- 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. Most of the voters agree that the person is either not notable or has borderline notability, and the subject of the article itself nominated it for deletion. I do not find the counterarguments, which are all coming from a single user, convincing enough to overcome the majority and to keep the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmad Thomson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Exercising admirable unbiased objective restraint, GorgeCustersSabre and Kashmiri (who for reasons best known to themselves are extremely reluctant to reveal their true identities and use their own names) have deleted most of this Article in double quick time – but they have not gone nearly far enough, especially since Ahmad Thomson himself recognises that he is both lowly insignificant and not at all notable – and to quote Little Big Man (Thomas Berger, Vintage Classics, 1999), the Article's life "is not worth the reversal of a Custer decision". This Article was originally created in order to attack Ahmad Thomson (which is not included as a valid objective for contributing to Wikipedia) and, more than 10 years on, it is now high time that the historical grievance of Klonimus and Babajobu should be laid to rest and Ahmad Thomson's right to privacy and desire for anonymity be respected, so that all may be well and Wikilove flourish and prosper! – signed: Ahmad Thomson. Ahmad Thomson 07:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- On a second thought, I am leaning delete - the subject's shortlived fame was actually WP:ONEEVENT in 2005 and was a result of two newspaper articles, with little or no followup aterwards. Sure, Thomson has authored a few books, but I couldn't find any mainstream reviews (apart from those two newspaper articles picking up on one of them). Being on a few TV shows or making legal representations to the legislature does not satisfy WP:NBIO, as GorgeCustersSabre already wrote below. — kashmiri TALK 12:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I am very frustrated by Ahmad Thomson's interference in the editing of this page. He has made things worse even today, rather than letting editors just get on and solve the problem. Earlier today I wrote: "I would like to propose deleting the page, but would like the views of other editors before I go ahead and create the deletion nomination." What did he do? He rushed to nominate the deletion without waiting to see what others thought. Like kashmiri, I also feel put off by his bullish attitude and patronizing manner in dealing with editors. So why do I think the article should be deleted? Because Thomson simply isn't genuinely notable. He has authored books, but none has made an impact or been discussed much. He has appeared on a few tv programmes, but so have many others without Wikipedia pages. He was mentioned twice in mainstream, third-party newspapers in 2005 for having shared some views which were reportedly mistaken or disagreeable, but so what? That hardly establishes notability, and it fails to pass the WP:SINGLEEVENT test. He is not a public figure. I recommend deletion of the Ahmad Thomson page and its accompanying talk page. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to point out that while only 2 newspapers are cited on the page in re: 2005 statement, a search produces coverage of his statements about Blair and Iraq in a great many newspapers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete KEEP NEUTRAL (EDIT: re-read all material found on the guy this morning and honestly at this point am unsure whether his notability is clear. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE seems appropriate for the time being as per other editors): (First off, hat tip to GCS and Kashmiri for editing on the article and dealing with difficulty) Uninvolved editor. LexisNexis has 22 hits for the name. However, not one rises beyond WP:ONEEVENT that Kashmiri mentions or trivial mentions as covered by WP:GNG. 12 refer to the one event (9 in September 2005, and 3 trivial mentions since then). The remaining are quotes attributed to him, but all are trivial mentions with no additional context about the person. I am not concerned with the motivation for the creation of the page, but would not consider the person notable at this point. The whole of coverage does not pass WP:NTEMPWP:ONEEVENT (EDIT, not NTEMP but single event should be the policy referred to here) or the non-trivial aspect of WP:GNG. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: responding to this AfD after Gorge asked me to look at the article itself. This seems like an open and shut case. The coverage hasn't been sustained in the past ten years, plus - as mentioned above - the subject of this BLP has requested deletion, and their request falls within the parameters for deletion mentioned in the policy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is poorly sourced and has a self-promoting tone, including a great deal of citation of facts to Thomson himself. The claim to notability at first blush appears to be that he founded the Association of Muslim Lawyers, another self-sources, apparent self-promotion. However, as I continued reading, and, especially, when I read MezzoMezzo's comment that the Thomson has asked to have the article deleted I began to suspect subjects reasons for having the article deleted. A news search quickly turned up a 2015 article in the Wall Street Journal about Thomson's testimony in defense of Al-Qaeda operative Khalid al-Fawwaz, convicted after this article ran and now serving a life sentence. (Deliberations to Begin in Trial Over 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings; Saudi man accused of playing key role in al Qaeda attack. Hong, Nicole. View Profile. Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 19 Feb 2015 [1]) Here is the relevant passage: " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." Moreover, this cannot be a ONEEVENT since Thomson has sought a role as a spokesman for Islam in the U.K. Here on Polygamy: " Ahmad Thomson, a barrister and founder of the Association of Muslim Lawyers, said that polygamous marriages could work in Britain if all parties were open and in agreement. But "sometimes the husband has tried to keep the earlier marriage secret. When the second or third wife finds out, it's devastating," he added. " ('DEATH OF EX FACE OF ASIA EXPOSES MURKY WORLD OF MUSLIM POLYGAMY IN UK' (RE-ISSUE). The Hindustan Times [New Delhi] 28 Dec 2008. [2]). Here on anti-Muslim media bias: " Ahmad Thomson, a leading barrister and co-founder of the Association of Muslim lawyers, who is also supporting calls for an inquiry, said he believed that most members of the public were unaware of the "depth of the vilification of Muslims" in the media. "I think the thing is that [an inquiry] will make people think and, if it gets on to the mainstream media, people will look at it more closely," he said. "In the long term, the object of this exercise is to raise standards of reporting in whatever form of media, as well as heightening public awareness of this issue. Maybe they would look at their fellow human beings in a much more favourable light if only the media would let them." (Calls for UK inquiry into 'anti-Muslim media bias'. The National [Abu Dhabi] 27 Jan 2012. [3]) There are a lot more quotes, over many years on many issues. Moreover the 2005 incident where he asserted that "Jews and Freemasons" were responsible for Prime Minister's Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq was quite a flap, extensively covered at the time. In conclusion, he stepped forward as a spokesman for Islam not once, but repeatedly. Solid sourcing exists for this role. His testimony in that Al Qaeda trial happened. The article needs editing and better sourcing, not deletion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
- User:Kashmiri, I apologize for that. And I want to say that the first page of my first quick news google search showed little - that's when I went to Proquest. Wikipedia has arrangements to get qualified editors who request it past many paywalls. It is possible to search other ways, such as going through the many pages of a google news search on Ahmad Thomson, or searching the web sites of the individual newspapers. Here, or example, is the Wall Street Journal article where he testifies to working with a group that prosecutors call an Al Qaeda front.[4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- E.M.Gregory Yeah, these are all still (very, very) trivial mentions. Being a go-to quote for journalists does not seem to me to make someone notable. I've gone through Proquest and Lexis and don't know much more than that he is a London-based lawyer who said something in 2005 that got some coverage and has some other opinions. To see how trivial the mentions are, in the Wall Street Journal article you link to he is the 9th and last person mentioned in that article. You don't get more of a trivial mention than that. And if his only notability really is his link to Association of Muslim Lawyers, then it should be merged there. Right? I'm staying Delete (MERGE cool too) until there is a non-trivial mention from a source. But so far, none of the hits in Lexus or Proquest are). Indeed, after searching Proquest I'm actually more committed because there's only 3 mentions of the guy in Newspapers or Articles. Two in 2005 and the WSJ in 2015. This is actually a great example of someone who is ONEEVENT+trivial mentions otherwise. For me, that ain't even close to notable. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I second AbstractIllusions here. The WSJ only mentions Thomson as the lawyer who helped to draft a certain legal document - this is way too WP:TRIVIAL to make the person notable. I haven't checked ProQuest but assuming AI's assertion above is true, all these mentions are insufficient for a Wikipedia biography. Actually, your detailed research has given me an increased confidence that Thomson indeed is not notable. — kashmiri TALK 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I conveyed a impressionism. I did only the quickest searches, certainly no "detailed" research. I did a quick search on Proquest and another on google Books, added a couple of the news article on the Proquest search above and added a bit of material in books bluelinked scholars to the page. I'm sure that detailed research would produce better results. Cheers!E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, changed to Keep above. The Filiu source did it. That is significant coverage of his ideas in a book. The media coverage still doesn't do it for me, but a couple paragraph discussion in academic book with all the trivial mentions. Cool. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Still DELETE from me, because a single book chapter does not account for significant coverage in multiple sources as required by BLP (underline mine). Non-BLP compliant equals delete for me. — kashmiri TALK 13:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the sources presented by E.M. Gregory.
