Draft talk:Nabi Hasan

I, Raydann, declare that I have a conflict of interest with this article as I am working with Dr. Nabi Hasan alongside my colleague Alnitak-Alnilam-Mintaka, as a Wikimedian-in-Residence at the Central Library of the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, under the GLAM IIT Delhi project. Dr. Hasan meets WP:PROF, which serves as an alternative to the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).

As a liaison between IIT Delhi and the Wikimedia community, I acknowledge my institutional COI and will therefore take special care to maintain a neutral point of view, ensure verifiability, and cite reliable sources in the creation and development of this article. Additionally, I am not receiving any payment or financial compensation for my involvement in creating or editing this article. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Would you explain if there are any criteria of WP:NPROF other than #5 being met?

Also, the third source doesn't even mention the subject, and the last five are citations to the subject's own writings without context about why they are relevant; therefore, for review purposes, these citations are more of an annoying distraction.

While sources meeting the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:Golden rule aren't required for academics, we still need sources that are reliable and independent of him. Given that, what independent reliable sources do you feel are the strongest indicator of notability here? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Anachronist, thank you so much for the feedback. Here's my answer to your concerns:

In addition to criterion #5 of WP:NPROF, I believe Dr. Hasan also meets criterion #4, which states:

The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.

While I understand that the high number of publications alone is not a sufficient indicator of notability, in Dr. Hasan's case, his academic and professional work has had a measurable impact in the field of Library science education in India. In my opinion, a modern day equivalent of authoring a textbook to be used for teaching, would be designing and instructing a course through the Government of India's official higher education platform SWAYAM and NPTEL, where, unlike Udemy, only the faculty from centrally funded institutes in India (IITs, IIMs, IISERs, etc.) can teach students.

Dr. Hasan has served as course coordinator and instructor for the following national-level courses:

• Science Communication: Research Productivity and Data Analytics using Open Source Software (2,584 enrolled learners in 2024, 1,023 in 2025, for a total of 3,607, the stats of which can be seen on NPTEL platform)
• Emerging Trends & Technologies in Library & Information Services (ETTLIS) (3,187 enrolled learners) & another one with (3,078) enrolled learners.

These courses have reached thousands of higher education students and professionals across India, which aligns with the intent of criterion #4. His work in the field of Library and Information Sciences, has had a significant, though not heavily media documented influence across multiple academic institutions.

I have also corrected the third citation, which now directly references the subject. Regarding the relevance of last five citations; I have seen in many academic biographies that they usually have a Selected works section where they cite their peer-reviewed journal publications. I merely copied the same style of article creation. It wasn't my intent to present them as evidence of notability, which I think is apparent from other citations. I understand your point, and agree that for review purposes, these can be de-emphasized.

As for reliable sources, criterion #5 explicitly allows institutional publications to verify positions held, stating that, For documenting that a person has held such an appointment (but not for a judgement of whether or not the institution is a major one), publications of the appointing institution are considered a reliable source. Therefore, publications of IIT Delhi, which is an Institution of Eminence and Institution of National Importance, should be acceptable under this clause. Similarly, SWAYAM's course pages are government hosted and verifiable, and should qualify as reliable under WP:RS.

To summarize: I believe Dr. Hasan meets both #4 (I'll seriously argue now that he also meets #4, as I was a bit lazy earlier to dig deeply into other criterions, since WP:PROF only requires the fulfillment of one of it's criteria to be deemed notable, as stated, Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable, and being an appointed distinguished professor, and the head of a department at a major institution of higher education and research, such as IIT Delhi, should be enough) and #5, either of which is independently sufficient for notability.

I uderstand that he may not meet WP:GNG, as significant non-academic media coverage is limited, but within the academic context, his career and documented impact clearly satisfy WP:PROF. Thank you. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 19:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist, on a different note, I completely agree with your view of AfC. As great as it could be as a peer review process for new or sensitive articles, it has unfortunately lost much of its charm and effectiveness. The process has become rather tiresome and, as you said, often functions more as a holding cell for new inexperienced articles. The large backlog of unreviewed drafts also doesn't really boost the confidence of newcomers or experienced editors. AfC lacks confidence in what could otherwise be one of Wikipedia's most constructive quality-control process. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 19:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed analysis. Regarding the selected works, what criteria cause them to appear on the list? This is a mystery to me. Is it random? Was he the lead author? I can't tell.

I suggest listing the top 5 of his works with the highest number of citations, which would be a more objective measure of impact. Google scholar shows such a ranked list here. I note that the second article you list has only one citation, and the last one has none at all, so should probably discarded for different articles ranked higher. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist, honestly, I followed a top-down approach from this source and included the publications whose DOI I could successfully resolve. They may be his more recent works, which may explain the low citation counts. Nevertheless, as you've suggested, I'll replace these with more impactful publications, thank you for pointing that out.

Additionally, now that I've explained the rationale for notability, may I please request you to consider publishing the article after verifying the content? The mainspace title is currently protected, and since only administrators can edit it, I understand that not many AfC reviewers might go as far as requesting a reduction in protection just to accept a draft. Since I've clarified my reasoning here, I'd appreciate it if you could consider publishing it, as that would save all of our time. If not, that's perfectly fine, I can leave it for review by other editors. Thank you very much for your guidance. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 19:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm still having a problem with the NPROF criteria. He has neither a distinguished professor appointment or named chair appointment. He's a professor, and basically a department head (head of a library), neither of which qualify for criterion 5.

As for criterion 4, I cannot judge. I suggested including high-impact articles because a more qualified reviewer may be able to judge it. Do his articles have a higher impact that others published in his field? If so, then there's no problem.

The "Engineering Library of the Year Award" doesn't seem notable; I cannot find any information about it except from the organization that awards it, and that organization also seems non-notable and obscure. I suggest removing that. Furthermore, the assertion about the Royal Society of Chemistry Librarians' Choice Award doesn't meet WP:BLP because it has no citation; please add one. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

@Anachronist, thank you again for the feedback, I understand your point.
Do his articles have a higher impact that others published in his field?
I believe so, as not many academics in the field of Library Sciences in India have made such extensive contributions. SWAYAM and NPTEL are reliable sources for documenting the impact of his academic work, which also satisfies #4.
The "Engineering Library of the Year Award" doesn't seem notable; I cannot find any information about it except from the organization that awards it, and that organization also seems non-notable and obscure.
Will remove this one. The thing is that, he has been awarded a lot of accolades, a majority of which are present offline; citing those would require a bit of extensive effort on my part to find the relevant online sources for verifiability. Initially, I hadn't anticipated that the situation with this draft would turn out this complex, but I'm happy to do what's necessary to make sure I uphold the integrity of Wikipedia :)
Furthermore, the assertion about the Royal Society of Chemistry Librarians' Choice Award doesn't meet WP:BLP because it has no citation; please add one.
I've emailed the Royal Society of Chemistry for providing a verifiable document or an online source for the award, since it exists in hardcopy, and not online, as it was presented during this offline event. In the meantime, I'll re-use another ref which supports the claim. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 08:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)