Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ahad


 * 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 delete. Apart from the strong numerical consensus indicating that there is insufficient coverage of the subject and his ideas by reliable sources, it should be noted that the subject being a role model, while laudable, is not grounds for inclusion under any of our guidelines and policies. Sandstein 15:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Abdul Ahad

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This person is not notable per WP:BIO. He is mostly going around the internet trying to promote his ideas and his science fiction writings. I believe that many of the contributors are connected to the subject and so the article may be representative of a conflict of interest as well. Nondistinguished 15:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment -- See also related Articles for deletion/Ahad Radius and Articles for deletion/First Ark to Alpha Centauri
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk • contribs) — 16:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Does not pass WP:BIO as either an author or a scientist.  His published book comes from a vanity press, and his "scientific contributions" have recieved neither significant coverage nor peer review. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - as Arkyan mentions, there's no outside references - a few from around his home town, from the looks of things, but they're not very exciting and the scientific stuff seems to be pretty well unrecognized. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 19:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - How many Muslims do we know into science and creative fiction? I'd rather guys like him serve as a role model to his community than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing. He has 33,000 website hits on his bio page: and a fan club of 3,500 people on Myspace, is well respected as an up and coming science fiction writer. He passes on professorship and his discoveries have been recognised by his British Astronomical Association and independently published on various sites. I say give him a chance. Uranometria 20:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this argument comes too close to I like it to be a reasonable justification for keeping the article. --Nondistinguished 21:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the British Astronomical Association has nothing about this person on their website: -- Nondistinguished 21:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * His letter of October 2005 is archived in the Journal, where he cites his constant (-6.0) and radius (at c. 14000 AUs). That had to have gone before a papers secretary, academic referee and the Journal editor before publicising. He further cites Professor Roger Griffin at the UK Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, for his academic verification Uranometria 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having a letter published in a periodical does not make someone notable enough to have an article featured about them on Wikipedia, regardless of how many people looked over it. This isn't Physical Review Letters, here. This is the journal of an amateur astronomy club. --Nondistinguished 21:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   —David Eppstein 21:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "Journal of the British Astronomical Association" is "the voice of amateur astronomy in the UK" Full papers are refereed, but according to its for contributors, the letters to the editor are not. When others start using the term, then there will perhaps be a basis for an article. WP does not exist to encourage role models.  DGG (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WP does not exist to encourage role models. Since only the more distinguished people and higher achievers of a particular discipline get noted on WP, then their inclusion on the encyclopedia acts as a role model to encourage others aspiring to achieve similar feats. Uranometria 20:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

As someone said on another forum, there's 30 distinct Google hits for "Ahad's constant" and 65 distinct Google hits for "Ahad radius", so it's not like he's doing the marketing all by himself. Astronomic discoveries are always named after their founders: Roche Radius (credited to Edouward Roche), Chandrasekar Limit (Subramanyan Chandrasekar), Oort cloud (Jan Hendrick Oort), so on. Perhaps the subject's bio needs toning down in text so as to not appear he's "over promoting himself" contray to wiki policy and a separate page added for the Radius and Constant on one article? Xcalibur2 14:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth keeping - I came to know the author from his two published books. He does self promote a fair bit, but then when you're with a publisher like Publishamerica I suppose you have to :)
 * Delete Amateur scientist notable for a concept which has not been published as an article in peer reviewed journals, and which thus fails WP:SCI. The person fails WP:BIO. No barrier to having an article later if his work receives reognition. Edison 17:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of reliable sources that establish notability.
 * "How many Muslims do we know into science and creative fiction? I'd rather guys like him serve as a role model to his community than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing." - What is that supposed to mean? Corpx 01:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It means he is noted in his community for his work. If you visit the links on his page you will see he has been recognised by the High Commissioner of Bangladesh (his country of origin) on an internationally aired TV show and his bio sits quite legitimately on a number of international sites. That makes him notable and accomplished on objective notability tests, though he may not satisfy WP policy, which dare I say it, is very subjective and open to abuse. If he never went to school, was deaf, dumb and blind BUT received a knighthood from the Queen, he'd be noted and listed on WP. Indeed, if I look at the category "British Muslims" on Wikipedia, I see all the terrorists and suicide bombers listed on that page who are deemed notable per WP:BIO. Just an observation. Uranometria 02:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I meant your generalization of muslims as people "than do suicide bombing and preach anti-western hatred as what his peers seem to be doing" Corpx 02:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Arkyan. Eusebeus 11:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even having a publication in a peer-reviewed journal (which isn't the case here) is not sufficient for notability. There are millions of people who publish. To be notable, the work has to have significant impact. And having fans on MySpace is not sufficient either! --Itub 12:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Sir Howard Newby, the Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council, said that applications for Physics, Mathematics, Engineering and Chemistry degree courses had fallen by 30% in recent years. He added that this is a common problem throughout much of the world. John Campbell Brown, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, uses magic in his talks to attract students to study astronomy and physics at the University of Glasgow. Any article on wikipedia that encourages young people to study science is in the public interest and should be kept. shelagh 07:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a motivational guide/tool Corpx 15:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is motivational:
 * "On Wikipedia, there are no required topics and no one is setting assignments. That means that anyone can find part of the encyclopedia they're interested in and add to it immediately (if they can do better than what's already there). This increases motivation and keeps things fun."
