Talk:Kanwal Ameen

thx

thx from WiR Victuallers (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

More sources

Sourcing is getting lost in the AfD discussion, but here is some source material I found; not sure if it's already in the article or not. Montanabw^(talk) 09:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC) :

• http://educationist.com.pk/intl-conference-on-information-management-and-libraries/
• Google scholar hits: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZhuLbeYAAAAJ&hl=en
• Researchgate hits: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kanwal_Ameen
• http://pu.edu.pk/home/section/allpress/3144

More:

• http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2016/01/07/city/lahore/senior-professors-line-up-for-coveted-vc-slot-at-four-varsities/ not sure what to do with this, but notes here on the interview list for a Vice-Chancellor spot, and that she is among the "Notable names". Goes to GNG, but not of much use in this article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Google scholar, sorted by date:

• https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=ZhuLbeYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate

Notability

The AfD was closed as "no consensus", meaning that notability has not been established beyond doubt. The notability tag that I put on the article says exactly that: the article "may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for academics" (my emphasis) and encourages editors to look for sources that establish notability beyond doubt. It doesn't say "this is not notable" (then the AfD would have been closed as "delete"), nor does it say "this is notable" (otherwise the AFD would have been closed as "keep"). The tag seems to be in complete agreement with the outcome of the AfD and draws attention to a problem that needs to be addressed, so I fail to see the problem with having it. --Randykitty (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the notability tag is specifically for articles with "unclear notability". This is justified here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

And will the debate ever be resolved in the minds of those who !voted "delete"? I think not likely. Tag-bombing just invites another round of AfD2, 3, 4, 5, ad infinitum. Waste of bandwidth. There was a narrow majority of raw polling favoring !keep, and an incredibly long tl;dr debating the issue. Me, I'd prefer to work on actually improving the article, anyone want to help go through the research gate and google scholar lists I posted above? It's daunting. I found a couple other small sources and added one already. Montanabw^(talk) 04:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The AfD debate concluded with no consensus (not keep), so Randykitty's tagging is perfectly fine here. The tag btw is for adding it to maintenance categories and there are certain editors (like me) who actually go through these categories to clean up the encyclopaedia. In addition, no reasonable editor will nominate an article for deletion 6 months after the last AfD, particularly if the AfD attracted participation. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I've seen repeat AfDs pop up within weeks, I recall one within days. Frankly, I think that notability has been established here, the more I dig, the more I find; she's written a ton of stuff and I'm seeing a lot of her work as book chapters on library science in Asia. Frankly, if she even knows this AfD existed, she'd most likely find it ironic, as she's published several articles on the need for a better research climate in Pakistan in the field of LIS. We have press releases, international conference speaking gigs, the main problem is how to stop wasting energy and bandwidth jawing about it and just get it into the article. Montanabw^(talk) 05:20, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

But that's not an argument to remove the tag - the tag is a maintenance thing. The article can continue to be improved. If someone nominates this article for deletion before 6 months, for all I care, take action against the editor for disruptive editing. But there is no policy based argument which says the tag should be removed. Sorry but I am putting it back.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You can also see this about when to remove the tag. Template:Notability#Removing_this_tag. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Self Citations

Regarding this, how is this Synth? The source specifically mentions that her ranking is third but also specifies that this considers self citations. See here --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

You are right. The link didn't go to the article, it just went to the abstract. I found the article, fixed the link and examined the article in question fully. I made some additions to put this all in context. They did a matrix that factored out self-citation and she was still third. I found that article quite interesting in the light of the AfD, as it clearly points out precisely what I was talking about over there, that people in the third world may have to face certain disadvantages vis-a-vis first world professors who otherwise appear similarly-situated. I was shocked that of 53 faculty, only 11 had published anything at all! Montanabw^(talk) 04:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: Before nominating for deletion

