC thing, I think he was newly appointed Vice-chancellor after Sep, 2007 to a significant period. I think if somebody is newly appointed for significant period, he should be simply referred by his post, otherwise this will open a new pandora box as to why should we stop here, for example, in this List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, are people like Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute, Alec Douglas-Home referred to as temporary or simply as served as prime minister like in the article. Another example of the List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has been appointed prime minister after nawaz sharif for a brief time, should he be simply referred to as PM or temporary PM, as there is no completion of term of 5 years. So, I think the orthodox standards should apply and common sense should prevail. If a chancellor/vice-chancellor is newly appointed for a significant period, he should be simply referred to as VC or go by the sources or consensus/majority of sources per WP:DUE. The subject was newly appointed after Sep 2007 for a significant period and the sources simply referred to him as VC or former VC.[26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] (Dawn & Tribune are considered most reliable sources).  M A A Z   T A L K  03:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ma'az: The award you mentioned is not notable, by any sense. Discussion on acting or interim prime ministeris irrelevant here. We're talking about academics, not politicians or public office holders. He was VC and I'm not denying it, but he was temporary or acting, whatever you like to call. --Saqib (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

But this is inconsistent then. If its insignificant for Prime-ministers or higher posts, then common sense suggests that its absolutely insignificant for lower posts. And the sources simply refer to him as VC.  M A A Z   T A L K  05:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

So you mean this news story dated May 2008 is not true? See this dated January 2008, this and this dated Dec 2007. There're several more which verifies he was acting VC. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The nation's reference simply mentioned him as ex-VC in heading. And thenews also simply referred to him as VCin another source [33]. Like I said, at best its a case of Conflicting sources in which majority of sources should prevail. Dawn is most reliable source and they know the difference between acting and non-acting best. They consider newly appointed VCs for significant period simply as VCs. Before Sep 2007, Dawn referred to him as acting VC per [34], however after Sep 2007, when he was newly appointed, they never referred to him as acting but simply referred to him as VC [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. In addition University also calls him simply as former VC.  M A A Z   T A L K  06:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't buy your argument. The News and The Nation are as reliable as Dawn. --Saqib (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep as supported by WP:GNG--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@NadirAli: Supported by what? GNG? And how? --Saqib (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

To editor Saqib: since you wish the article to be deleted, the burden is on you to demonstrate it's reason for being excluded instead of me trying to explain it. I'm not implying it can't improve, but it can still be kept.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking you what made you say "supported by WP:GNG"? Because the bio clearly fails to meet GNG. --Saqib (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delete as entirely non-notable individual with unreliable sources only showing that he has worked a lot to promote himself but none of these sources pass even the borderline standard of WP:RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. Not even one source is capable of establishing notability. Capitals00 (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. MBlaze Lightning ^talk 14:37, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Subject fails notability and trivial mentions of the subject are clearly relying upon the notability of University of the Punjab. That's not notable. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2018 (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.