Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashk Dahlén (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  19:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Ashk Dahlén
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted at Articles for deletion/Ashk Dahlén, a recent CSD-Repost was declined. Still fails to provide sufficient sources to establish notability under any applicable criteria for BLPs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt. Only 45 cites on GS will not pass WP:Prof. Normally one would look for about 1000 cites, give or take quite a bit depending on field of scholarship, but however much one takes it would not get down to 45. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, Dahlén's book Islamic law, epistemology and modernity (2003, 2014 rev. ed.) held by around 200 libraries, would expect some reviews, haven't found any online, on the other hand, his book Deciphering the meaning of revealed law : the Surūshian paradigm in Shi'i epistemology (2001) based on his thesis/dissertation held by around 50 libraries does have reviews in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society pp257-259, here in International Journal of Middle East Studies pp333-334, Islamic Law and Society pp 144-147. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, Dahlén's Modern persisk grammatik (Modern Persian grammar) is used as required reading for students of Persian at Swedish universities. He has also been awarded a scholarship by the Royal Swedish Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities. /FredrikT (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 15:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Pretty convincing arguments on multiple PROF points, and there do seem to be come non-scholarly sources available too, (for example, , ) although there isn't a whole lot in the English language, but that isn't really surprising. Timothy Joseph Wood  17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep looks like a pass of PROF to me based on the above sourcing. Lack of English-language availability doesn't really affect the core question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Only around 50 total GS citations. WorldCat says his Islamic Law book is held by 265 institutions, but his other books are almost all single digits (1 is mid double digits). For the record, it doesn't make any difference if one of his books is required reading at some particular school and we don't take websites as convincing evidence of notability. He clearly does not pass any of the PROF guidelines at the moment, but might in the future. Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947 (c)  22:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per PROF and GNG.  Realiable thirdparty sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which categories of WP:Prof do you invoke? Xxanthippe (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2017 (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.