This is a note for anyone nominating this article for deletion. Please consider waiting 6 months at least before nominating. The AfD closed recently as "no consensus" with quite a lot of participation so it would be preferable to wait for 6 months or a year before nomination. There is a good chance, she may become actually notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with 6 months being a good time before re-nominating, but would not wait longer. Of course, any editor may decide to wait less long (and in that case I'd still !vote "delete"), but let's hope this note dissuades them from doing so. Perhaps something happens in the next half year that will make this person notable (beyond the rather offensive "let's be permissive here because it is a woman from Pakistan who cannot make it without our help"). Perhaps some independent third-party sources will crop up, too, as there are hardly any at this point. Contributor profiles in books and such are not independent. They can be used to source non-controversial stuff (like any CV), but not to contribute accomplishments (like number of publications or honors and such). And, of course, they don't contribute to notability (not being independent). --Randykitty (talk) 10:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a comparison between this BLP and Khalid Mahmood (academic) who worked at the same university in the same field, around the same time, and may have met fewer if not equal notability criteria using some of the same sources as Ameen yet his BLP was never the subject of an AfD. Perhaps DGG can provide some input since he edited the Mahmood BLP during the submission process waaaaay back in December 2012]. Hopefully his memory is far better than mine. I removed the notability tag since the close was no consensus and we've added more sources and information. Perhaps the close should be reviewed? Ameen clearly meets at least one of the following criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), and it appears to be better sourced than Mahmood's:

1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. <---some independent sources were provided

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.<---confirmed that she met both the "national and international award", criteria not just either/or

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.<----confirmed via sources

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).<---Pakistan doesn't offer the same kind of distinguished chair honors, rather they consider the department itself to be distinguished; therefore, the elected chairperson of the department is considered a distinguished chair

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.<---she is chief editor for the Journal of Library and Information Science

Thank you in advance.... ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Wow. Just that. Wow. Please have a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Ameen doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. And then adding stuff about people who were at her department more than a century ago? Why not add a sction on the history of the University? And a section on the history of the Punjab? While we're at it, a section on the history of Pakistan? This is now G11 material. Seriously. --Randykitty (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• PS: i'd be happy to have the close reviewed in the light of your edits. Better proof of non-notability is difficult to find. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Khalid Mahmood was president of the Pakistan Library Association, and therefore notable. The question here is much more basic that whether this particular individual is notable--the question is whether we are going to accommodate people in countries where they rarely publish in major world journals, and where the work has only a national significance. In all fields but academic, national importance is sufficient. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that scientific notability is world-wide, but I think we should be a little--just a little--accommodating in such cases. This is something that we have to decide, but it is also something where we are unlkely to have any set standard and may have to go article by article. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DGG. I just wanted to point out that WP:Notability (academics), states (my bold underline): Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her failure to meet either the GNG or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant. Others appear to be judging her notability based on GNG guidelines so I hope by quoting the guideline they will turn their focus on the relevant guideline. Also, when determining Ameen's notability why can we not also consider the fact that she was the first-ever library information science professor to earn a Best University Teacher Award by HEC in 2010? It's a milestone in that country's history which clearly sets her apart from the rest. Also, after scanning the credentials for Khalid Mahmood (academic) regarding notability, the main difference I see between these two colleagues is the fact that she is female and he is male. Their accomplishments are pretty much the same - he may have had a head start - but as past notability discussions have explained, men in the ME get more media attention, even though Ameen's accomplishments are equal to or may even surpass his. One last thing as a sidebar note: in defense of the passage I added about librarian Asa Don Dickinson, it was to provide verifiability for the reference to Ameen's department changing over the past century. I also clarified and added a source to satisfy V for the passage in the lead that states the University of the Punjab is the oldest university in Pakistan. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The GNG can be discussed a a possible alternative. An academic can meet either guideline. The relationship between the GNG and any particular SNG varies, but WP:PROF is specific that meeting either guideline is fully sufficient. It is quite possible that someone who doesn't meet WP:PROF might meet the GNG because of other activities. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

DGG, your reference to international notability: "the question is whether we are going to accommodate people in countries where they rarely publish in major world journals". I looked up Ameen's intl reach and here's a sample of what I found:

1. Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2013.06.001
2. Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.iilr.2012.04.007
3. Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2007.11.002
4. Science Direct doi:10.1016/j.lcats.2006.12.003
5. Emerald Group Publishing Winner Vol 30 #1 and 2 "Information and digital literacy: a stumbling block to development? A Pakistan perspective"
6. [1] I can't get into this site but I think there are RS on that site that could be used.
7. [2] She was a presenter at the 4th Shanghai International Library Forum
8. [3] She is the first woman library scientist at Dpt of Information Management, Punjab University, Lahore having secured a Ph.D degree in Library and Information Management from abroad. (another first)
9. The Educationist Events pg 9

