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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Sanyal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

While I couldn't find any reliable sources for this person, the article does claim that they're a part-time lecturer at a university; that obviously seems to fail the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). All I could really find were pages on Ratemyprofessor and LinkdIn, which hardly seem to help the subject pass WP:GNG, either. This almost seems like a fan page. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. Would the nominator like to give us his opinion of the cites to be found on Google scholar? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• It is my understanding that being cited in numerous sources doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (academics), but rather coverage of the subject themself. My opinion, in that case, is that it doesn't bolster the subject's notability. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your understanding is wrong. I advise you to study WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I just looked it over another time, and I'm not seeing what criteria the subject would pass. Being cited, as far as I know, doesn't count as having a significant impact in the field; many academics have papers which are cited by others. Assuming you are referring to the criteria regarding the academic's work having a significant impact, could you elaborate on why you feel it would apply here? The citations alone don't seem to make it past the guideline. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I honestly don't see how the subject passed WP:Prof. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make WP:Prof#C1 any clearer than it is at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I apologize if I have caused any frustration, but I'm looking at the cites again and I'm seeing about half a dozen; much of what I'm getting on Google Scholar is for other individuals with similar sounding names in different fields. About six or seven citations doesn't seem to qualify as "highly cited" to me. I'm just not getting it. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the entry for Devotional Islam and politics in British India in the Google Scholar search linked above. That is clearly by this author, and you will see that Google Scholar says "Cited by 111". That's 111 citations just for the first publication listed, which is loads in the humanities. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that; one paper has been cited 100 times. She has several more which have been cited as well. Is that significant in the humanities, then? I can tell you from experience that in the technical and engineering fields, it isn't.

Please understand that I'm not trolling; I am asking an honest question. Perhaps this does count as significant and I simply didn't realize that. And if I didn't realize, then it's because significance hasn't been defined in specific terms in any guidelines or policies I have seen so far. What qualifies as "highly cited"? How many publications cited in how many different tertiary sources? This is an honest question, because I hear you loud and clear when you tell me this counts as a highly cited author, and from my own professional experience I'm looking at it and I'm not seeing it that way. In the absence of a specific parameter, what are we (the community) to do?

Again, I'm not trolling. This is a very serious question. I am not ruling out the possibility that this subject could pass the highly cited threshhold. I am just asking where that threshhold is, because coming from a scientific/engineering background (technical communication is an English major but still technical), I'm not seeing what I understand as significant, highly cited contributions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been much discussion of these matters in the archives of WP:Prof which you could look at. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You have my thanks for pointing that out, as I didn't think of that before. There are approximately seven archives; I'm going to take some time off from discussions and look this over. In a day or so, I will review them again and see what I can draw from it. There is quite a bit to go through but hopefully this can provide a clear picture. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails the general criteria stated in both WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Seems like a mere vanity page. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 14:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep getting a book publihsed by Oxford University Press and the number of citations her work is getting indicates notability to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-cited for her Islamic studies. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - Subject may at present be only a part-time lecturer at the university mentioned but the two books cited have, indeed, attracted considerable attention. She has also done a lot of work in her field at several American universities. Over the years, she has presented papers, attended conferences and organised seminars, relating to her specialist field of study and research, in different parts of the world e.g. USA, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Morocco and India. Such appearances are usually by invitation only. She has certainly been more active internationally in her subject area than many a full-fledged professor. In fact, had she been a round-the-clock professor, she may not have been able to do all that she has accomplished. To be cited in the E J Brill, Brill Publishers, (Leiden) Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an as an authority on a subject is a very special distinction and a rare honour. And she hasn't reached the end of the line yet. I don't think this is a vanity piece. Far from it. I would class her as a true scholar who passes WP:ACAD by virtue of all that she has achieved and thereby meets WP:GNG.- Zananiri (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination. After reviewing the talk page archive for the notability guideline on professors - specifically, Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)/Archive 1, Wikipedia:Notability (academics)/Precedents and Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)/Archive_6#Books_published_by_leading_academic_publishing_companies were the most helpful - I feel that this nomination was an error on my part. I wish there was some clearer way to express this within the guideline itself but after reviewing everything over the past day, I can't think of a better way to summarize it, especially given all the heavy discussion which took place regarding that guideline during 2007 and 2008. As far as I am concerned now, this is a bad article about a notable subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a commendable action. Admin (but not non-admin) closure is now appropriate. The moral is to learn policy in a field before editing in it. WP:BLP and WP:Prof policy is indeed complicated. Best wishes. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2013 (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.