CaseeArt Talk 04:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Malik Shabazz Apologies, I'm getting back into wikipedia after a long break. Could you explain more about how you think WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies to this situation. The way I read the policy: If person is not notable and requests delete, then delete. But isn't that what we are trying to hash out, is dude notable or not? I think E.M. Gregory has made a convincing case for base notability. His writings have been featured in multiple books about Islamic thought (I even found an academic book that refers to him in a list of "well-known names"). That sorta makes it so that BLPREQUEST doesn't apply. But if you have a better reading of BLPREQUESTDELETE, I might have to flip on back. Thanks for the time, just want to help get this right. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Malik Shabazz is right that if Ahmad Thomson has any notability at all, it certainly isn't much, and because Thomson opposes the article and requests its deletion, it could be deleted according to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. The policy is precisely for marginal cases like this. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- So, your reading (and I agree, I think) is in case of request, "tie" (not literal) goes towards delete. OK. That's fair. But that's for closing admin to consider, and isn't a policy that helps us ascertain notability. I agree that newspaper coverage is quite marginal and likely to make weight in the article very difficult to get right, but if an academic expert in the topic mentions a person in the same breath as Yusuf Islam as a prominent British Muslim convert, that raises the evidence bar for a 'Delete' vote. I still see him as clearly passing GNG (which is the policy we should be looking at, and not BLPREQUEST, which is unhelpful) AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I wasn't 100% clear. I expressed my opinion (delete this article about a "non-notable individual") and added the reference to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because, in my experience, many editors -- including administrators -- don't know all the BLP rules. It's also my opinion that if we have to debate the notability of an individual who has asked to have his biography deleted, it should be deleted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not agree more with MShabazz! George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Still clears the bar for me, and it isn't even that close. But, it is all good. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Thomson is a public figure, has been one for years, and that he has been so as a result of of his own activities and self-promotion - not due to some random or sole event. He is the author of many books, books that he has promoted with interviews and speaking tours. He has served as an (informal, non-appointive) adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. He has given many press interviews on topics related to Islam over the course of more than 20 years. He was the subject of a long profile article in the Journal of the Muslim World League as far back as 2001. Although a barrister by profession, his many books are about Islam and, according to Canadian scholar of Islam Andrew Rippin, he is "well known" in the Muslim community. (cited on the page from a Rippin book) Outside the Muslim community , he has, for many years, been regularly sought out as an authority on Islam and Muslims by the Anglophone press. I brought a few examples of such citations above, there were many more in the Proquest archives where I found those. Here, for example [5] from the BBC, is an example of the many times he has been called on by the media as a expert on Muslim affairs. Sentences asserting that he appeared on programs called "Celebrity Lives Sharia Style,"[Celebrity Lives Sharia Style'] , " [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&diff=724570653&oldid=724570336 and Note also that a good deal of material supportive of his notability has been removed from the page during this discussion. A RS section sentence section detailing his involvement with the Advice and Reform Committee [6] was removed. Discussion of Thomson's conversion and career in a book by Robert S. Wistrich was removed. Discussion of his writing in a book by Jean-Pierre Filiu, a highly-regarded academic who explores and discusses Thomson's published work at length, was removed.[7]. As I have said above, the material now on the page, and the material that has been removed form the page in the last few days are only a part of the reliable material on Thomson that exists in reliable sources. It exists because he has been an author, spokesman for Islam and, in other words, a public figure for many years. E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear E.M.Gregory, I hope you are well. Your statement about why the reference to the Advice and Reform Committee and other assertions about Thomson were removed from the page is a bit mistaken, in my view. The edits were reasonable and explained in the edit summaries or on your own talk page. I'm responsible for reverting some of your edits myself, but I did explain my rationale and at no point did I edit in order to misrepresent or whitewash Ahmad Thomson's views, some of which, if reported neutrally and accurately, would offend me. I merely wanted to ensure that, until other sources could corroborate your assertions, we err of the side of caution, given that the page is a BLP. I am concerned by what some might see as bias in your claim that Thomson is