718:, per all the observations that have been verbosely discussed above. But, under your logic, this doesn't really matter. We should all just throw considered judgement to the wind, disregarding all the problematic indicators, and robotically accept the notability claim because of this professorship that was clearly awarded for reasons other than scholarly accomplishment. I don't think anyone here should buy such an anti-intellectual argument, although they and the closing admin might ultimately do so. As for the slippery slope, editathons and all these other campaigns that are pushing the boosterism of everyone's favorite under-represented groups have led to a vast uptick of articles that we are all spending increasing amounts of time cleaning up. This is certainly one of them.
601:. Several commentators above have cited the "Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" as demonstrating notability per PROF c5, but this claim is not as clear as it would seem. First, the title does not have the same meaning as at an established western, particularly American university, where a named chair is one of the highest forms of merit-based recognition for a scholar. As pointed out by EricEnfermero, she was appointed this professorship in 2004, a full 12 years before even earning a PhD, i.e. the entry-level credential for academia qualifying one to apply for a junior position. Also, although our WP article on her employer,
676:. That means there are many Pakistanis, both in Pakistan and abroad, who are notable. The notability test should not be biased by bringing one's ethnicity into the argument (or sex, or gender, or any other identity attributes). So, to inject strawmen, like the Pakistani literacy rate, in order to justify a special plea to lower the standards in this particular case is unconvincing. There are notable scholars at her very institution. She just isn't one of them. Your argument is the kind of slippery slope that will eventually make WP a directory of all of humanity.
1063:. There has been much debate here, with some emotions, all of which I think is very healthy. I would like to come at this from a slightly different direction, because I suspect that some of the commentators here are not familiar with academic process to a degree needed to see the subtleties involved here. The issue revolves primarily around what seems to be strongest argument of the "keeps", namely the Jivraj professorship. First, professorships are bestowed for lots of different reasons in academia, only
1068:
need be concerned about. However, several others (including myself) have observed that Dias had little scholarly accomplishment, so it is reasonable to conclude that there must be some other reason for her to have received this title. That reason is not important for our purposes. BLPs like this have come up here at AfD in the past and some of the PROF "fine print" addresses precisely this particular type of case. As far as PROF pertaining to "named professors", the c5 notes say:
463:(V, NPOV, and NOR). There is plenty of in depth coverage of her work and roles and she has had a broad enough career that it wouldn't make sense to merge her into pages on those other positions, which seems to me to pass GNG. Also, she has been the director of a research center (CIME), holds a named chair (Nurudin Jivraj Professorship of Nursing), and has been involved at the national level in curriculum development and nursing education programming, passing PROF 1, 4, 5, and 7.
1040:, since as I already said, it was not randomly bestowed for no reason. And finally I don't do hypothetical rules, this is a considered judgement, and I don't see what I have conceded or even how that comes into it. And regarding the (ad hominems?) personal comments made by you to me and vice versa, it would be perhaps best if I stepped back form this debate, which I will, I have said my piece anyway, sorry if I caused any offence.
440:"she led the team that produced the revised national curriculum for nursing" and assisted the nursing board to insure that the curriculum met the standards of international nursing. It also states that she helped establish the bachelor's in nursing for Al Baath University in Syria and advised on nursing curriculum in Afghanistan. These are pretty clear indicators of #1, and show her impact has been beyond Pakistan.
748:
terminal degree, in fact no academic accomplishment outside teaching whatsoever. Yeah, I can totally see your point on how the complete absence of scholarly accomplishment gives us no right to conclude that this professorship was not bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. I have to retire from this discussion with an aperitif. There just isn't any way to address such
1001:
hypothetically, cases where the literal wording of PROF fails. The observation that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred is not in dispute. It is debatable (see above) whether Aga Khan is a major institution and I see you've been reading our own flattering article on that institution (ranked top 300 in the world, etc), but
1171:
dismaying development but its not actually shameful in context. The WP:PROF standard for researchers is interpreted as international stature, but for teaching and professional service we usually judge country by country. Holding an endowed chair in the highest level university in the country is sufficient indication of notability
1082:. There are a variety of reasons mentioned above that I think contradict Khan's reputation in this regard, including narrowness, widespread lack of terminal degrees in the faculty, low general research output, and reputation as a haven for failed western academics. I'm sorry to be persistent, but that's what were supposed to do
617:). Finally, the institution is something of a sanctuary for individuals who have washed-out of the western academic system. So, I would submit that PROF c5 does not actually apply in this case because the spirit of that guideline, scholarly distinction, is not actually met according to our conventional standards.
