Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asad Abidi


 * 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 keep. John254 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Asad Abidi

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Repeatedly speedied and contested on the grounds that being an IEEE fellow is an automatic qualification for notability (which it clearly isn't, there are over five thousand such fellows, my uncle is a fellow of the comparable IET and I'm not going to be writing an article on him any time soon). What we need for an article are substantial non-trivial independent sources. What we have here are two sources, one IEEE and one at the subject's university, so neither of which are independent. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - seems to meet the standards at WP:PROF; it needs improvement, not deletion this early in the game. -- Orange Mike  |  Talk  16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep (after edit conflict) member of the National Academy of Engineering which is a peer-elected body recognising substantial/significant contributions. Fellowship of IEEE also tends towards notability as also peer-elected. References given in the article also list various prizes/awards. Guy's editorial intentions regarding his family are irrelevant. Dean of School at a university, full professor at UCLA, these also are "above the average" in terms of academic notability. Sources can be improved, but deletion would prevent this and thus damage encyclopædia building. IEEE would be the only reliable source for fellowship. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep despite lack of independent sources is an invalid !vote per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Feel free to add sources. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NAE membership directory added as a source. Needing to improve refs is a lousy reason for deletion. Keep for notability is perfectly valid as a !vote. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also refer to Deletion_policy which would seem to address Guy's statements about sources. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies #2 & #6 of WP:PROF per ref given in article & . -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm afraid being a dean is notable, if accurate. IEEE Fellow and NAE member seem not to be signifcant recognition, though.  "He is one of the only two Pakistani-origin members of the NAE" might be evidence of notability, except that that information seems to have been written by him.  His being "the first Dean of LUMS SSE", which seems to have been written by the interviewer, seems more notable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I would say that being a Fellow of IEEE is notable as their website states:
 * "The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred by the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest. The accomplishments that are being honored shall have contributed importantly to the advancement or application of engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society. [...] The IEEE Fellows are an elite group from around the globe. The IEEE looks to the Fellows for guidance and leadership as the world of electrical and electronic technology continues to evolve."
 * I also believe that membership of NAE is notable as their website state:
 * "The procedures for nomination and election [...] involve a search in all fields of engineering by present members of the NAE for outstanding engineers with identifiable contributions or accomplishments in one or both of the following categories:


 * - Engineering research, practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering literature.


 * - Pioneering of new and developing fields of technology, making major advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative approaches to engineering education."
 * Both of which, I believe, show he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field" as per point 2 of WP:PROF. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * keep per Arthur. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Dean, fellow of IEEE, member of NAE, and the two IEEE awards, are all accomplishments which individually would be enough to convince me that the article should be kept as a pass of WP:PROF. Put all five together and the case is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above.Noor Aalam (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per all above. Meets criterion 2 and 6 of WP:PROF. The speedy deletion tag was actually removed by the user who added it after the article had been improved.  That same user even removed the notability tag.  That this article was nominated within 1 1/2 hours of its creation and after all the improvements to boot is disruptive and only discourages new editors.  --Oakshade (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep NAE is the exact equivalent of the NAS and is notability. We should work on getting articles for all of them. IEEE Fellow needs further consideration--its not nearly at the same level; I dont think it would necessarily be enough by itself, but in this case it isnt by itself. The Deanship and it would be sufficient. But given NAE, the rest is irrelevant. I think its time to add : myself/my uncle/etc. is/isnt notable/non-notable as an argument not to be used for AfD. DGG (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (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.