a public figure "as a result of his own activities and self-promotion". I do not accuse you of wanting to present Thomson negatively, but I do think he deserves his activities to be portrayed neutrally and factually, if they are proven to be notable at all. Regards and best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources GeorgeCuster asserts are in need of "corroboration" include a straightforward report on testimony in a criminal trial from the Wall Street Journal and a lengthy discussion of Thomson's work in a scholarly book by Jean-Pierre Filiu. The notion that, in removing this material GeorgeCuster is Whitewashing (censorship) the page is his own, I have not accused him of Whitewashing (censorship).E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I created no such notion. I was categorical: I am not whitewashing Ahmad Thomson. As for the sentence I reverted, I explained on your talk page that I have removed your good faith mention of Thomson's alleged connection to the Advice and Reform Committee, and thus his alleged connection to Al Qaeda, because the statement is not actually impartial; it comes from the Prosecution in a legal action and neither the Defense view nor the final verdict/decision are mentioned. It also does not say whether (or what) Thomson knew about this alleged connection to Al Qaeda at the time, but only mentions what he thought of the motives of the front group. Without other sources being added, we should be very cautious in a BLP. Do any other sources fill in the missing details? Given the weakness of the source, in good faith I am therefore adhering to the BLP guideline: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wall Street Journal reporting on a trial is as reliable as a secondary source gets. What the Wall Street JOurnal wrote is: " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- sources In addition to being discussed in many books by reputabbe publisers/authors, he e googles awfully well for an allegedly non-notable, albeit much of the material goes back to the 90s and may not have been immediately apparent on the early pages of a search. Here's a typical paragraph about him, typcal also in misunderstanding what he's saying, that is, expressing a pious hope that the whole world will soon see the light and accept Allah is no more radical than a pious hope that the whole world will soon see the light and accept Jesus. Nevertheless: Alive and Well and Living in London, Olivier Guitta. The Weekly Standard. (May 7, 2007): 10-11. [8] : By and large, though, British Muslims are the most radicalized Muslim community in Europe. An ICM Poll survey in February 2006 found that 40 percent of British Muslims favor the institution of sharia (Islamic law) in Britain. Another sometime adviser to the British government, Ahmad Thomson-z Rhodesia-born convert to Islam and a member of the Association of Muslim Lawyers-used this smooth formulation in the Cambridge University magazine Ar-Risaakh a couple of years ago: "I look forward to the day when the majority of British people have voted in favour of being governed in accordance with the Sharia of Islam." Thomson has argued that "Blair decided to go to war in Iraq because he is under the influence of a sinister group of Jews and Free Masons." .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Another: "Who are all these Muslim 'advisers' to government? Ahmad Thomson comes from the Association of Muslim Lawyers and advises No. 10 Downing Street." Moore, Charles. The Spectator (Sep 17, 2005) [9].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "According to the Daily Telegraph, a Muslim barrister who 'advises' the Prime Minister has said that Mr Blair is the victim of a sinister conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, who control him and took us to war in Iraq. Ahmad Thomson, from the Muslim Association of Lawyers, has previously denied that six million Jews died in the Holocaust: that's a 'big lie', he avers." Why do we tolerate intolerance? Liddle, Rod. The Spectator (Sep 17, 2005) [10] The man was an adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair, an informal, non-appointee adviser to be sure, but hardly a non notable person and his opinions are a matter of public record largely because he published them in books and had a reputation within the British Muslim community.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that while the first page of a google books search produces Thomson's own books, keep scrolling and you find discussions of his work in other books of Muslim piety and in books discussing contemporary Islam such as Religious Polemics in Context: Papers Presented to the Second International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (Lisor) Held at Leiden, 27-28 April, 2000. Theo L. Hettema, Arie van der Kooij; British Muslim Converts: Choosing Alternative Lives Kate Zebiri, 2008; Routledge's 2014 Literature of Travel and Exploration: An Encyclopedia (Thomson's essay about experiencing the Haj), and many more, just scroll and remember that only a fraction of what exists appears on any particular books google search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable individual. All the sources presented so far only seem to mention Thomson in passing. Even the work by Jean-Pierre Filiu only mentions him on 4 pages out of a book of 260 pages. Additionally, the discussion in this book is mostly focused on one of Thomson's works named "Dajjal and the New World Order" as opposed to Ahmad Thomson himself. Similarly, as far as I understand, Melanie Phillips is not an academic scholar and her book Londonistan is not