- 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. Sandstein 08:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Arif Ahmed (philosopher) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article, sourced mainly from Varsity, Cambridge University's student-run newspaper, presents Ahmed's involvement in the freedom of speech debate at his institution. Since coverage of only one event, here in a better source by The Times, does not automatically lead to notability ( WP:E1), I checked whether he met WP:NACADEMIC. Currently, I think his academic record does not meet this guideline. He might well become notable in the future, e.g. by being elected to a named chair. For the time being, it's just his intervention in the freedom of speech debate. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N. I see no reason to keep this article; a search of Ahmed brings up this one event and the fact that he's a member of the Cambridge faculty. He also appears to not meet N:ACADEMIC. — Theologus ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- Keep for passing WP:Prof#C1: GS cites just acceptable for low cited field of philosophy. Most of his publications are single-author. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. I just added six reviews of three books to the article. Weak because two of them are edited volumes rather than monographs. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is also borderline but Cambridge doesn't hire people, even as readers, without a basis. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- A reader at Cambridge is comparable to a full professor at a good US university (not that either, just by itself, would confer notability under WP:Prof). Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
- Make that eight reviews of four books, two of them authored works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, look at @ Xxanthippe:'s WP:Prof#C1: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Ahmed is what you might call an Applied Philosopher. He has in one stroke created an entirely new discipline. Ye ordinary armchair philosopher on this forum might disagree. And that's to be expected. Magnovvig ( talk) 10:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Magnovvig: Would you dial down the rhetoric? Last time I checked, name calling was not a good sign for solid arguments at AfD. I'm sorry your article was nominated for deletion. Seeing that we have delete and weak keep !votes, I don't think the case is as obvious as you wish it was. Let's return to the sources of which you don't seem to cite any in your comment. You claim that the subject has "in one stroke created an entirely new discipline". The way you put it he must be a figure like Kant or Wittgenstein, which would be fine by me if you just cited some professional sources backing this up. I'm sure they exist though, so do link them in this discussion. Since the only thing we have to assert his influence is your comment, let's have a look at the GS citations referred to by @ Xxanthippe:: the subject is cited 428 times. For reference, other notable Cambridge philosophers who have no claim to have "created an entire discipline": Rae Langton 4017, Huw Price 6220, Alexander Bird 5781. They are the standard he needs to demonstrably reach. Perhaps his sub-field is low on citations but you might now understand why I'm somewhat sceptical about the outsized claims you have made. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I see 4 reviews of 2 authored books, and additional reviews for edited volumes. That's marginal for WP:NAUTHOR. Support from progress towards WP:NPROF C1 helps tip towards keep. I don't see evidence that he's created an entire discipline, but that's not required for notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 21:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Sandstein 08:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Arif Ahmed (philosopher) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article, sourced mainly from Varsity, Cambridge University's student-run newspaper, presents Ahmed's involvement in the freedom of speech debate at his institution. Since coverage of only one event, here in a better source by The Times, does not automatically lead to notability ( WP:E1), I checked whether he met WP:NACADEMIC. Currently, I think his academic record does not meet this guideline. He might well become notable in the future, e.g. by being elected to a named chair. For the time being, it's just his intervention in the freedom of speech debate. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi ( talk) 00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:N. I see no reason to keep this article; a search of Ahmed brings up this one event and the fact that he's a member of the Cambridge faculty. He also appears to not meet N:ACADEMIC. — Theologus ( talk) 01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- Keep for passing WP:Prof#C1: GS cites just acceptable for low cited field of philosophy. Most of his publications are single-author. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- Weak keep per WP:AUTHOR. I just added six reviews of three books to the article. Weak because two of them are edited volumes rather than monographs. The case for WP:PROF#C1 is also borderline but Cambridge doesn't hire people, even as readers, without a basis. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC).
- A reader at Cambridge is comparable to a full professor at a good US university (not that either, just by itself, would confer notability under WP:Prof). Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC).
- Make that eight reviews of four books, two of them authored works. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, look at @ Xxanthippe:'s WP:Prof#C1: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Ahmed is what you might call an Applied Philosopher. He has in one stroke created an entirely new discipline. Ye ordinary armchair philosopher on this forum might disagree. And that's to be expected. Magnovvig ( talk) 10:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @ Magnovvig: Would you dial down the rhetoric? Last time I checked, name calling was not a good sign for solid arguments at AfD. I'm sorry your article was nominated for deletion. Seeing that we have delete and weak keep !votes, I don't think the case is as obvious as you wish it was. Let's return to the sources of which you don't seem to cite any in your comment. You claim that the subject has "in one stroke created an entirely new discipline". The way you put it he must be a figure like Kant or Wittgenstein, which would be fine by me if you just cited some professional sources backing this up. I'm sure they exist though, so do link them in this discussion. Since the only thing we have to assert his influence is your comment, let's have a look at the GS citations referred to by @ Xxanthippe:: the subject is cited 428 times. For reference, other notable Cambridge philosophers who have no claim to have "created an entire discipline": Rae Langton 4017, Huw Price 6220, Alexander Bird 5781. They are the standard he needs to demonstrably reach. Perhaps his sub-field is low on citations but you might now understand why I'm somewhat sceptical about the outsized claims you have made. Modussiccandi ( talk) 12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I see 4 reviews of 2 authored books, and additional reviews for edited volumes. That's marginal for WP:NAUTHOR. Support from progress towards WP:NPROF C1 helps tip towards keep. I don't see evidence that he's created an entire discipline, but that's not required for notability. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 21:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- 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.