496:
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
504:: 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.
495:
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
249:. 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.
466:: "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
201:
232:
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,
266:
195:
162:
333:. 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
286:
306:
135:
130:
139:
109:
94:
122:
408:
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
383:. 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
234:
216:
183:
533:
C1 helps tip towards keep. I don't see evidence that he's created an entire discipline, but that's not required for notability.
89:
82:
17:
126:
542:
513:
479:
444:
421:
396:
370:
348:
318:
298:
278:
258:
177:
64:
103:
99:
173:
559:
40:
538:
440:
392:
118:
70:
223:
509:
314:
294:
274:
254:
361:: GS cites just acceptable for low cited field of philosophy. Most of his publications are single-author.
555:
525:. I see 4 reviews of 2 authored books, and additional reviews for edited volumes. That's marginal for
36:
417:
366:
189:
534:
475:
436:
388:
344:
246:
209:
505:
310:
290:
270:
250:
526:
78:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
554:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
470:. Ye ordinary armchair philosopher on this forum might disagree. And that's to be expected.
380:
530:
499:
457:
413:
362:
387:
is also borderline but
Cambridge doesn't hire people, even as readers, without a basis. —
490:
471:
463:
409:
384:
358:
338:
55:
242:
156:
330:
238:
334:
435:
Make that eight reviews of four books, two of them authored works. —
550:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
267:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
152:
148:
144:
208:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
562:). No further edits should be made to this page.
305:Note: This discussion has been included in the
285:Note: This discussion has been included in the
265:Note: This discussion has been included in the
287:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
241:, does not automatically lead to notability (
222:
8:
307:list of England-related deletion discussions
110:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
304:
284:
264:
7:
468:created an entirely new discipline
24:
529:. Support from progress towards
95:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
543:21:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
514:12:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
480:10:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
445:02:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
422:05:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
397:01:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
371:01:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
349:01:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
319:00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
299:00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
279:00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
259:00:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
245:), I checked whether he met
65:08:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
85:(AfD)? Read these primers!
579:
552:Please do not modify it.
119:Arif Ahmed (philosopher)
71:Arif Ahmed (philosopher)
32:Please do not modify it.
237:in a better source by
83:Articles for deletion
321:
301:
281:
100:Guide to deletion
90:How to contribute
63:
570:
503:
494:
461:
341:
227:
226:
212:
160:
142:
80:
62:
60:
53:
34:
578:
577:
573:
572:
571:
569:
568:
567:
566:
560:deletion review
497:
488:
455:
339:
169:
133:
117:
114:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
576:
574:
565:
564:
546:
545:
535:Russ Woodroofe
519:
518:
517:
516:
483:
482:
449:
448:
447:
437:David Eppstein
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
401:
400:
389:David Eppstein
374:
352:
323:
322:
302:
282:
230:
229:
166:
113:
112:
107:
97:
92:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
575:
563:
561:
557:
553:
548:
547:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
520:
515:
511:
507:
506:Modussiccandi
501:
492:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
459:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:
432:
431:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
350:
346:
342:
336:
332:
328:
325:
324:
320:
316:
312:
311:Modussiccandi
308:
303:
300:
296:
292:
291:Modussiccandi
288:
283:
280:
276:
272:
271:Modussiccandi
268:
263:
262:
261:
260:
256:
252:
251:Modussiccandi
248:
244:
240:
236:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
164:
158:
154:
150:
146:
141:
137:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
111:
108:
105:
101:
98:
96:
93:
91:
88:
87:
86:
84:
79:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
551:
549:
522:
467:
451:
376:
357:for passing
354:
326:
247:WP:NACADEMIC
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
76:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
196:free images
527:WP:NAUTHOR
500:Xxanthippe
464:WP:Prof#C1
458:Xxanthippe
454:, look at
414:Xxanthippe
385:WP:PROF#C1
363:Xxanthippe
359:WP:Prof#C1
335:N:ACADEMIC
58:Sandstein
556:talk page
523:Weak keep
491:Magnovvig
472:Magnovvig
381:WP:AUTHOR
377:Weak keep
340:Theologus
239:The Times
37:talk page
558:or in a
531:WP:NPROF
163:View log
104:glossary
39:or in a
410:WP:Prof
202:WP refs
190:scholar
136:protect
131:history
81:New to
327:Delete
174:Google
140:delete
243:WP:E1
217:JSTOR
178:books
157:views
149:watch
145:links
16:<
539:talk
510:talk
476:talk
452:Keep
441:talk
418:talk
393:talk
379:per
367:talk
355:Keep
345:talk
337:. —
331:WP:N
329:per
315:talk
295:talk
275:talk
255:talk
235:here
210:FENS
184:news
153:logs
127:talk
123:edit
50:keep
462:'s
412:).
224:TWL
161:– (
541:)
512:)
478:)
443:)
420:)
395:)
369:)
347:)
317:)
309:.
297:)
289:.
277:)
269:.
257:)
204:)
155:|
151:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
129:|
125:|
52:.
537:(
508:(
502::
498:@
493::
489:@
474:(
460::
456:@
439:(
424:.
416:(
399:.
391:(
373:.
365:(
351:.
343:(
313:(
293:(
273:(
253:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
159:)
121:(
106:)
102:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.