Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Najib Arafat

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. Sr 13 06:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Najib Arafat

Fails WP:PROF; the article has been tagged for notability for about a month without any improvement. Beit Or 20:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a professor who has published a few papers. No mentions in media Corpx 00:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find anything more. DGG (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I originally tended to agree with you guys but this is a professor that is quoted often by other Muslim scholars, that in itself made me rethink my position on him. I now believe he is very notable in Islamic studies and I personally would love to have someone how knows how to read Arabic to do some more reserch on him. Callelinea 18:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
non-commital at present Professor emeritus is not a title handed out willy-nilly, one assumes he must have achieved a fair level of notability in his field or his university to have been offered it, however the article as it stands does not establish this. DuncanHill 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting this about emeritus status? Arrow740 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Sefringle^Talk 23:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Callelinea. The following link mentions the "Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland". There is also mention of that research paper at the World Sirah Conference in Qatar. There is acknowledgement given to him in a book. 21 ghits on Google Books. 11 ghits on Google Scholar. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 00:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sources really don't prove notability; the first link is trivial, and google hits do not prove notability.--Sefringle^Talk 02:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many apologists for Islam. This one seems to be one of the more forgettable. Notability has not been established. Arrow740 01:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence in the article that he is in any way notable. -- Karl Meier 16:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.