Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Shafaat


 * 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. No arguments to keep. NW ( Talk ) 23:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Shafaat

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The author appears to be neither notable as a mathematician nor as an Islamic scholar. Le Docteur (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't find a current listing for him in the Concordia faculty and staff directory, although there are several older course listings that list him as instructor. He may have retired. His appointment was in the department of Decision Sciences and MIS in the business school at Concordia, rather than the mathematics department. Google Scholar has several entries for A Shafaat. The top two are cited by 12 and 10, respectively. A 2007 article in Asia Times quotes his writings from 1986 in this article. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. GS cites are negligible. However, there is a significant presence in Islamic culture that will have to addressed by those qualified. 21:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 October 2009
 * Comment. MathSciNet shows that he was active as a mathematician from 1963–1980. Most of his 30 papers have no citations (not counting self-citations), and the rest have few:
 * "Principle of localization for a more general type of languages" (Proc. LMS 1967; ) is referenced from one other paper, which shows that it was incorrect.
 * "On the structure of certain idempotent semigroups" (Trans. AMS 1970, ) is referenced from the review of one other paper.
 * "Lattices of subsemivarieties of certain varieties" (J. Aust. Math. Soc. 1971, ) is referenced from the review of one other paper.
 * "Semivarieties of idempotent semigroups" (Proc. LMS 1971, ) has five citations.
 * "The number of proper minimal quasivarieties of groupoids" (Proc. AMS 1975, ) has one citation.
 * I conclude that he has insufficient impact as a mathematician to pass WP:PROF and that any notability will have to be found elsewhere. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete unless notability is demonstrated by sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete in the absence of third-party sources making a clear case for the notability of his religious writing. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2009 (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.

Not sure why this article has been deleted! I assume its elitisms by people who object to his modern tolerant interpretation of Islam. His academic back ground is unquestionable as it is fully documented. His books are available on Amazon for all to read. His views on Islam and religion are his and he is free to express them. His literature is widely available on the internet and his sermons are available in video on YouTube! You may not like what he has to say! You may not agree with him even, but you have no right to delete the article. It should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.33.135 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)