There are other notable intl conferences she has attended over the years as a presenter, chair, etc. such as IGI Global, International Federation of Library Associations & Institutions (IFLA), etc. Surely they count, right? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:15, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, What does ME mean in "men in the ME get more media attention"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Middle East. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan is in the Middle East? I always thought it was in South Asia and not Middle East. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

It's arguable but we can say both since we're talking about media in that part of the world. See lower right on magnifying glass. ^{Atsme📞📧} 23:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the only person who I remember openly saying Pakistan was Middle Eastern was a certain George W. Bush. :D Over here in Asia, we don't consider Pakistan as Middle Eastern. The culture in Pakistan is way different (like seriously, way different) from Middle Eastern countries (like Israel, Saudi Arabia and Iran). I think that Pakistan being Middle Eastern is simply another example of an American stereotype, possibly accentuated because it is a majority Muslim country. Compared to the Saudi Arabia, Pakistan is quite liberal in general and women in Pakistan have much more rights. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh, my! I wouldn't give Bush any credit, good or bad. American stereotype? Meh. I'd say it's closer to American parroting. There are several academic journals that refer to Pakistan as part of the ME for various reasons and they're not American Journals. The Turkish Journal of Politics: In a broad meaning, we can state that the Middle East covers a region from Ethiopia in the south, Turkey in the north, Afghanistan and Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west.[4] page 9. The G8 also includes it as part of the ME, but I don't want to lose focus on the job at hand; i.e., Ameen's international appeal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Back to the point. One of the articles I read that cited her work noted that the g-index scores in the soft sciences are far lower than in the hard sciences -- and in some fields within the liberal arts, they are very low indeed. Thus, you cannot compare these metrics except within the same field. You can't compare a physics PhD to (as here) a library science PhD. I find it rather ironic that a number of Ameen's publications address the very issue: That people in the Library Information Systems field in Pakistan have to step up to the plate to be published more in higher-quality journals because their work is not being recognized. I find her taking her own advice, but it's slow: the Google scholar analytics (linked above in sources) show she had quite a jump in published works in 2015. It will take a few years for future writers to cite to her in their own articles, but it will probably get there. In the meantime, we have GNG and PROF, either of which will work, and WP:PROF is guideline, whereas GNG is part of WP:N, which is POLICY. Thus, "neutral, third-party sources independent of the subject." At this point, that is more than half the references in there --we've expanded the sourcing significantly from the beginning of the AfD when most of the material was from the University of Punjab. Now again, let's stop jawing about it and do more to improve the article. Montanabw^(talk) 03:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, none of the "sources" you mention support the notability claim per N or PROF – they only show that such person existed and published. We need at least one RS stating that she made a lasting and significant impact. Until such source is presented, the subject fails the criteria for inclusion in WP. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kashmiri, "lasting and significant impact" is not the WP:N/GNG standard. WP:N is coverage in "multiple third-party sources independent of the subject". That we have. Even WP:PROF doesn't require a nobel prize to establish notability. Also, frankly, taking the number of international conferences where she has been asked to present, and her work bringing the concepts of Library Science Information technology to Pakistan, she IS having a lasting and significant impact in the field of library science. Montanabw^(talk) 22:33, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove that "talking at Conferences" equals impact? It so happens that I regularly attend conferences where many of the speakers tend to speak at at least 2-3 such events a year, and going so for many years. Will this alone make them worthy a Wikipedia article? — kashmiri ^TALK 23:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Fortunately, there actually are independent sources that establish her notability beginning with the University of Nebraska, an independent source that published the "Impact of Pakistani Authors in the GOOGLE World: A Study of Library and Information Science Faculty" (2011) which shows Ameen to be 3rd behind Khalid Mahmood whose BLP (curiously) has not been under threat of an AfD. DGG stated the reason: Mahmood served as President of the Pakistan Library Association. Ok, so we can certainly acknowledge that in the male dominated PLA, becoming president is "notable" per our current WP:PAG, but let's not forget WP:IAR and what DGG further acknowledged, which I interpret to be words of wisdom and cautious optimism toward progress, both of which are rooted in his years of experience as a librarian, and on WP: "In all fields but academic, national importance is sufficient. I don't want to lose sight of the fact that scientific notability is world-wide, but I think we should be a little--just a little--accommodating in such cases. This is something that we have to decide, but it is also something where we are unlikely to have any set standard and may have to go article by article." I wholeheartedly agree with "...may have to go article by article." With that said, I also believe we must exercise caution when comparing the soft sciences with hard sciences like physics, primarily because they do not enjoy the same widespread attention. Let's look at a few of the reasons why we should accommodate Ameen:

