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. Noone argues they pass gng and demonstrated not to meet prof. Argumente about scholorships are not compelling on their own. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Rifaat Hussain

Rifaat Hussain (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Promotional profile, WP is not a LinkedIn. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete a non-notable academic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC) reply
• keep I am a deletionist but this article certainly passes WP:ACADEMIC, however it should be rewritten. Eg. the long list of peer reviewed articles seems a CV. WP:RESUME — Preceding unsigned comment added by Postconfused ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 09:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The list of publications is way too long and some of the sources are ropey, but I’m not seeing any reason to delete. Mccapra ( talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete My search at Google Scholar failed to show me anything to meet the first criteria at WP:NPROF and I didn't see anything that meets any of the other criteria there. I also didn't find the significant independent coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. Writing a large number of rarely cited articles does not show notability. Papaursa ( talk) 02:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Per Ms4263nyu. The article needs some clean-up by removing anything promotional. Other than that, it is good enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NPROF. ASTIG😎 _{( ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply

If someone would show me how he meets WP:NPROF, which is the same as WP:NACADEMIC, I would be happy to change my vote. Papaursa ( talk) 18:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. He doesn't appear to have much in the way of citations for WP:NPROF C1, nor signs of any of the other NPROF criteria. And I don't think hosting limited distribution talk shows for a short period is enough for GNG. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, citability is too low, and nothing else indicates passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. None of the 'keep' comments above indicate why the article should be kept and in which way(s) it might pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment My reason for !voting ‘keep’ was a. He is a department chair in a major national university and b. If he’s a visiting professor at Stanford then he has senior status within his field. Mccapra ( talk) 04:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

An average professor can likely arrange to be a visiting professor at Stanford, if she knows someone there and can swing it financially. And WP:NPROF C6 is not met by department chair. Are you arguing for WP:NPROF, or something else? Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 01:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Mccapra. For whatever it's worth, I'll say this... if the article subject is a fairly notable person and it can be improved, why outright DELETE it? Why not let someone improve it? Ngrewal1 ( talk) 01:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep I do not find any reason for the article to be deleted and also AfD is not cleanup. A normal search on Google Books reveals his WP:NACADEMIC notability. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī ( ^talk) 16:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Aaqib Anjum Aafī, a google books search is not so relevant to WP:NPROF. Do you want to argue for WP:NAUTHOR? That would generally require multiple reviews of his books in independent reliable sources. I didn't quickly find any, but would be interested if someone else did. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment As an uninvolved administrator let me drop a note. It's important for a person to base their participation based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Quite a few !votes are examples of one or more arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In this case those who think it should be kept are probably best off stating which specific WP:NPROF criteria they feel Hussain meets while those who think it should be deleted would probably be best off stating specifically why they feel Hussain does not meet any of the NPROF criteria. Since I relisted this I will not be closing and I hope participants find this reminder useful. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Per Barkeep49, I'm going to talk through the WP:NPROF criteria. For C1, we usually look at citations. It depends on field, but I think in international relations it would be reasonable to expect a few papers with 100+ citations on Google Scholar (or adjusted and comparable total from elsewhere, if Google Scholar is not telling the whole story). Instead, as far as I can tell he maxes out at 20. I see no signs of awards for C2, C3. C4 would be met if he'd published a notable textbook or other innovation in higher ed (but I don't see any signs of that). C5 requires a named chair, which there is no evidence of. For C6, the directorship of RCSS is interesting, however, this appears to be a small outfit with perhaps 20 researchers, and I don't think it is met. C7 essentially says that GNG still applies to professors, and I don't see any arguments for GNG. C8 requires chief editorship of a well-established journal, of which there is no sign. Note that visiting professorships are irrelevant to WP:NPROF, and department chair does not meet C6. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for providing a more detailed explanation than I provided. No one has yet provide any evidence that he meets any WP notability criteria. Papaursa ( talk) 02:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The careful analysis above makes clear he does not pass WP:PROF. Notability through his work as a media host is plausible, but no such argument has been made and we would need in-depth sources about that work for him to pass WP:GNG, which we don't currently have. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Full rank professor (NB not a US 'professor'), Fulbright scholar (not handed out to any and all, *especially* if you are from Pakistan), frequent commentator in Pakistani media, over the years quoted in the New York Times (2010), The Guardian (2014) and on CNN (2016), Board of Advisors of the Jinnah Institute, course director at the Foreign Service Academy, 30+ years of academic publications ( JSTOR turns up peer-reviewed work back to 1985), Minister level appointment at Pakistan's Embassy to the US in 1995 (p.50), former Executive Director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies in Sri Lanka...this person is a senior policy intellectual in the upper echelons of Pakistan's foreign service establishment; UCS, easily passes BASIC...and AfD is not clean up.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 15:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Fulbright scholar, passes WP:NPROF. But I removed the massive list of articles per WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY. —— Serial ^# 14:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Question Can someone show me where it says that being a Fulbright scholar grants automatic WP notability? It's true that he was a "Visiting Fulbright Scholar", but according to the Fulbright website there are 800 of those annually. Usually automatic notability isn't given that broadly, but I'll go with established consensus, if there is one. Papaursa ( talk) 16:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment See here for some previous discussion on Fulbright notability. I'd generally agree that a Fulbright per se does not confer notability, but it certainly adds to it. However, given the pool of potential applicants for a Fulbright is in the millions and 800 visiting scholar awards are given annually, someone who has one represents a very, very small minority and they are simply not easy to get. I think it is important in this case to see the Fulbright as contributing towards notability rather than taking a reductive approach and trying to find a single element signifying notability.-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 19:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your response. I agree that getting a Fulbright is an achievement, but the problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing that he meets any of the notability criteria for academics nor does he seem to meet WP:GNG. Being successful in your profession is not the same as being WP notable. There are many successful people who aren't considered WP notable. Papaursa ( talk) 19:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC) reply

I won't say anything more than quote WP:BASIC for your consideration: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.... Regards,-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (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.