1170:
Her field is nursing, where graduate degrees have only recently become usual. It does matter where her doctoral degree is from, and it indicates the common practice in the US and elsewhere of people in professional fields where higher degrees are a recent innovation getting them from wherever; it's a
518:
about named chairs and non-tenured faculty.) In addition, the
Italian university that granted her Ph.D. has described itself online as a non-accredited institution. I'm on the fence about her work with the national curriculum (but I notice some close paraphrasing in that part of the entry that needs
747:
There you go again. All assertion. Do you mean to honestly say that, with all the information that has now been found, that you still believe this professorship may have been bestowed for scholarly accomplishment? In 2004, when this was awarded, she had no papers, no citations, no book chapters, no
694:
I did not bring any identifying attributes in to the discussion, nor did I make a special plea to save the article on some basis other than what is stated in the guidelines. Highly cited is only one standard and at that only applicable in limited fields. We disagree that western standards apply, so
1067:
being as a distinguished form of recognition for scholarly accomplishment. That one reason is the only reason of concern in PROF c5. Several editors have based their "keeps" on the literal interpretation of wording in PROF c5, basically arguing that the fact that Dias has this title is all that we
1000:
Yes, you are taking a strictly literal interpretation of the words, rather than applying considered judgement. Which of the two applies in this case is indeed the crux. You have conspicuously avoided the issue I raised regarding diploma mills, so I suspect you concede that there might be, at least
713:
You most certainly did introduce personal attributes! What in the world do you think an argument is that says we should not hold this person to conventional standards because the
Pakistani literacy rate is abysmal? You are, in fact, making a special plea to lower the standard by claiming that this
645:
So, we hold academics there or any other developing country which is not on par with the arbitrary "western standard" to a level that is impossible for them to attain? While a named chair in
Pakastan may not meet the criteria of western named chairs, the fact that she has one, and it is repeatedly
546:
Your statement is very misleading. First, it is uncommon for anyone in art, since MFA is generally considered the terminal degree. Even in the US, the medical professoriat does not have PhDs, but rather mostly MDs, and legal professoriat often has JDs. These are all "terminal degrees". I think the
513:
I'm not sure which way I'm going on this yet, but I see a few things that I think are worth pointing out. Her named professorship came in 2004, nine years before she even enrolled in a doctoral program. According to sources in the article, she was still an assistant professor as late as 2015 - and
1035:
yes, which is a ranking for medical schools which I said, and therefore correct and not comparable to a ranking of all universities (where it still ranks), but it's not in contention that Aga Khan is
Pakistan's most major medical school, and is only #2 of all universities in Pakistan according to
732:
There is a huge difference in arguing for personal attributes of an individual and notability standards that take into consideration the real-world variances which apply to any given field. As none of the sourcing states why she was awarded the chair, any claim regarding why it was bestowed is at
870:
Also the named chair was not randomly bestowed for no reason, so there is clearly something you have not seen in your research. It's not that I really know why either, I am simply following the policy rather than making unsubstantiated assumptions based on my original research as to why she was
635:
Comment: I am a bit baffled by the comment above, are you saying that if she doesn't meet the "western academic standard" of notability, then regardless of the system in her own country she is not notable? Pakastan's literacy rate is abysmal and no where near a western
1134:
is clear that she is even now only an associate professor (and other sources indicate that she was once an assistant professor with that same appointment), I don't think we should be arguing over C5. If there is a path to notability for this subject, C5 isn't it.
1125:
and note that even if we could agree on AKU's status, these specific criteria notes indicate that C5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level? It looks like some editors may be seeing the list of criteria at
605:, is very flattering, the fact is that it is a relatively young institution whose designation as a "university" is debatable by western standards. For example, it lacks the entire Arts and Sciences infrastructure, among other schools (
1077:
to be exact. I maintain that this disqualifies "keep" arguments that are based on PROF c5. Second, though less clear, is the status of Aga Khan
University, which the c5 notes state would have to be considered as an institution having
1104:
Starting your comment with "summation" lends it with a sense of authority that isn't very accurate. It is fine for you to have your opinion, but it seems some people (myself included) disagree with you and that is fine too.