peer reviewed or published by a respected publishing house. As such it would probably fail WP:RS. Additionally, she devotes less than half a page on Thomson.Saheeh Info 22:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A misunderstanding of WP:GNG. Thomson's notability is supported by discussions in books of many kinds, including bestselling popular books like Phillips' Londonistan (published by Encounter Books and the other non-academic books I mentioned. Also, to support notability coverage must be "more than a trivial mention," but need not be lengthy. Discussions in books that I brought to this page include books that describe him as "well known" and others that describe Thomson as an advisor (by implicaiton an informal, occasional adviser) on Muslim affairs to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Of such sources is Wikipedia notability made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG states that (emphasis mine) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". The book by Melanie Phillips does not appear to be a reliable source as she is not an academic scholar and her book Londonistan is not peer reviewed or published by a respected publishing house. Examples of respected publishing houses include Brill, Oxford University Press etc... Additionally, none of the other books appear to provide "significant coverage" as WP:GNG requires. At best, they seem to only mention Thomson in passing. Can you list any works that pass WP:RS and provide "significant coverage" per WP:GNG which states that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail... ? Saheeh Info 19:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A misunderstanding of WP:GNG. A book does not have to be from an academic press to contribute to notability. What we are establishing here is WP notability. A discussion of Thomson in a "bestseller"[11] by Melanie Phillips published by a major press is a RS towards notability, as are the other books I have mentioned.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a misunderstanding. You stated that sources don't need to be reliable. However, WP:GNG and WP:WHYN states that:
- We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not passing along random gossip, perpetuating hoaxes, or posting indiscriminate collections of information.
- It also states that:
- We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic.
- So, for a subject to be considered notable it is a requirement that sources be reliable and it is a requirement that these reliable sources provide significant coverage. So far, the books / authors that you have listed only mention Thomson in passing and you haven't proved that they are reliable per WP:RS.
- If you feel that unreliable sources (such as the book by Melanie Phillips) are valid to prove an individuals notability then please provide policy reasons for this view. Saheeh Info 07:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing editor That the page has been here since 2005, when it looked like this [12]. So I surmise that it was sparked by the spate of news article about Thomson that appeared that year, criticizing Tony Blair for having an adviser with radical views. Essentially an attack page, it soon replaced with a page that was long, unsourced, and defensive of Thomson. In 2006 Ahmad Thomson (apparently editing under his own name,) revised the page producing this: [13]. What can I say? Lots of people do that here. An editor who often works to defend Islam here cleaned the page up, providing RS that should certainly be replaced on the page (here: [14].) Editors came and went, Thomson weighed in periodically to snow the article with myriad un- and self-sourced edits (here, for example,: [15] article as it stood when he finished a typical bout of edits in 2011). In 10 years of editing his page, Thomson behaved as many artists, authors and others do, using WP as a personal advertisement. A few weeks ago an editor removed a swath of Thomson's un- and self-sourced text and Thomson objected: [16]. My interest in this is that while I object to WP:PROMO I equally object to a long-standing self-promoter like Thomson, a man who promotes himself not only on Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube, etc., but in newspapers, as an author, spokesman for Islam, adviser to Prime Minister, and so forth, (albeit, one who is in less demand than he was 10-20 years ago. possibly because back then he was relatively unique as an Anglophone, pious, Muslim, British barrister) requesting deletion. It frankly feels like an attempt to abuse WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to whitewash the past, and if Wikipedia is WP:PROMO it is also WP:NOTCENSORED. In conclusion, notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and I think it's too much of a stretch to define a man with the degree of sourcing, appearances in mainstream media, and even a role as advisor to a Prime Minister that Thomson demonstrably has (sources found on this page, in the old revisions, and in books and news sources not yet mentioned here) as WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we are not concerned with whether anybody promotes themselves on YouTube, TV or the press. Conversely: if that has made the person/product/brand notable, they can get a WP article. Look, notability of people, brands and products is often a result of years of self-promotion, taking place before being picked up by independent sources. But as long as this promotion is carried out outside of Wikipedia, and as long as it resulted with independent sources attesting to notability, we should be fine with this.
