Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khizar Humayun Ansari

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 keep. (non-admin closure) J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 05:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khizar Humayun Ansari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not really much in terms of significant and in-depth, independent coverage of subject from reliable sources. Nothing in article, nothing found on a web search to satisfy GNG. Only source in article is a mention by association due to his famous son Rayman60 (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the books he has written? Did you check foreign language sources? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked in detail yet but note that the Journal of Islamic Studies described his book The Infidel Within as "an impressive contribution to scholarship in the field". Philafrenzy (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As well as being a professor at Royal Holloway (arguably enough to confirm notability), Ansari won the 'UBL Literary Excellence Award for English Non-Fiction' at the 2016 Karachi Literature Festival. That should be enough to match criterion 4 in WP:AUTHOR. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be enough but evidently not for the nominator who has also AFD'd Sarah Ansari, professor of history at Royal Holloway and noted partition scholar. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to the beliefs of some, being a professor at any institution is not enough on its own to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference in how the term is used in the UK to the US. In the UK professorship is restricted to those who have made a significant impact on their field (criterion 1 of the notability guideline for academics). Richard Nevell (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is poorly done, with few references and a muddled and badly formatted list of publications, however, I see:

A sole-author book published by Oxford University Press

The Journal of Islamic Studies described his book The Infidel Within as "an impressive contribution to scholarship in the field".

He wrote a chapter for The New Cambridge History of Islam, they don't let just anyone do that.

There is evidence in the publications that he has had impact outside academia in his area of expertise and so may meet criteria 7.

Philafrenzy (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notability is clearly established by his OBE as per WP:PROF criterion 2. Everymorning (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trout - For everyone who voted keep in this discussion and didn't fix the fact that the only source in the article was the Daily Mail. Otherwise keep. Meets NPROF. GMG ^talk 17:15, 2 October 2017 (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.