835:
meet the conventional bar of PROF. Conversely, your argument seems to consist of the unsupported claim that you think it meets PROF. I would say that the correct interpretation is that no clear argument has been presented
1072:
This statement tacitly recognizes dynamics I have been trying to explain here. It is not clear what Dias' rank was in 2004 when the Jivraj title was bestowed, but presently Dias is still listed as an assistant professor,
166:
1045:
987:
884:
814:
435:
413:
In my opinion nursing is going through an unprecedented change in
Pakistan. Introduction of Care of the Elderly ensures that students have knowledge and skills that are aligned to meet the nation’s requirements
1041:
983:
880:
810:
537:
I've noticed that outside of the US, it is relatively common for senior academics not to hold a PhD. This is especially the case in art, medical, and legal fields, but extends to other fields as well.
714:"Nurudin Jivraj Professorship" satisfies PROF. All of us can easily ascertain the validity of this claim by simply asking whether this was bestowed for scholarly accomplishment. The answer is clearly
243:
905:
bestowed for scholarly accomplishment, according to the detailed observations of EricEnfermero and myself. That is all that matters because it invalidates PROF. Here, "any" does not really mean
551:
is again something that is inconsistent with holding an endowed professorship. That title in this particular case does not have the conventional meaning we understand by the wording of PROF c5.
1153:- Good arguments on both sides, but for me the giving of keynote lectures at conferences that get covered by the general press is enough to argue for a keep on both PROF and GNG principles. --
664:
You are not representing the whole story on several accounts. First, western, especially
American universities are well-populated by folks from all over this region of the world. Second, there
1036:
your ranking. You (it seems?) are calling it a diploma mill which I don't think is accurate. Your statement that Dias had no scholarly accomplishment when this professorship was conferred
160:
893:
Sorry, but I have to observe that you're just pushing another CHEESE argument. Nobody has said it was "randomly bestowed for no reason" and we are not even trying to find out
119:
965:
is a medical school, and as such is ranked in the top 300 world universities and top 200 in Asia, the Higher
Education Commission of Pakistan ranks the university as the
411:. It's not at all clear that the sources document her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. They're all trivial quotes/mentions and several are for the same quote:
315:
291:
868:
WP:NPROF 5.The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.
1070:
Criterion 5 can be applied reliably only for persons who are tenured at the full professor level, and not for junior faculty members with endowed appointments.
267:
1121:
I would appeal to the editors here that we please stop arguing about whether AKU is a major institution for WP purposes. Could everyone just please read
327:
303:
279:
255:
924:. Moreover, there are many legitimate reasons to question Aga Khan's status as a "major institution" (above). So, "keep" is still unconvincing. Sorry,
92:
87:
613:) and, in the departments that the institution does actually have, most faculty members are not doctoral or terminal degree holders (browse e.g. the
96:
126:
642:. The great majority of professors at any university are not PhD holders, one study found that of 7000 professors nationwide only 1700 held a PhD.
977:
who does in her entire department, including the director above her). Your argument makes no sense to me. (you may want to verify this and read
79:
1074:
982:
also). Have a nice day, but know that I disagree with you most thoroughly and find your comments are annoying and discriminatory. Regards.
438:
1130:, which seems straightforward enough, but they might be missing the specific criteria notes by not scrolling down far enough. Since her
831:
conferred for scholarly accomplishment (because there was no scholarly accomplishment at the time it was bestowed). Therefore, it does
342:: We have a number of sources in English documenting her importance to Pakistan's nursing community. There must be many more in Urdu.--
910:
323:
299:
275:
251:
809:. No clear arguments have been presented against this despite debates about where she got her PhD and the literacy rate of Pakistan.
181:
640:
148:
460:
17:
673:
1005:
puts its rank at more than double. I'm sorry my argument doesn't make sense to you, but I'm more sorry you've resorted to
319:
295:
271:
247:
586:
1002:
961:
page does not say anything like what you say it says. And that you are mistaken or being false in your statements. The
142:
1083:
1196:
1182:
1162:
1144:
1109:
1095:
1049:
1018:
991:
933:
888:
849:
818:
795:
761:
742:
727:
708:
685:
655:
626:
593:
569:
560:
541:
528:
505:
480:
467:
449:
424:
399:
351:
331:
307:
283:
259:
234:
216:
61:
782:
83:
913:
confers some distinguished professorship title on one of their faculty, or even bestows the label of "eminent" on
138:
1215:
501:
230:
40:
969:, and it is the only one in Pakistan to be accredited by the College of American Pathologists. It also produces
188:
1140:
921:
524:
1211:
75:
67:
36:
978:
1158:
1091:
1014:
929:
845:
757:
723:
681:
622:
556:
497:
420:
226:
1032:
962:
909:. Considered judgement would require, for example, that we reject notability on these grounds if a
602:
174:
154:
668:
people at universities in that part of the world, indeed some at that particular university, that
1136:
520:
827:
Perhaps have another look above. There is a clear argument against: the named professorship was
392:
209:
347:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1210:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
643:
437:
Though not independent, the Award of
Excellence in Education from her university states that,
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
954:
749:
738:
704:
651:
445:
57:
1154:
1087:
1010:
948:
925:
859:
841:
806:
753:
719:
677:
618:
552:
416:
606:
1131:
980:
1191:
1127:
1122:
1009:
in calling my arguments annoying and discriminatory. Indeed, we disagree. Best to you.