1. She is the first woman library scientist (in a century) at the Dept of Information Management, Punjab University, Lahore, with a Ph.D degree in Library and Information Management from abroad [5]. Considering the political, religious and societal customs of a nation region where women have suffered oppression for centuries and still do in many areas, how could we not say her achievements are highly notable? What she has accomplished is an historic milestone for women throughout the region, possibly even the world with few exceptions. Her long list of noteworthy achievements are only beginning to be recognized, such as having served as a university department chair, not just once but 3 times: in 2015 she began serving her 3rd consecutive 3-year term. Based on the sources I've examined, she is has consistently been the only woman in a male dominated field who has served in a chair capacity at international library conferences that she also helped organize, and/or participated in as a presenter. Considering the systemic bias throughout the greater region how likely is it that she would ever be appointed president of the male dominated PLA? Ameen is a perfect example of what we should be trying to overcome regarding WP:N and why the scope of notability should be tweaked to accommodate these peculiar situations.
2. She is the only woman who, in 2013, served as a member of the PLA's Programme Advisory Committee, the Scientific Committee, and Programme Organizing Committee [6].
3. PLA acknowledged her contributions as follows: The credit goes to Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan and library school of prestigious Punjab University, who led the others from front, starting first formal M. Phil leading to PhD program in Pakistan in the field of LIS. Professor Dr.Khalid Mahmood and Professor Dr. Kanwal Ameen are the ones who contributed enormously in this context. ISSN : 2313-8858
4. Won an Emerald Group Publishing (a global publisher) Literati Award in 2010, specifically The Alexander Wilson Award for "outstanding paper" that was published in the journal Library Management [7] Vol 30 #1 and 2 "Information and digital literacy: a stumbling block to development? A Pakistan perspective" Emerald Group Publishing.

It would be wrong to dismiss what Ameen has accomplished in her field as not notable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:26, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I strongly object to the suggestion of sexist bias on WP. The notability criteria on Wikipedia are gender-neutral and are identical with regard to academics of all sexes. Being "the first woman library scientist at that university" may be an important factoid for certain social organisations, but it is as relevant to establishing academic credentials required by WP:PROF as being the first male kindergarten nurse. All the other points you list do not a person notable. I can assure you the majority of people I know are "the only" in something, like "the only person to have those two jobs" or "the only person sitting on these three committies at the same time". And most of them do "contribute greatly" to something and many have been publicly thanked. Let's don't be ridiculous: if Ameen is to be considered notable, she has to fulfil ONLY the criteria listed either at WP:GNG or WP:PROF, and not some fancy claims.

Additionally, the "independent" source you mentioned is actually a paper by a person subordinate to hers (a professor at the department whose head Ameen is). Let's be honest please. — kashmiri ^TALK 23:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I haven't been honest? I may well make a mistake but it is darn sure an honest one. You need to back peddle and focus on content, not editors. Strong objections and fallacious claims that gender bias doesn't exist in regions where Ameen works and resides are pathetically weak arguments at best, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence. Perhaps the following research article from the Harvard Kennedy School will convince you: [8]. ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Atsme, that's not what Kashmiri says. Of course there are gender biases "in regions where Ameen works and resides". What Kashmiri says and with which I agree 100% is that here on WP our criteria are gender neutral and are applied regardless of gender. And I also agree that it is stretching things to call a paper from a subordinate "independent". As for the above point about speaking at conferences, that's the same thing as with publications. Publishing and speaking at conferences is what academics do and that fact alone does not make them notable. It's evidence that those talks and publications have had an impact that makes an academic notable. By the way, we now have sourced text ion the article about hos old the university and the department are. Should we perhaps also add something like that for the publishers of her books (i.e., that those books have been published by seedy vanity publishers)? Or do we only include info about how old the university is in an attempt to make Ameen look more important? In reality, of course, such stuff does not belong in this article at all. It only suggests importance, but notability is not inherited. Somebody may work at the oldest university in the world and it doesn't make them notable. This is akin to writing a bio on Angela Merkel saying that "Angela Merkel is the chancellor of Germany, the largest economy in the European Union". We don't do that there and it shouldn't be done here, either. --Randykitty (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-topic

