Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atta ur Rehman Khan (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atta ur Rehman Khan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Atta ur Rehman Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The situation appears to be unchanged from the last AFD: this academic is listed online (in primary sources such as his own books or copies of his conference papers) but has not received coverage within reliable and independent publications. arcticocean 18:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the editor has some personal grudges and is biased against this listing. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    personal grudges Seriously Mr. Khan, it’s not worth it. let’s chill! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 23:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Who khan? I think you have something personal with Khans. I can understand. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's been enough years since the previous AfD that the previous WP:TOOSOON arguments do not really apply. But the only case to be made for notability appears to be through WP:PROF#C1; he doesn't meet the other PROF criteria and we have no evidence of GNG notability. Setting aside the quality of his publications, this is a high-citation field and the top-cited works on his Google Scholar profile [1] all appear to be surveys. I don't think the remaining ones have sufficient demonstrated impact to pass C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you from the same domain? How can you pass a judgement if the number of citations are not enough? Prof. Khan is listed among the world's top 2% scientists in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 WP:PROF#C1. He also serves on the editorial boards of more than eight high impact journals WP:PROF#d. He has delivered multiple keynote talks at international IEEE conferences WP:PROF#e. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is really notable, then why no secondary coverage? The WP:PROF#C1 criterion is indeed subjective and is just a shortcut to presume that there is notability under WP:GNG. Best way to prove notability beyond doubt is to have evidence of WP:SIGCOV, which the subject fails to have. To be highly cited under WP:PROF#C1, in my experience I have seen that 3000 citations across the entire career in computer science is still not enough without secondary coverage. Probably still needs to triple that amount, with at least a couple papers with more than 1500 citations each. I agree that it would be better to include quantifiable information in WP:PROF#C1 and make it less subjective, but I doubt this will ever happen. Contributor892z (talk) 05:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to count for the academic notability criteria, he would need to be the editor in chief of a prominent journal. Serving as a member of an editorial board for a journal (or many such boards) is not enough. And Contributor892z is perfectly right, these citation numbers are not high enough for his particular field. Qflib (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    World top 2% scientists is definitely not enough either. If you do a simple maths - there is 1.1 million BLPs in English Wikipedia and 1.35 billion English speaking people in the world, you conclude that to be notable you need to be at the top 0.08% of your field of expertise. (Actually, if you consider that some of these BLPs became notable for bad reasons, e.g criminals, big failures, etc, the true number is even lower than 0.08%). Probably the fact that he is top 2% explains the lack of secondary coverage. Contributor892z (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    David Eppstein Could you provide one or two notable academics in this field for comparison? Also, I assume "senior member" of IEEE is, in practice, a giant step below fellow? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's definitely at least a step below fellow. By "the field" do you mean computer science in general, or cybersecurity/blockchain/cloud computing? That can be kind of a spammy area so harder to tell by citation counts. And if I name people who are outright stars it wouldn't be a fair comparison. But ok, going down the Google Scholar listings for someone matching similar areas and more borderline but clearly on the keep side of the border, let's go with Yang Xiang [2] [3]. The top couple of papers by citations are surveys again (this is not unusual; surveys get better citations) but the tail in his citation counts is significantly longer and heavier. More to the point, we don't have to rely only on citation counts because he is also an IEEE Fellow and an editor-in-chief, passing multiple other PROF criteria. We don't have an article on him already (suggesting that maybe his case is more borderline than some, or maybe he is less self-promoting than some) but I would definitely count him as meeting our standards for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks -- Yang Xiang is obviously considerably more heavily cited from the GS profile, and the IEEE fellow is, of course, an autopass. Perhaps in such tricky-to-assess areas we should just go on the IEEE assessment, or perhaps EiC on a well-established journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree that he does not meet WP:PROF and there is also no secondary coverage to show evidence of WP:GNG. The article was also poorly written and does not meet WP:NPOV by any means. Seems to be just a case of using Wikipedia for self promotion. Contributor892z (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prof. Khan's work has been cited by thousands of independent researchers in their publications.
For ref, check https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=j5x2DasAAAAJ and https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55602487700. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are not secondary coverage. Read WP:SIGCOV Contributor892z (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the citation count were high enough for this research specialty, C1 of WP:NPROF would be enough for notability without meeting WP:SIGCOV. But only a few thousand citations is not much for this field, I think. Qflib (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand how Wikipedia is used for self promotion in this case. Prof. Khan's personal website ranks first on Google search for his name. This page is not even in the first five google search results. 2001:8F8:1E3F:42B:21DA:EE2C:4F13:B1CF (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to only get a Google knowledge panel, don’t use Wikipedia then. Get a profile with Google Books and that will do it :-) Contributor892z (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atta_ur_Rehman_Khan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1256393898"