Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Maria Dias


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Jacqueline Maria Dias

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Minor mentions but not enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  19:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete does not meet the notability requirements for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: We have a number of sources in English documenting her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. There must be many more in Urdu.--Ipigott (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every Pakistani Urdu-language paper has its paper in English. Like Jang has The News, Express has The Express Tribune, Waqt has The Nation are few examples. Try to verify these. Störm   (talk)  16:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not at all clear that the sources document her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. They're all trivial quotes/mentions and several are for the same quote: In my opinion nursing is going through an unprecedented change in Pakistan. Introduction of Care of the Elderly ensures that students have knowledge and skills that are aligned to meet the nation’s requirements, which seems to have come on the occasion of receiving an award from her institution. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep holds a named chair which is just one of the criteria of PROF #5. Though not independent, the Award of Excellence in Education from her university states that, "she led the team that produced the revised national curriculum for nursing" and assisted the nursing board to insure that the curriculum met the standards of international nursing. It also states that she helped establish the bachelor's in nursing for Al Baath University in Syria and advised on nursing curriculum in Afghanistan. These are pretty clear indicators of #1, and show her impact has been beyond Pakistan. SusunW (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Dias' article easily passes our core content policies (V, NPOV, and NOR). There is plenty of in depth coverage of her work and roles and she has had a broad enough career that it wouldn't make sense to merge her into pages on those other positions, which seems to me to pass GNG. Also, she has been the director of a research center (CIME), holds a named chair (Nurudin Jivraj Professorship of Nursing), and has been involved at the national level in curriculum development and nursing education programming, passing PROF 1, 4, 5, and 7. Smmurphy(Talk) 18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In light of the discussion below I want to note that I still stand behind my !vote. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure which way I'm going on this yet, but I see a few things that I think are worth pointing out. Her named professorship came in 2004, nine years before she even enrolled in a doctoral program. According to sources in the article, she was still an assistant professor as late as 2015 - and she appears to still only be an associate professor. (See the notes following WP:PROF about named chairs and non-tenured faculty.) In addition, the Italian university that granted her Ph.D. has described itself online as a non-accredited institution. I'm on the fence about her work with the national curriculum (but I notice some close paraphrasing in that part of the entry that needs to be addressed if the article is retained). EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that outside of the US, it is relatively common for senior academics not to hold a PhD. This is especially the case in art, medical, and legal fields, but extends to other fields as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your statement is very misleading. First, it is uncommon for anyone in art, since MFA is generally considered the terminal degree. Even in the US, the medical professoriat does not have PhDs, but rather mostly MDs, and legal professoriat often has JDs. These are all "terminal degrees". I think the fact that her PhD is from an unaccredited institution is again something that is inconsistent with holding an endowed professorship. That title in this particular case does not have the conventional meaning we understand by the wording of PROF c5. Agricola44 (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I did not mean to mislead. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment--Trying to scrape sources.Wait. Winged Blades Godric 12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several commentators above have cited the "Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" as demonstrating notability per PROF c5, but this claim is not as clear as it would seem. First, the title does not have the same meaning as at an established western, particularly American university, where a named chair is one of the highest forms of merit-based recognition for a scholar. As pointed out by EricEnfermero, she was appointed this professorship in 2004, a full 12 years before even earning a PhD, i.e. the entry-level credential for academia qualifying one to apply for a junior position. Also, although our WP article on her employer, Aga Khan University, is very flattering, the fact is that it is a relatively young institution whose designation as a "university" is debatable by western standards. For example, it lacks the entire Arts and Sciences infrastructure, among other schools (this page says they will be setting up A&S as the intitution grows into a comprehensive university) and, in the departments that the institution does actually have, most faculty members are not doctoral or terminal degree holders (browse e.g. the nursing faculty). Finally, the institution is something of a sanctuary for individuals who have washed-out of the western academic system. So, I would submit that PROF c5 does not actually apply in this case because the spirit of that guideline, scholarly distinction, is not actually met according to our conventional standards. Agricola44 (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am a bit baffled by the comment above, are you saying that if she doesn't meet the "western academic standard" of notability, then regardless of the system in her own country she is not notable? Pakastan's literacy rate is abysmal and no where near a western standard., . The great majority of professors at any university are not PhD holders, one study found that of 7000 professors nationwide only 1700 held a PhD. So, we hold academics there or any other developing country which is not on par with the arbitrary "western standard" to a level that is impossible for them to attain? While a named chair in Pakastan may not meet the criteria of western named chairs, the fact that she has one, and it is repeatedly noted, is of significance there. SusunW (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not representing the whole story on several accounts. First, western, especially American universities are well-populated by folks from all over this region of the world. Second, there are people at universities in that part of the world, indeed some at that particular university, that are highly cited. Just check Aga Khan GS listings. That means there are many Pakistanis, both in Pakistan and abroad, who are notable. The notability test should not be biased by bringing one's ethnicity into the argument (or sex, or gender, or any other identity attributes). So, to inject strawmen, like the Pakistani literacy rate, in order to justify a special plea to lower the standards in this particular case is unconvincing. There are notable scholars at her very institution. She just isn't one of them. Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that will eventually make WP a directory of all of humanity. Agricola44 (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not bring any identifying attributes in to the discussion, nor did I make a special plea to save the article on some basis other than what is stated in the guidelines. Highly cited is only one standard and at that only applicable in limited fields. We disagree that western standards apply, so be it. Your doomsday statement about slippery slope was unwarranted. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You most certainly did introduce personal attributes! What in the world do you think an argument is that says we should not hold this person to conventional standards because the Pakistani literacy rate is abysmal? You are, in fact, making a special plea to lower the standard by claiming that this "Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" satisfies PROF. All of us can easily ascertain the validity of this claim by simply asking whether this was bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. The answer is clearly no, per all the observations that have been verbosely discussed above. But, under your logic, this doesn't really matter. We should all just throw considered judgement to the wind, disregarding all the problematic indicators, and robotically accept the notability claim because of this professorship that was clearly awarded for reasons other than scholarly accomplishment. I don't think anyone here should buy such an anti-intellectual argument, although they and the closing admin might ultimately do so. As for the slippery slope, editathons and all these other campaigns that are pushing the boosterism of everyone's favorite under-represented groups have led to a vast uptick of articles that we are all spending increasing amounts of time cleaning up. This is certainly one of them. Agricola44 (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference in arguing for personal attributes of an individual and notability standards that take into consideration the real-world variances which apply to any given field. As none of the sourcing states why she was awarded the chair, any claim regarding why it was bestowed is at this point unclear and unsubstantiated. SusunW (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There you go again. All assertion. Do you mean to honestly say that, with all the information that has now been found, that you still believe this professorship may have been bestowed for scholarly accomplishment? In 2004, when this was awarded, she had no papers, no citations, no book chapters, no terminal degree, in fact no academic accomplishment outside teaching whatsoever. Yeah, I can totally see your point on how the complete absence of scholarly accomplishment gives us no right to conclude that this professorship was not bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. I have to retire from this discussion with an aperitif. There just isn't any way to address such "postmodern logic". Agricola44 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it meets WP:NPROF. No clear arguments have been presented against this despite debates about where she got her PhD and the literacy rate of Pakistan. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps have another look above. There is a clear argument against: the named professorship was not conferred for scholarly accomplishment (because there was no scholarly accomplishment at the time it was bestowed). Therefore, it does not meet the conventional bar of PROF. Conversely, your argument seems to consist of the unsupported claim that you think it meets PROF. I would say that the correct interpretation is that no clear argument has been presented for. Agricola44 (talk) 08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why I am saying there is no clear argument above, since WP:NPROF says any named chair is acceptable. WP:NPROF 5.The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Also the named chair was not randomly bestowed for no reason, so there is clearly something you have not seen in your research. It's not that I really know why either, I am simply following the policy rather than making unsubstantiated assumptions based on my original research as to why she was granted the Nurudin Jivraj named chair at Aga Khan University. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I have to observe that you're just pushing another CHEESE argument. Nobody has said it was "randomly bestowed for no reason" and we are not even trying to find out why it was bestowed. That is an obvious strawman. The argument here is an argument of exclusion of the reason it was bestowed. Specifically, it was not bestowed for scholarly accomplishment, according to the detailed observations of EricEnfermero and myself. That is all that matters because it invalidates PROF. Here, "any" does not really mean any. Considered judgement would require, for example, that we reject notability on these grounds if a diploma mill confers some distinguished professorship title on one of their faculty, or even bestows the label of "eminent" on all of their faculty, as they do at University of NorthWest. Moreover, there are many legitimate reasons to question Aga Khan's status as a "major institution" (above). So, "keep" is still unconvincing. Sorry, Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * - My argument is not made of green cheese. I maintain that words mean what they mean, the WP:PROF page does not say anything like what you say it says. And that you are mistaken or being false in your statements. The Aga Khan University is a medical school, and as such is ranked in the top 300 world universities and top 200 in Asia, the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan ranks the university as the top medical school in Pakistan, and it is the only one in Pakistan to be accredited by the College of American Pathologists. It also produces 75% of all biomedical research in Pakistan. And very few of their professor's have named chairs (this person appears to be the only one who does in her entire department, including the director above her). Your argument makes no sense to me. (you may want to verify this and read  also). Have a nice day, but know that I disagree with you most thoroughly and find your comments are annoying and discriminatory. Regards. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are taking a strictly literal interpretation of the words, rather than applying considered judgement. Which of the two applies in this case is indeed the crux. You have conspicuously avoided the issue I raised regarding diploma mills, so I suspect you concede that there might be, at least hypothetically, cases where the literal wording of PROF fails. The observation that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred is not in dispute. It is debatable (see above) whether Aga Khan is a major institution and I see you've been reading our own flattering article on that institution (ranked top 300 in the world, etc), but US News puts its rank at more than double. I'm sorry my argument doesn't make sense to you, but I'm more sorry you've resorted to ad hominems in calling my arguments annoying and discriminatory. Indeed, we disagree. Best to you. Agricola44 (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well I was referring to the Wikipedia article which quotes this yes, which is a ranking for medical schools which I said, and therefore correct and not comparable to a ranking of all universities (where it still ranks), but it's not in contention that Aga Khan is Pakistan's most major medical school, and is only #2 of all universities in Pakistan according to your ranking. You (it seems?) are calling it a diploma mill which I don't think is accurate. Your statement that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred is in dispute, since as I already said, it was not randomly bestowed for no reason. And finally I don't do hypothetical rules, this is a considered judgement, and I don't see what I have conceded or even how that comes into it. And regarding the (ad hominems?) personal comments made by you to me and vice versa, it would be perhaps best if I stepped back form this debate, which I will, I have said my piece anyway, sorry if I caused any offence. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Summation. There has been much debate here, with some emotions, all of which I think is very healthy. I would like to come at this from a slightly different direction, because I suspect that some of the commentators here are not familiar with academic process to a degree needed to see the subtleties involved here. The issue revolves primarily around what seems to be strongest argument of the "keeps", namely the Jivraj professorship. First, professorships are bestowed for lots of different reasons in academia, only one being as a distinguished form of recognition for scholarly accomplishment. That one reason is the only reason of concern in PROF c5. Several editors have based their "keeps" on the literal interpretation of wording in PROF c5, basically arguing that the fact that Dias has this title is all that we need be concerned about. However, several others (including myself) have observed that Dias had little scholarly accomplishment, so it is reasonable to conclude that there must be some other reason for her to have received this title. That reason is not important for our purposes. BLPs like this have come up here at AfD in the past and some of the PROF "fine print" addresses precisely this particular type of case. As far as PROF pertaining to "named professors", the c5 notes say: Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments. This statement tacitly recognizes dynamics I have been trying to explain here. It is not clear what Dias' rank was in 2004 when the Jivraj title was bestowed, but presently Dias is still listed as an assistant professor, the Jivraj assistant professor to be exact. I maintain that this disqualifies "keep" arguments that are based on PROF c5. Second, though less clear, is the status of Aga Khan University, which the c5 notes state would have to be considered as an institution having a reputation for excellence or selectivity. There are a variety of reasons mentioned above that I think contradict Khan's reputation in this regard, including narrowness, widespread lack of terminal degrees in the faculty, low general research output, and reputation as a haven for failed western academics. I'm sorry to be persistent, but that's what were supposed to do these days. Best to everyone. Agricola44 (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Starting your comment with "summation" lends it with a sense of authority that isn't very accurate. It is fine for you to have your opinion, but it seems some people (myself included) disagree with you and that is fine too. Smmurphy(Talk) 01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Another comment I would appeal to the editors here that we please stop arguing about whether AKU is a major institution for WP purposes. Could everyone just please read WP:PROF and note that even if we could agree on AKU's status, these specific criteria notes indicate that C5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level? It looks like some editors may be seeing the list of criteria at WP:PROF, which seems straightforward enough, but they might be missing the specific criteria notes by not scrolling down far enough. Since her AKU page is clear that she is even now only an associate professor (and other sources indicate that she was once an assistant professor with that same appointment), I don't think we should be arguing over C5. If there is a path to notability for this subject, C5 isn't it. EricEnfermero (Talk) 01:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Tough decision, but Keep - Good arguments on both sides, but for me the giving of keynote lectures at conferences that get covered by the general press is enough to argue for a keep on both PROF and GNG principles. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Her field is nursing, where graduate degrees have only recently become usual. It does matter where her doctoral degree is from, and it indicates the common practice in the US and elsewhere of people in professional fields where higher degrees are a recent innovation getting them from wherever; it's a dismaying development but its not actually shameful in context. The WP:PROF standard for researchers is interpreted as international stature, but for teaching and professional service we usually judge country by country. Holding an endowed chair in the highest level university in the country is sufficient indication of notability  DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG and DGG.  Montanabw (talk) 22:33, 3 February 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.