958:
515:
493:
415:, which seems to have come on the occasion of receiving an award from her institution.
614:
548:
1178:
1106:
566:
538:
477:
464:
385:
202:
198:
476:
In light of the discussion below I want to note that I still stand behind my !vote.
792:
343:
897:
it was bestowed. That is an obvious strawman. The argument here is an argument of
113:
973:. And very few of their professor's have named chairs (this person appears to be
734:
700:
647:
441:
53:
637:
914:
514:
she appears to still only be an associate professor. (See the notes following
360:
Almost every
Pakistani Urdu-language paper has its paper in English. Like
1173:
876:
434:
holds a named chair which is just one of the criteria of PROF #5.
1204:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
858:
That's why I am saying there is no clear argument above, since
197:
Minor mentions but not enough for an encyclopedic entry. Fails
785:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
244:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
1031:
Well I was referring to the Knowledge article which quotes
225:
does not meet the notability requirements for academics.
609:
says they will be setting up A&S as the intitution
109:
105:
101:
173:
901:
of the reason it was bestowed. Specifically, it was
791:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
957:. I maintain that words mean what they mean, the
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1218:). No further edits should be made to this page.
314:Note: This discussion has been included in the
290:Note: This discussion has been included in the
266:Note: This discussion has been included in the
242:Note: This discussion has been included in the
519:to be addressed if the article is retained).
316:list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions
292:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
1080:a reputation for excellence or selectivity
971:75% of all biomedical research in Pakistan
313:
289:
268:list of Women-related deletion discussions
265:
241:
733:this point unclear and unsubstantiated.
565:I apologize, I did not mean to mislead.
384:are few examples. Try to verify these.
867:
695:be it. Your doomsday statement about
611:grows into a comprehensive university
7:
459:- Dias' article easily passes our
24:
646:noted, is of significance there.
585:--Trying to scrape sources.Wait.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1075:the Jivraj assistant professor
967:top medical school in Pakistan
1:
953:- My argument is not made of
547:fact that her PhD is from an
1197:22:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
1183:19:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
1163:06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
1145:01:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
1110:01:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
1096:22:17, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
1050:20:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
1019:19:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
992:18:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
934:17:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
889:11:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
866:named chair is acceptable.
850:08:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
819:11:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
796:08:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
762:18:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
743:17:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
728:17:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
709:16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
686:16:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
656:16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
627:23:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
594:12:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
570:01:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
561:23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
542:22:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
529:08:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
506:06:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
481:17:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
468:18:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
450:15:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
425:15:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
400:16:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
352:11:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
332:02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
308:02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
284:02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
260:02:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
235:19:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
217:19:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
62:09:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
1235:
672:highly cited. Just check
1207:Please do not modify it.
549:unaccredited institution
320:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
296:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
272:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
248:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
32:Please do not modify it.
922:University of NorthWest
1155:Michael Scott Cuthbert
461:core content policies
76:Jacqueline Maria Dias
68:Jacqueline Maria Dias
1149:Tough decision, but
1086:. Best to everyone.
674:Aga Khan GS listings
1042:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
984:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
963:Aga Khan University
881:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
877:Aga Khan University
811:Ilyina Olya Yakovna
603:Aga Khan University
374:The Express Tribune
1190:per GNG and DGG.
750:"postmodern logic"
1161:
805:I think it meets
798:
699:was unwarranted.