- Here, BLPREQUESTDELETE is of little relevance: either the person is notable, and then the article has to stay per policies, or he is not - in which case the article has to go anyway. — kashmiri TALK 15:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reminding editors that serious consideration of Thomson's work by scholars exists, but some has been removed from the page, and more (mentioned above) not yet added. Wall Street Journal coverage of his work as a barrister was also removed. The solution to deletion of sources is surely not deletion of the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- A reasonable explanation for the removal of the Wall Street Journal piece has been given several times. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Removal of RS info during AFD is not good form. Here is the text form the Wall Street Journal article on a trial that resulted in the conviction of an Al Qaeda operative. " Ahmad Thomson, a London-based lawyer who testified for the defense, said he helped draft a constitution for the Advice and Reform Committee, the group that Mr. al-Fawwaz led in London after moving there in 1994. Mr. Thomson testified that the group was trying to promote "peaceful and constructive reform" in Saudi Arabia. However, prosecutors say the organization was just a front for al Qaeda's activities." Mr. Thomson is a barrister. This is the work he did as a barrister. Let other editors judge the appropriateness of removing this during AFD, and of its relevance to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article insinuates nothing at all for any basic general notability, there's information and sources but nothing actually thoroughly convincing. Certainly not inheritable notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As is so often the case, I am not certain that I even understand what Sister Twister means to say. And there is no evidence of in her !Vote that she searched beyone sources already on the page.) However, in general, discussions of a topic in both academic and bestselling books, discussions of the subjects work in major newspapers, and coverage of a activities such as advising the British government do establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to insult SwisterTwister. He or she has expressed a view that the article should be deleted. I understood that view. I'm sure others will too. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, as I have said above, he was better known in the 1990s and early 2000s (many discussions of his books in popular, scholarly and pious (Muslim) articles and books) exist. For example, he was then discussed in a scholarly book, Ali Köse Conversion to Islam: A Study of Native British Converts (Routledge. 1996,) as a "well known" convert to Islam.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- In Ralph Grillo Muslim Families, Politics and the Law: A Legal Industry in Multicultural Britain (Ashgate Publishing, 2015) he is described as "Hajj Ahmad Thomson a Muslim convert and head of a legal firm specializing in Islamic Law."(p. 10) Grillo goes on to discuss that public role Thomson took in a 2012 national debate over whether British courts should adopt Islamic family law. Thomson, according to Grillo, appeared on television asking why Baroness Onora O'Neill raised only the question of Muslim law, asserting that Ecclesiastical Christian courts and Jewish courts have been allowed under British law to adjudicate family law since the 12th century. Grillo implies that O'Neill was forced to respond to Thomson's question, and did so at a Parliamentary hearing. Look, I am not going to bring ever similar RS in which Thomson work is discussed to this page. (There are far too many.) What I am arguing here is that there is so much evidence, over so many years, and so much evidence that Thomson sought out and filled very public roles that I truly fail to see a policy-based argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Despite the length of this AfD page, there's still only one person who actually gave reasons why they think this article should be kept (the other person merely voted), and those reasons haven't been accepted by the community at large. Lengthy AfD pages consisting of one person pushing a point against the entire body of interested editors always seem odd. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2016 (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.