The rampant stereotyping, throwing around terms like "third world" "disadvantaged" and the general patronising tone is extremely offensive to certain people, particularly those of us who are actually from you know, the "third world". I am honestly disgusted that this attitude is so widespread in Wikipedia and particularly among editors who claim to fight "Systemic Bias".
I know it might be difficult to understand why this is offensive. For that you need to understand some of our history. 2 centuries ago when we were colonised, similar statements were used. They told they wanted to save us and enlighten us and improve our standard of living. However, they never saw us as equals. The same thing is happening here. A patronising tone is never a sign of equality.
While fighting systemic bias, it is important to actually have an in-depth understanding of the country, its culture and it's general situation. Ignorance leads to stereotyping. It actually risks spreading the very bias. An an example of the stuff which encourages stereotyping, here are a couple: Article about an "innocent American" who was caned, article about academic freedom at an university. (Of course, the situation is nothing like that). But stuff like this continues to propagate the view of Asia as a disadvantaged backwater with barbaric laws.
I frankly think that the efforts to think that an academic (whose article wouldn't have been kept if this was a Western professor) is notable because she is a "woman in a disadvantaged country" is harming things in the long run. If someone said the same to me, I would find it extremely insulting. I mean, academic peer review is an international process. The work is judged on the merits of the work alone, not on the nationality of the academic.
I'm not sure if this is a cultural difference but (at least here in South-East Asia), victimhood is associated with a sense of pity, not equality. I value people who look upon me as an equal, not someone who looks and decides I should be pitied because I am from an "oppressed country". This is becoming like a rant and I am not able to organise my thoughts so I will stop. But this kind of sums up what I feel. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hear! Hear! My feeling exactly. The attitude of: "go lightly, she's only a woman and from Pakistan at that" is highly offensive. We should combat systemic bias by applying our WP criteria regardless of gender or country of origin. Fighting systemic bias by creating articles on notable people, regardless of gender and nationality is much more effective than keeping substandard articles. --Randykitty (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I will quote a very specific and very clear guideline in WP:Notability (academics) : Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. It does not state that the reliable sources must be independent sources. In fact, the general notes further confirm that fact: ...once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources... Ameen IS notable according to that guideline. My suggestion now is for those editors who have an issue with the outcome of the AfD to either drop the stick or dispute the close. If anyone has an issue with the sources that were used, take it to RSN or BLPN. Randykitty, since you had Ameen's image speedy deleted right after the no-consensus close, the timing of which makes your actions appear retaliatory but I will AGF and ask you that if you believe a copyvio existed, then as an administrator you should also initiate a speedy delete for the Khalid Mahmood (academic) image since it was uploaded by the same user under the same circumstances as Ameen's image. Also, since Mahmood is a colleague of Ameen and the sources used in his BLP to establish notability and support content include many of the same sources used for Ameen, perhaps you should take steps to either tag or clean-up that article as well. Thanks in advance. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

You quote it right, but interpret it incorrectly: "...once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources" meaning that notability has to be established by independent reliable sources and only if that has been done, then non-independent sources can be used to source non-controversial stuff. This is the first time that I have heard a well-established editor argue that non-independent sources contribute to notability, usually it's only newbies that do so... As for the image, I stumbled upon the Facebook page (can't remember how I got there) and noticed that it was the same image and hence a copyvio. So I tagged it as such. The system at Commons is the same as here: a Commons admin who is well-versed in copyright issues came by and checked whether this was indeed a copyvio, agreed with it and deleted it. How correcting a violation of copyright could be retaliatory I fail to see. As for any other article: we now have over 5 million articles and I cannot look at/edit them all. I have never edited the Mahmood article and I am busy enough as it is. But feel free to have a go at it yourself. --Randykitty (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Randykitty, your response to me above is condescending but what concerns me even more is that it demonstrates a response pattern you've established based on your misinterpretations of my comments. Please. Stop. Doing. That. The passages I quoted were in response to some of the arguments made above, such as: "but it is as relevant to establishing academic credentials required by WP:PROF as being the first male kindergarten nurse" [9] I responded to "establishing academic credentials", which is why I quoted the passage that points to WP:V. In my mind, we've already cited independent sources that satisfy criteria 1 regarding independent sources plus more. The remainder of the criteria suggests WP:V; i.e. RS. I'll also note my dismay over the preceding comments by Lemongirl, such as: "I frankly think that the efforts to think that an academic (whose article wouldn't have been kept if this was a Western professor)..." [10], which to me translates into IDONTLIKEIT, a content argument that is neither helpful nor productive in improving this BLP. I'm of the mind, and have been all along, that the independent sources already cited in the article have established notability per the guideline's suggestions, including satisfying at least one of the criteria listed. Example, "major awards listed must be confirmed", which in Ameen's case was confirmed per V and properly cited as were the "claims of impact in the field" which were also confirmed and cited using independent "citation metrics". I will further note what the aforementioned editors keep dismissing: specifically that "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." The guideline also mentions that "citations need to occur in peer-reviewed scholarly publications such as journals or academic books" which again has been met per various citations of her work, [11], [12], while taking into consideration what the guidelines suggest and what two notable experts in the field of library science have already stated in favor of Ameen regarding "traditional sciences" vs Ameen's field, LaMona and DGG.