334:
310:
286:
262:
227:John Pack Lambert
1226:
1209:
1194:
1157:
952:
920:, as they do at
918:of their faculty
790:
788:
786:
591:
397:
390:
214:
207:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1216:deletion review
1205:
1192:
1119:Another comment
946:
875:named chair at
799:
781:
779:
615:nursing faculty
587:
393:
386:
210:
203:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1232:
1230:
1221:
1220:
1200:
1199:
1185:
1165:
1147:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1099:
1098:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
995:
994:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
873:Nurudin Jivraj
853:
852:
822:
821:
789:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
697:slippery slope
689:
688:
659:
658:
630:
629:
596:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
532:
531:
508:
486:
485:
484:
483:
471:
470:
453:
452:
428:
427:
405:
404:
403:
402:
355:
354:
336:
335:
311:
287:
263:
238:
237:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1231:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1202:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:EricEnfermero
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1058:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:is in dispute
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
996:
993:
989:
985:
981:
979:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
950:
945:
944:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
917:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
891:
890:
886:
882:
878:
874:
869:
865:
861:
857:
856:
855:
854:
851:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
823:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
801:
800:
797:
794:
787:
784:
763:
759:
755:
751:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
725:
721:
717:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
693:
692:
691:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
653:
649:
644:
641:
638:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
589:Winged Blades
584:
581:
580:
571:
568:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
521:EricEnfermero
517:
512:
509:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
487:
482:
479:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
466:
462:
458:
455:
454:
451:
447:
443:
439:
436:
433:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
401:
398:
396:
391:
389:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
288:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
215:
213:
208:
206:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1206:
1203:
1187:
1172:
1167:
1150:
1118:
1079:
1069:
1064:
1060:
1037:
1006:
975:the only one
974:
970:
966:
955:green cheese
915:
911:diploma mill
906:
902:
898:
894:
872:
871:granted the
863:
837:
832:
828:
802:
780:
715:
696:
669:
665:
610:
598:
588:
582:
510:
489:
456:
431:
412:
408:
394:
387:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
339:
222:
211:
204:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1007:ad hominems
879:. Regards.
457:Strong Keep
318:. Regards,
294:. Regards,
270:. Regards,
246:. Regards,
161:free images
1123:WP:PROF#C5
1088:Agricola44
1084:these days
1011:Agricola44
949:Agricola44
926:Agricola44
842:Agricola44
754:Agricola44
720:Agricola44
678:Agricola44
619:Agricola44
553:Agricola44
516:WP:PROF#C5
417:Agricola44
382:The Nation
1212:talk page
1193:Montanabw
1061:Summation
899:exclusion
636:standard.
607:this page
498:Andrew D.
37:talk page
1214:or in a
1132:AKU page
1107:Smmurphy
860:WP:NPROF
807:WP:NPROF
783:Relisted
567:Smmurphy
539:Smmurphy
478:Smmurphy
465:Smmurphy
366:The News
120:View log
39:or in a
1128:WP:PROF
1003:US News
959:WP:PROF
793:Spartaz
599:Comment
583:Comment
511:Comment
494:WP:PROF
492:Passes
370:Express
344:Ipigott
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1159:(talk)
735:SusunW
701:SusunW
648:SusunW
442:SusunW
409:Delete
395:(talk)
223:Delete
212:(talk)
199:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
54:Michig
1179:talk
1168:Keep.
862:says
388:Störm
205:Störm
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1188:Keep
1151:Keep
1141:Talk
1092:talk
1046:talk
1033:this
1015:talk
988:talk
930:talk
885:talk
846:talk
815:talk
803:Keep
758:talk
739:talk
724:talk
705:talk
682:talk
652:talk
623:talk
557:talk
525:Talk
502:talk
490:Keep
446:talk
432:Keep
421:talk
380:has
378:Waqt
372:has
364:has
362:Jang
348:talk
340:Keep
328:mail
324:talk
304:mail
300:talk
280:mail
276:talk
256:mail
252:talk
231:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:Keep
1174:DGG
1065:one
916:all
907:any
903:not
895:why
864:any
838:for
833:not
829:not
670:are
666:are
189:TWL
118:– (
1181:)
1143:)
1094:)
1048:)
1017:)
990:)
932:)
887:)
848:)
840:.
817:)
760:)
752:.
741:)
726:)
716:no
707:)
684:)
654:)
639:,
625:)
559:)
527:)
504:)
496:.
448:)
423:)
376:,
368:,
350:)
330:)
326:•
306:)
302:•
282:)
278:•
258:)
254:•
233:)
201:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
1177:(
1139:(
1090:(
1044:(
1013:(
986:(
951::
947:@
928:(
883:(
844:(
813:(
756:(
737:(
722:(
703:(
680:(
650:(
621:(
555:(
523:(
500:(
444:(
419:(
346:(
322:(
298:(
274:(
250:(
229:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.