Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barakat Ahmad

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. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 04:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barakat Ahmad

Barakat Ahmad (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article does not establish the notability of this person on whom virtually no biographical information (only the institution where he received his doctorate) is available from reliable sources. The bulk of the article is devoted to the exposition of Ahmad's thesis on Muhammad and the Jews of Medina, which is not an appropriate use of a biogrpahical entry in an encyclopedia. Beit Or 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep In fact it does. Regarding the notability of his thesis, it is notable: for example "The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history" (p.198) says: "In recent decades there has been considerable discussion, on both sides of the larger debate, around the issue of Muhammad's own policy toward the Jews of Medina (e.g. Gil 1974; Arafat 1976; Ahmad 1979; Rubin 1985; Kister 1986)"

Prof. Blankenship, an assistant professor in Islamic Studies at Temple University's Department of Religion in an interview with Jude Wanniski (the interview if available on the official website of Jude Wanniski [1]) says:

The Muslim scholar Walid Arafat wrote an article now available on the Internet that this never took place, and the Indian Muslim writer Barakat Ahmad wrote a whole book, "Muhammad and the Jews," to disprove it. My own Jewish professor Jere Bacharach said after reading that book, "I am convinced it never happened." On the other hand, M. J. Kister, the dean of Israeli historians at the Hebrew University, wrote an article reaffirming that it must have happened.

P.S. The M. J. Kister's article is the reference found in the quote from The Oxford Handbook of Jewish history.

--Aminz 20:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This appears to be the most recent example of an unwelcome trend in which articles on non-notable scholars are created in order to shore up the case for their disputed use on other articles. (Note that Aminz above created this article.)Proabivouac 20:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahmad is a real scholar, so is his work. F.E. Peters, a known historian of Islam, dedicated his book "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" to Barakat Ahmad writing: "For Barakat Ahmad in whose true spirit this work was conceived, and to whose joyfully recollected memory it is now gratefully dedicated"

I am surprised by the high quality of his book, Muhammad and the Jews. In the preface it says: "Professor Bernard Lewis went over the manuscript word by word and gave practical and helpful suggestions which have influenced almost every chapter of the book. This book has been greatly benefitted from his penetrating comments and his advice on the value of Muslim and Jewish sources... Prof. Nicola Ziadeh helped me to formulate my ideas when the book was nothing more than a conversation peace..Finally, I have to thank Prof. Lois A. Giffen, who spent much time- which she could ill afford- in first pointing out discrepancies in the manuscript and then correcting the proofs of the book..."

Proabivouac,I would be thankful if you could write one paragraph on your arguments; and your attacks, rhetoric and insults on another paragraph. As you might have noticed before, I don't care much about your provocative comments but if I were to reply to that it would be faster for me if you could separate comments on the subject and the rest. --Aminz 05:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Attacks, rhetoric and insults?" Please be specific.Proabivouac 05:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Seems pretty clear-cut. Arrow740 22:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep If we go by WP:PROF, he's in--both his books, including the one on Koranic script, have been published by major academic publishers, both have been cited, and one of them has given rise to a scholarly topic and substantial works specifically devoted to it. I'm adding some more references. Keeping it out seems like POV. The motive for insertion and the author of the WP article does not affect whether the work itself is notable. DGG 22:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Found enough to show he is acknowledged by the mainstream Islamic Studies community in the European-American world. Looks suspiciously like the opposition is the assumption that the scholarship will be inferior.DGG 23:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the bibliographical citations in the article strongly suggest that he is notable, I'd agree with Beit Or that more biographical information would improve the article. DuncanHill 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), Ahmad satisfies the criteria. Per above, I agree that more information baout the person will be helpful.Bless sins 03:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, the very guideline to which you link states:

"Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page."Proabivouac 05:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

turns out that while his thesis is the more notable, his linguistic work is also cited. DGG 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Non notable academic and this is no place to regurgitate his thesis. Nick mallory 08:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

He is notable for being a pioneer among Muslim scholars in dealing with the Jews of Yathrib. Also, please see my comment under my vote above about his thesis. --Aminz 08:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 09:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - notability the article has started to be expanded, as Beit Or suggested, and now includes further biographical information about Mr Ahmad's service in the Indian Diplomatic service, which supports the claim for notability. DuncanHill 10:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per recent references added. ITAQALLAH 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG and ITAQALLAH. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep While his scholarship seems limited to a single (unprovable) hypothesis, the additional details seem to make him minimally notable. (Please don't reply with the obligatory comment about theological historians and provability.) I certainly do wish the standards for notability would be raised here, but this isn't the place for that discussion.--RandomHumanoid^(⇒) 16:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: Where is the multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage for this person? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment Anyone with access to Google will easily find multiple references to him from academic journals, unfortunately I cannot afford the subscriptions to access those journals. It should also be noted that his work at the UN predated the internet, so it is likely that he will have fewer hits than someone of similar notability working nowadays - certainly online UN resources only date back a few years. I will add that I am not impressed by the quality of some of the 'delete' comments here, the original nom addressed the lack of biographical detail - this has started to be addressed, and the restatement of his thesis, which while it may be a thesis some find objectionable for reasons of their own, is a part of what makes him notable.DuncanHill 22:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I can't delete an author who is published on Routledge and other notable press when I still haven't made up my mind whether or not I would delete Jerald F. Dirks or the Mark A. Gabriel books up for deletion, both of whom are published on minor religious presses with minimal reliable outside references. I also am not sure I agree with "which is not an appropriate use of a biogrpahical entry in an encyclopedia" when I think WP:BLP is leading us away from personal facts about people who are publicly known for their work (i.e. scholars) and not themselves (i.e. tabloid celebrities). gren グレン 06:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, looks notable enough (per gren), hence keep. --- A. L. M. 08:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep well referenced article.IP198 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above--Sefringle^Talk 01:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Any BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article. John Vandenberg 01:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
• Regrettable Keep Inasmuch as I think "Islamic studies" is complete and utter tripe, and that having a "doctorate" in "Arab history" doesn't qualify one to be a dogcatcher or drive a cab let alone be expected to tell the honest truth about anything, I must regrettably observe that this man has managed to claw his way to the "notability" guidelines I must also adhere to when I am scrounging for the leanest of references to buttress an eminently worthier article whose subject the incessantly deplorable mainstream press won't touch. Aside from that, I completely agree with User:Proabivouac's assessment -- if Wikipedia is going to allow all of these guys in, then every two-bit, hustling Elmer Gantry with a "doctorate" from Bible College Diploma Mill University with a couple ghostwritten books and articles is qualified for entry too. Note: I will eagerly change my vote to Delete should it be discovered that his bona-fides have been massaged, or, for that matter, should it be demonstrated that he's a flat-out liar (which will render him non-credible, non-authoritative, etc).--Mike18xx 04:22, 18 June 2007 (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.