The combination of both independent and verifiable RS are what is customarily used to establish notability for an academic; however, it isn't mandatory and that is the point several editors have tried to make. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be a consideration for a few editors. There is justifiable concern that not giving adequate consideration to important exceptions in the guideline are problematic, particularly the following (my bold, & underline): Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work.' It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable. To deny Ameen's notability in terms of her success at both a national and international level, or her qualifications per "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" and the fact that she has received "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"; further noting that the guideline states: "Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account."

Web sites

In last month's AfD, even two delete voters conceded that this Daily Times article is an independent RS that confers some notability onto good Dr Kanwal. Yet the source was deleted from the article itself with an edit summary of "Absolutely trivial".

Quite a few Wikipedians seem to hold 20th century views about web sites. The cools kids haven't been trivialising web sites for at least 10 years now. Nothing unusual with some older editors not keeping up on this; as Lord Keynes suggested, on certain topics many academics remain stuck with the thinking they developed in their schooling. However, compared with how things were in the 90s, web sites have became rather more central in human affairs these past few years; their especially rapid rise in importance since the crisis of 2008 makes them the single most transformative force operating on the global economy. And also the primary field of conflict for many of the worlds most formidable people, in terms of the struggle over regulation between the public and private sector, and intra private sector competition.

Most will have heard of Netflix killing off the once mighty Blockbuster, or of the countless of bricks and mortar retailers that have closed down due to Amazon. Yet those are only two out of more than 100,000 transactional web site companies across the world, nearly 200 of which each have a value over $1 billion. Depending on how exactly the global web site economy is defined, it now supports over $3,000 billion / year worth of transactions, up from less than £100 billion worth of sales in 2006. The grwoth of web site companies is a global phenomena, and in fact there are more high value web site companies in Asia than any other continent(Alibaba, Tencent and dozens more.) While there's not yet concensus on this view, some analysts are even saying that the rise of websites is a phenomena that gives Asia a geostrategic advantage over the US.

While the rising importance of web sites is a phenomena that less than 1% of academics seem to paying much attention to, several dozen top scholars have been publishing papers and university press books on this subject, especially in the last year. Im currently working my way through these publications along with reports from national governments, the big multilaterals, the major business consultancies, investment banks etc etc, with a view to writing / expanding a NPOV article on the global phenomena, which maybe ready sometime in 2017. For that reason Id rather not get into a long discussion on web sites for now, but in the light of the above, does anyone still think the good Doctor's leading role in redesigning her university's official web site is too trivial to include in the article? If there are no objections I'll re-add the source.

PS - thanks so much to editors Atsme and Montanabw for the outstanding improvements to the article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do so! Though to avoid future issues, perhaps add a wee bit about why this matters so there is a context. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

