Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahzad Sarwar


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Shahzad Sarwar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article does not SIGCOV for WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACADEMIC. Sources in article and WP:BEFORE revealed no WP:IS WP:RS containing material that meets WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in depth. Some routine mill coverage exists and mentions in other articles that fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. BLP articles should strictly follow WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N sourcing requirements.  // Timothy ::  talk  01:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not checked in detail but the principal of Punjab University College of Information Technology could be considered to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC #6. If that were agreed, and properly sourced, then additional compliance with the general notability guideline would not be needed, as the two are alternatives (my reading is that although obviously all BLPs need reliable sources for their material, sources independent of the subject are not required). If that position were not held to fulfill WP:NACADEMIC #6, then I don't think the subject would otherwise qualify at this time per the citation record in Google Scholar ; there's only one or two moderately cited articles in what looks like a fairly citation-heavy field. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on NACADEMIC 6: I agree with this hinges on whether the section of the university they are Dean of is considered a "major academic institution". I don't believe so based on there only being 25 PhD faculty members and less than 100 permanant teaching members (info from the WP article), but if there is evidence from IS RS sources that this is recognized as a major institution separate from the University it is a part of, then the subject passes NACADEMIC. There is no dobut it is a quality program, but a "major" academic institution with only 25 PhDs? in a country well known for technology education.   // Timothy ::  talk  04:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Major" isn't well defined, unfortunately. Also needs sourcing -- it's not in the given Ref 4 as far as I could see, and on a very quick look, I couldn't find the appointment on the college website. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , He's definitely more notable than more of the football players who have articles...  // Timothy ::  talk  01:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I do think one of the general problems is that the threshold for academics is actually pretty high compared with that for, say, sportspeople, actors and authors. The fact that passing WP:PROF gives a free pass for GNG obscures the fact that passing PROF is really difficult. In fact it's often much easier to prove notability for an academic as a writer by reviews, than to actually pass PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete deans are not default notable, this only applies to the actual academic head of a whole institution, not heads of constituent parts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the above sentiment that his administrative position appears to be dean-level rather than head of whole university (albeit at a major university), too low for notability through WP:PROF. His citation record, while not bad, isn't strong enough to make a case for #C1, and I don't see anything else that comes close. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2021 (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.