 * "Wikipedia is open content, released under the GNU Free Documentation License. Knowing this encourages people to contribute; they know it's a public project that everyone can use."
 * Wikipedia encourages as well as motivates people to contribute by stimulating interest, if a spin off of that interest leads to studying the subject matter further, then it is in the public interest -- and it should be fun. shelagh 18:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are quoting somebody's essay Why Wikipedia is so great.  That essay really means nothing Corpx 21:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In which case, I would like to recommend the article Why Wikipedia is so great for deletion. shelagh 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Definite Keep: It would appear that the author has crafted a tale of interstellar travel worthy of enjoyment by the next couple of generations. The moment when the first New Earth is discovered in the next decade or two in the Centauri stars, people will want to build that kind of ark because the science around it is so compelling and impeccable. Gilgamesh007 11:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite delete. I don't see the slightest sign of actual notability or of anything resembling reliable sources arguing said. And most of the keeps seem to mistake an online encyclopedia for a motivational tool instead of addressing the actual issues in question. --Calton | Talk 13:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * MathWorld, a critical education tool, was an early example of useful web sites for education. Eric Weisstein, the author, originally started it as “Eric’s Treasure Trove of Mathematics.” He spent years collecting and writing entries for what would eventually become a highly regarded reference encyclopedia.
 * "Wikipedia and PlanetMath have solved the development and marketing costs by leveraging their unique organizational structure. Contributors are motivated in many ways to help improve the projects: sometimes for recognition, sometimes out of gratitude, sometimes for the challenge, and usually with a commitment to the community they are building. The work gets produced and the proof is visible for all to edit."
 * Without motivation, there would be no articles, no users, no discussions and nothing to delete. shelagh 22:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete There are over 100,000 members of the Planetary Society. I suspect it is similar for the British Astronomical Association.  He not an officer for either organization, nor has he won awards, nor does he appear to even have had an article published - which argues strongly against the notability of his purported discoveries. Edward321 15:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Planetary Society was founded in 1980 and is dedicated to inspiring the public with the adventure and mystery of space exploration.
 * The British Astronomical Association was formed in 1890 and has an international reputation for the quality of its observational and scientific work. shelagh 16:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Worth Keeping his noticeability is not only confined to astronomy and spaceflight. He was the first Bangladesh born author to successfully publish a mainstream fantasy novel into the worldwide arena via a US publisher Xcalibur2 09:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This claim is basically false. In fact, we have an article on the subject: Bangla science fiction that shows how false it is. --Nondistinguished 15:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless you can show which author and which publication on that page reached a "worldwide arena" with their mainstream fantasy novel, it would appear that Ahad's claims are true. Also keep in mind that the majority of fiction listed on that page is from bygone eras, prior to the advent of online bookstores, thereby limiting their "worldwide" reach - even if they had been published via a US publisher.
 * This comment is essentially an original research question and so is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The claim is that the Wikipedia article on Bangla science fiction is not representative of a world-wide reach, but I see no indication of this from either the sources or the text itself. --Nondistinguished 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, are there ANY independent sources that support this claim? The "reference" is from the publisher's own site, and a third party reference showing Ahad is the "first" one is necessary to support this claim. --Ragib 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Based on the scanned news report above from Xcalibur2 (received an award from a television channel; appeared on BBC local radio; written about in The Guardian, Muslim Weekly and numerous Bengali language newspapers in the UK), he passes all the general notability criteria in WP:N. → AA (talk) — 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletions.   -- → AA (talk) — 09:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, here's another ref to him in the local news and The Muslim Weekly. → AA (talk) — 10:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Couldn't find out any mention of the "constant" in any peer reviewed scholarly work. Awards from local TV channels are not proof of notability. Once we debunk these two claims, the bio fails WP:BIO, and WP:N --Ragib 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Channel S, Bangla TV and NTV aren't "local" TV channels by any definition of the meaning. All 3 on which his TV appearances were made and awards presented, together reach a global audience. Uranometria 19:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And so? As a regular viewer of NTV, I see thousands of people getting this or that award. This by itself doesn't assert any notability. As for being "presented award from Bangladeshi High commissioner" etc. thousands of people (including myself) have received awards from the President, the Prime Minister and other important people of Bangladesh Govt. That, by itself, doesn't make any of these thousands of people notable. --Ragib 19:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And scores of people win the Nobel Prize each year. Are they all notable? Don't take this personally, I'm just going by what I see. This debate could go on forever by the looks of things... Uranometria 19:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:I agree with Ragib. The award in itself is not notable, so it does not establish notability just by receiving it. But it is just one additional item in the "significant coverage" criteria at WP:N.