To do as if chairing a group of people to set up a website is a significant accomplishment in the life of an academic, well, I think that's plain insulting. And we already have non-pertinent information about the university and the department, so why not add some editorializing about why setting up a website is important. This article is getting worse and worse. --Randykitty (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Im reading this as saying that while you're still not too impressed about her lead role in designing the website, you no longer object to the source being added back to the article. @Montanabw - good shout, but unfortunately I couldn't find a source that talks about the impact of the Punjab university web site. I think it would have been fine to add even without it specifically mentioning Dr Kanwal, but without finding such a source at all I dont think we can add anything about its benefits in terms of helping and attracting students etc without violating OR. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to improve this. For that we first need evidence of notability, after all. Go ahead, and make this as spammy as you want. But let it be noted that I think you are insulting Ameen. --Randykitty (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not finding where you tried to "improve" the article. Please provide a diff or at least point to the attempts. Hopefully we can help turn your attempt into a positive improvement. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Bye, randykitty and thanks for all the fish. Montanabw^(talk) 04:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 12:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wow, even after I actually called out and showed why all this is insulting, I see the same attitude all over again. I guess 200 years is clearly not enough to understand why it is insulting. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sincere apologies if it's me starting this section that's the main cause of offense. The last thing I'd want is to insult you. I see despite how you came across on Alanna's AfD, you are a good editor, for example you've helped save a school in Nepal, patiently explaining policy to a deletionist.

I do understand most of what you're saying, and if this was an East Asian topic Id totally defer to you. Huh, other than maybe with Nepal and Seoul, I'd probably not even try to edit an east Asian article. I learned my lesson back in 2012 while saving a Malaysian article from deletion. While one Malaysan editor gave me a barnstar, another was clearly annoyed by my efforts, so I accepted that I lack the cultural sensitivity to edit in that area.

That said, you're wrong if you think Im trying to save this article just because it's related to Asia. As my edit history would show I work on article rescue without discrimination, is anything concentrating more on British and American topics just as they're easier to work on. The points made in the OP largely apply to websites globally, I'd consider leading the redesign of one's university website to be more or less equally important regardless of continent.

You're also wrong if you think myself or white people generally see Asians as "oppressed and disadvantaged.". More like the other way around! I see you're in Singapore. In the field of education, only last month, the government here in Great Britain announced a change to adopt Singapore style math teaching in half our primary schools. Just one of hundreds of ways we in the West are trying to learn from Asians...

Sorry if it seems Im lecturing when you wanted to be listened to. One area where I am a little prejudiced is in thinking middle aged folk like myself generally understand the world better than young people. Us middle aged white businessmen know quite a few things you won't find in many reliable sources. One of those things is that if we travel to East Asia, we have to be on our best behaviour and very careful if we don't what we're doing, as in much of East Asia, being white is a disadvantage. (Not with everyone you meet of course, but it's a good general expectation.) It's the other way around in most of Africa and Middle East / central Asia. In several countries if anything we get too much special treatment & deference. It's not quite as bad in Pakistan as it is in most of rest of ME, there we're generally treated as equals, but despite the imperial history Pakistanis are still very happy to socialise with English people. It's largely correct to say we have a mutual affinity. I know the Pakistani people quite well, which is why I'd eat my hat if Dr Kanwal agreed with Randykitty that this article insults her. She'll be proud of it more like (Even accepting that Rk is right that the article should ideally talk more about the impact of her core work.) . If any doubt this, it's easy to find the good Doctor's email from said web site. In my experience academics always respond when you email them about their article. In the extremely unlikely event that Dr Kanwal says she wants this article gone, I'd happily vote delete and so would several of the other keep voters.

Assuming that no ones going to waste the good doctors time by sending her an almost certainly pointless email, please lets have no more talk of insults. The only true insult around here is certain people devaluing good Atsme's , Rahmatgee's and Montanabw's work in crafting this gem of an article! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, this isn't about you and it isn't about people from Asia. It's about false analogies and fake standards that look neutral on the surface, but actually have a bias in favor of white males in the hard sciences and from the First World. Sometimes others learn to play the game just as well (or better), and sometimes we point out that the game is rigged, as here. I've read some of Ameen's works, and she herself advocates quite strongly for people in her field and in her country to step up to the plate and publish in more high-quality journals. There is no "white man's burden" about it; or more to the point, it's a situation where the dominant system has imposed a standard that has nothing to do with ability or quality and everything to do with how well someone plays a political game. In one of the articles on the h-scoring, for example, it showed that physicists had overall scores much higher than people in the liberal arts and the lowest scores were held by law professors... so a "neutral" metric comparing people across disciplines would rank physicists higher than lawyers; yet real neutrality would be to compare physicists to physicists, lawyers to lawyers, and so on. Montanabw^(talk) 21:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Image of Ameen restored and in place in the infobox. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kanwal Ameen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084850/http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/8/Editorial-Board.html to http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/8/Editorial-Board.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084850/http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/8/Editorial-Board.html to http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/8/Editorial-Board.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)