Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sabieh Anwar


 * 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) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad Sabieh Anwar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article appears to fail WP:PROF. Being an assistant professor in Pakistan or a Rhodes scholar does not convey automatic notability against the guidelines. The unsourced awards may be worth consideration, however they appear to be scholarships rather than notable internationally recognized awards in physics or engineering. Searching Google Scholar reveals little that could be considered a widely recognized key publication in the field. The article has enjoyed a 3 month grace period before this discussion, so it seems unlikely to have a radical improvement in sources in the near future. Fæ (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Fæ (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. All the awards/honors listed in the article, including the Rhodes scholarship, are student-level awards (graduate and undergraduate), and hence they do not contribute to academic notability according to WP:PROF. Citability in GoogleScholar and WoS is minimal, the Assistant Professor position also indicates junior academic status. Nothing else in the record to show passing WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete scholar search turned up little, though in fairness he is young. Awards seem to be unsourced and of graduate level calibre which fails WP:PROF. Im not seeing anything in the current form in the article which suggests why he passes PROF, or gng for that matter via significant coverage in relaible secondary sourcing. At this state I lean towards deletion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. He's getting enough citations for his papers to convince me he's on a successful academic career track, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF — as happens frequently, the article was created too early in his career. No prejudice against recreation in a few years when his notability should become clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (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.