 * "Significant coverage" - multiple TV channels with EU coverage; multiple local Bengali newspapers; BBC local radio; national weekly magazine; The Guardian. This would seem to be significant coverage
 * "Reliable" - yes they are all reliable
 * "Sources" - multiple secondary sources
 * "Independent of the subject" - yes
 * → AA (talk) — 19:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:"All amateur astronomers are equal, but some amateur astronomers are more equal than others" Would this article be up for deletion if Abdul were American? Thomas Bopp has no claim to notability but his article isn't up for deletion. shelagh 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Did Ahad do anything near as famous as discovering Comet Hale-Bopp? --Nondistinguished 20:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comet Halle-Bopp was a flimsy piece of light show that briefly appeared in the night sky, then faded like a firefly along with hundreds of similar objects seen in the last few centuries of recorded astronomy. We shalln't be seeing its return again for the next 2,000 years. Amongst a few notable things that Ahad has done, is he's drafted the first interstellar blueprint for a human voyage to the next Solar System and focussed the minds of thousands of people worldwide  to contribute to that vision. Both Thomas Bopp and Abdul Ahad are significant in their own respective ways, and equally deserving of encyclopedic entries IMHO. There are HUNDREDS of comet discoverers, but very few people have drafted interstellar spaceflight blueprints Uranometria 21:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An interesting opinion. Can you cite anyone who shares your view that "Comet Halle-Bopp was a flimsy piece of light show"? Comets don't come around that often and are not the invetion of the discoverer (they actually exist). There are plenty of half-baked and fully-baked interstellar-voyage ideas out there and most of them are not notable. I could invent one right now for you, if you'd like. There is no independent corroboration that he "focused the minds of thousands of people worldwide" nor that his particular idea is any more interesting than anyone else's. That is in contrast to an actual comet that was one of the brightest recorded in the 20th Century. There is just no comparison. --Nondistinguished 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In this very discussion here, he has focussed your mind, my mind and the minds of so many other Wikipedians to study and closely scrutinize the merits of his work. Elsewhere, keep in mind that search engines are full of the name 'Abdul Ahad', other people who share his name since it is very popular. Wherever I see the term 'Ahad radius', 'Ahad's constant' or some other phrase specific to this guy, I see a whole bunch of people crowding around to discuss his ideas regardless of whether they be full baked or half baked. That in itself argues in favour of his notability. Uranometria 08:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This insinuation is ridiculous. Also, the existence of other articles on NN persons is not a justification for keeping this one. (The others should be AFD'd if the persons fail WP:N. --Ragib 20:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Monica Lewinsky is famous but not notable -- there is a difference. Not all subjects of Wikipedia articles are notable. It would seem that notability is an issue for some but not for others. shelagh 21:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, notability is an issue for every article, especially Biographies. Please do not sidetrack the issue here, i.e. the notability of the subject of the article under AFD. Other articles are irrelevant here. Thank you. --Ragib 21:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Do as I say not as I do? You cannot insist on notability for one biography without insisting for all. Wikipedia is full of non-notable, famous people. Notability clearly is not the deciding factor about keeping/deleting articles but merely a contributing factor. This discussion is only taking place because books by Abdul Ahad were published by PublishAmerica. It has nothing to do with notability, fame, scientific discovery or any other excuse you might care to use. Deny it if you like -- no surprises if you do -- but it is true. shelagh 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The point I made is this: if you have concern about notability of other articles, feel free to go ahead and nominate them for deletion. Existence of such nn-bios is not a justification for keeping *this* article. Notability is *definitely* a deciding factor when it comes to deleting non-notable biographies. Please refer to WP:N for details. If you don't like that, please ask for a policy change at the Village pump or other places. But at this page, we are discussing *this* particular page. So, let's not diverge into any philosophical discussions about what Wikipedia's deletion policy should be. Thank you. --Ragib 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; however, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Notability (people) A plaster for every sore: articles may still be included if the subject doesn't meet any of the listed criteria and yet may not be included if the subject meets several of the listed criteria. Which brings me back to my previous point: it doesn't matter whether Abdul Ahad is notable or not because, in the view of those in favour of deletion, being published by PublishAmerica cancels out any claims he may have to notability. shelagh 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are admitting that he isn't notable or aren't you? --Nondistinguished 00:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Abdul Ahad is notable. shelagh 07:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * By what criteria of WP:BIO? --Nondistinguished 14:18, 24 July 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.