Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Mahmoud Hanifi

Strothra is a nerd! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.226.121 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Shah Mahmoud Hanifi
Article about a seemingly run-of-the-mill college professor. Appears to fail the so-called professor test. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I'm sure he's a perfectly nice chap. But as of yet he's not a full professor and there is no indication of notability. &mdash; RJH 17:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Thanks for the update of the article. Previous vote was based on content at time of nomination, which was non-notable IMO. :) &mdash; RJH 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment-- No problem, thanks for changing your vote.--Strothra 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep non-notable Updates to this article during its AfD discussion period have greatly improved its verifiability and provided sources that support notability. In particular the Gutenberg Prize is a major award in this field. I'm happy to change my vote to a keep. Gwernol 17:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Keep, article has been updated -- T B C [[Image:Confused-tpvgames.gif|18px|]] ???  ???   ??? 20:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Many notable professors are not "full professors."  By that comment I assume you to mean a "tenured professor."  The academic market being so full of political and economic pressures has limited the number of tenured positions for professors.  Also, it should be noted that Shah Hanifi's expertise is on Afghanistan and South Asian history, a subject for which there are only a handfull of American scholars.  He was a student of professor Juan Cole at the University of Michigan.  He serves on the executive board of the American Institute of Afghanistan Studies centered at Duke University.  For his ground-breaking work on inter-regional trade and colonial state formation in Afghanistan he won the 2004 E-Gutenberg Prize from the American Historical Association.  The award is funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.  Dr. Hanifi is also the Principal Investigator and Project Director for The Afghan Diaspora Remittance Project.  Hanifi was selected for this prestigious position by Asian Development Bank. The project was developed to estimate the amount and forms of human and material capital infusions from the Afghan diaspora to Afghanistan, and propose mechanisms to more efficiently and effectively attach that capital to development opportunities in Afghanistan.  This project is aiding in the development of not only the economic stability of Afghanistan but in reducing the funding of terrorist activities in that state.    --Strothra 21:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Wikiepdia "professor test" is not directly linked to whether the person is tenured or not. It is part of the general Wikipedia notability policy. It is certainly possible that a case for notability can be made for Shah Mohmoud Hanifi, but you'll need to make it in the article using independent verifiable sources. If you can do this, I'd be happy to change my vote to Keep Gwernol 22:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you very much. This is certainly a work in progress.  --Strothra 22:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think this award, given its sponsors and $20,000 stipend (which is pretty rich for history profs) is enough to establish minimal notability. Monicasdude 22:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Gwernol - Check the Honors and Awards section. Instead of immediately deleting a page, perhaps you should check it out on your own time to determine if it is bunk. It is obvious that Dr. Hanifi is important to his academic field as he is virtually the ONLY person who discusses Afghanistan. *Warnerhw
 * Comment You are need help with signing your name and editing your comments. Use that little blue tool bar above the edit box for stuff like your signature and making things bold.  put a : to create an indentation and a * to create a bullet. --Strothra 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Professor Test of Shah Mahmoud Hanifi: 1. The person is regarded as an expert in their area by independent sources. - PASS 2. The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. - PASS 3. The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). - FAIL 4. The person has published a well-known or high quality academic work. - PASS 5. The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea. - PASS 6. The person is known for their involvement in significant events relating to their academic achievements. - PASS 7. The person is known for being the advisor of an especially notable student. - FAIL 8. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. - PASS
 * warnerhw


 * Comment I have replied to User:Warnerhw in detail on his talk page. For the record I am strongly considering a switch in my vote to Keep per Monicasdude and the recent improvements to the article. Gwernol 23:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sorry, professor. --Takeel 23:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Merge with another article appropriate to the gentleman's area of expertise. --Takeel 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that several people here are citing WP:PROFTEST as the basis of their assertions to keep. My note to delete is based on that proposed guideline's first caveat. --Takeel 21:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Reason follows that the very fact that an individual has a Ph.D. from a top tier university and one of the world's best programs in his field makes him an expert in his field. His work has been recognized my the AHA and international business institutions such as the Asian Development Bank.  Further, he has given lectures at several Middle East Institute and MESA events at the request of those organizations.  --Strothra 12:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Strothra. It sounds like you may be referring to the first criteria from WP:PROFTEST rather than the first caveat.  Please check out the "Caveats" section on WP:PROFTEST to see what I am referring to. --Takeel 13:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now. That is a good arguement but I don't feel that the professor is notable for only one connection to his work (the dissertation and the resulting award).  His work, both academic and professional, is notable.
 * I have changed my assertation to merge to reflect the recent changes to the article. I don't believe that the gentleman is notable enough to warrant his own article at this time, but information about him would be good to have in an article related to his area of expertise.  The text could also use some more work to bring it towards NPOV, which I would like to help with if it is merged or kept. --Takeel 15:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep has won that award... Eivindt@c 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Clear Keep Prof test, etc. JeffBurdges 04:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, does indeed pass the prof test. Grand  master  ka  08:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes the test at WP:PROFTEST (still a proposed guideline, but does reflect significant consensus.)  I think only in criterion 8, but still, that should be enough; an academic doesn't have to pass any criterion to be worth writing about.  Mangojuice 20:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that Strothra has been engaging in some vote stacking... see this edit for evidence. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. Strothra properly improved the article, resolved the notability question, and asked other editors to comment on whether his efforts were sufficient.  This is entirely appropriate, and represents a positive contribution to the project. He should be applauded. You, on the other hand, slapped a deletion tag on article on an article whose main flaw was an imperfect assertion of notability, making no apparent effort to check on the accuracy of your non-notability claim or the verifiability of the assertion of notability. Now you're complaining because he's convinced other editors that you were wrong, and has brought together a consensus on the issue. Why do you think there's something wrong with that? You have, however, convinced me about who I should vote off this island . . . . Monicasdude 14:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are both approaching very bad territory that is in the neighborhood of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Takeel 15:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * By your own standards, so are you. SchuminWeb's comments were plainly inappropriate, criticizing a user for making valuable contributions to this project. It's not a personal attack to describe conduct and note how it's out of conformity with applicable policy/guidelines. If it were, you should be slapping this note on every comment by every user who makes comments about "vanity," "self-promotion," and such. Monicasdude 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thank you Monicasdude for coming to my defense on this issue.  I intended no such action of "vote stacking."  The article was updated according to the criteria set forth in the discussion and I asked an editor to review their previous decision in light of new developments.  No ill intentions were in that action and there nothing improper about it.  I do not appreciate subtle personal attacks such as those being perpetrated by Schuminweb. As Monicasdude stated, there was little to no reason to put a deletion tag on this article in the first place.  The proper action would have been to attempt to improve the article or request others to do further work on the article before attempting to delete it.  I have elaborated on these points and Schuminweb's unwelcoming nature toward users attempting to contribute, in good gaith, to Wikipedia at User talk:SchuminWeb.  --Strothra 03:47, 26 March 2006 (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.