Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nahid Kabir

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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nahid Kabir

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

NN academic. Fails WP:PROF nafSadh did say 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How Funny! This article was created by the Subject herself! It opposes WP:AB :@ --nafSadh did say 16:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note, Ragib was the one who tagged Nahid Kabir with PROD. So he has been notified. This notification shall not be counted as Campaigning--nafSadh did say 16:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Clicking on the Google News link shows what looks like significant coverage and commentary on her work in the Australian media, e.g. ABC broadcasters and Sydney Morning Herald. AllyD (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one interview of her, mentions in several op-eds. Is it significant enough for academics notability criteria? --nafSadh did say 18:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough for WP:Prof, nor is GS record. Arguments for keep will have to be made on the basis of general notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable as author m because of the reviews of her books (I added them to the article, based on searches of Book Review Digest, Book Review Index, and Worldcat). I recognize everyone does not have easy access to BRD and BRI, but everyone does have easy free access to WorldCat, and , if WP:BEFORE had been followed, there's enough there to show the notability. search first; nominate afterwards if still necessary to remove non-notable people-=-there are certainly enough of them in Wikipedia to give full scope to anyone who wants top contribute to the necessary task of deleting inappropriate articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of this fine academic's work has crossed over into the popular world. She has an h-index of 5 or 6. No secondary sources exist that analyse her. DGG's own WorldCat shows that her books are not held be very many libraries, and what libraries do hold them are all university libraries. This all says that this is an ordinary professor, a run-of-the-mill professor, the type of professor that WP:PROF is designed to exclude. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PROF. Having an h-index of 5 or 6 clearly shows that the author's work is not popular ... given that she is a senior professor, the h index should have been higher if her work was notable. (as a comparison, fresh PhD graduates often have H-index of 8+). The conflict of interest is particularly disturbing ... most of the edits to the article are either from the subject (from her Harvard IP or her Australian IP) or someone related to her. --Ragib (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (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.