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, default to delete given potential BLP and personal attack problems in the inflamed discussion below.

Mohammed Ansar[edit]

Mohammed Ansar (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)

This page is for a figure who has clearly done some valuable community work in the UK but there is no indication that he meets the Notability, general guideline WP:GNG. The Sources are either not independent of the subject or are not significant, ie they are to media articles which merely include trivial mentions within coverage of separate stories (not about the subject) or which do not mention him at all Q1445 (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are inappropriate as is disclosing personal information about a public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2012‎

Delete for precisely the reasons given immediately above. I appreciate his local-level community work, and I can see he is a highly motivated man and that he tweets and keeps a blog (as do countless people), but these things alone do not satisfy the notability guidelines. The lack of references in the article -- let alone GOOD references -- is something that needs to be addressed regardless of the page's rentention. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It must be referenced or removed. The "creeping Sharia" stuff must be treated likewise, particularly as WP:BLP guidelines state that "Contentious material about living persons (or 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) 11:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the creeping sharia meme is non contentious material. You have removed the referenced to the interview which went out to several million viewers on the world largest Muslim channel, the Islam Channel. Awaiting a reference does not support deletion of the information in its entirely. Clearly you have some biased intent towards the individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger786 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 8 September 2012‎
Dear Avenger786, I hope you are well. Actually, I think that Mr Ansar seems a very nice man and on talk pages (including this one) I have praised his local community work and his obvious enthusiasm for good causes. I have no axe to grind whatsover against him. But, believe it or not, some of the editors who edit his page are neither detractors nor fans. I for one am just an ordinary Wikipedia editor who has both an opinion and the right to share it. My only intention is to keep pages tight, clean, unbiased, relevant and well referenced. You may disagree with my views. That's your right. But accusations of bias are needless. I repeat: he seems like a perfectly decent man, and I wish him well in life. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear George Custer's Sabre, thank you for your comments. I hope you are keeping well. You are 100% right about keeping pages tight and clean. Mr Ansar is not known for his community work, for this reason I've taken it off the page. It bloats the article unnecessarily and there is too much (arguably) irrelevant and non notable information there. With no disrespect to that work, we cant have people outlining their entire work history. However there are some important issues here. Islamophobia or anti Muslim hate is a serious matter. This person is a leading activist and moderate, a progressive thinker who talks (and is criticised for his stance) on gay rights, evolution, faith and politics. He has many enemies on social media including the EDL, Robert Spencer, the zionist lobby amongst others. The police are actively prosecuting people who have attacked and abused him and his children. He is regularly on television screens in the UK and there are very, very few (almost none) notable orthodox Muslim commentators on television in the UK. We cannot strike out one of only a handful. Kind regards, Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Dear Avenger786, I am sure you weren't meaning me when you made your bold claim about anti-Islamic bias in the recent edits. I've made over 11,000 Wikipedia edits, most of them on the pages of Muslim (and esp. Pakistani) scholars, poets and authors whom I find interesting or, in many case, admire. Best wishes, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear George Custer's Sabre, the assertion he does not meet the notability criteria can only be made if wilfully ignoring (or undervaluing) the contribution this person makes in the UK. Constant removal on his page of the contexts and importance of his contribution seems to be an attempt to reduce his notability. WP reflects contemporary commentators, context is everything. Notable does not only mean famous - we resist the day we base WP entries on numbers of Twitter followers. Agree with your views that more citations are needed but some of them are clearly absurd. One citation you have asked for is where Mr Ansar makes the claim the EDL are linked to Breivik. It is in the video of the BBC1 debate - you need only watch it. We cannot remove material on this basis or start littering with 'citations required'. What is VERY disturbing is the fact it is not only listed for deletion, but fast track deletion. This says something about bias. It certainly says something about strength of motivation, it is not about expediency. Kind regards, Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objections against the individual based on:

  1. biased, personalised comments (irrelevant)
  2. lack of broader citations (agreed upon)
  3. bloated article (now redacted)
  4. notability guidelines (now retracted)

Propose: article is returned to normal status Avenger786 (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose: article is returned to normal status Although Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Muhammad Ansar is, so to speak, notability timber. He is a prominent Muslim advocate in the UK media, and in the ultra-bandwidth world of social media (such as Twitter) his influence is such that arguably the (proper) citations haven't caught up with him yet. Of course I speak here as an decided eventualist and inclusionist. kencf0618 (talk)
George Custer's Sabre you clearly are personally pursuing for total deletion, not revision and are hell bent on making sure it happens. Despite Mr Ansar being on BBC1 debates, political programs, radio shows and giving key expert commentary in areas of public debate, you have attempted to delete the context to his appearances including the one hour television interview on the recent 'Islam:The Unknown Story' controversy. Merely because you have some difficulty fathoming the notability of his appearances, it DOES fit the WP guidelines. Your arguments are entirely subjective and a personal position. WP:NPOV is here for entirely for that reason and to provide protection against bias. The notability argument does not stand since the article itself references at a number of examples of his appearances on mainstream British television as a main guest and commentator on programs. You must set aside your personal issues and be rational. Avenger786 (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He is a visiting lecturer at the University of Winchester speaking on theology, Islamophobia and Islam in contemporary Britain" - Any evidence for this claim? There is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University website. Does visiting lecturer mean that he came in once and gave a talk, or does it mean that he is a qualified university academic in these areas. Please provide a reference for this claim or delete.

"In August 2012, Channel 4 aired a documentary by British historian Tom Holland called Islam: The Untold Story.[2] The controversial documentary attracted significant media coverage, and outrage from the British Muslim community, receiving over 1200 complaints.[3][4][5] On 6th September 2012, Ansar gave an exclusive one hour interview on the subject to the Islam Channel[citation needed]. Ansar discussed his relationship with Holland, his recent book In the Shadow of the Sword, upon which the documentary was based, and the potential impact for Islamophobia and far right groups such as the English Defence League"

If you wish to include this section, please modify it to talk about Mr Ansar and his views, rather than discussing the documentary itself.

"After their televised debate, knock-on exchanges on Twitter between Mohammed Ansar and Tommy Robinson led to the comedic #CreepingSharia Internet meme being generated when Tommy expressed his disgust that the Taj Mahal (which he mistakenly thought was a mosque) was displayed on Twitter's home page.[8] The debacle was reported in the British press.[9][10]"

Again, please provide a reference to support Mr Ansar's involvement in the 'creeping sharia' hashtag creation or delete the section. This is not an article about Tommy Robinson and neither of the two references cited mention Mr Ansar.

Agree with the above comments that article should be considered for deletion. Does not meet notability criteria. If not deleted, then unreferenced claims should be removed as they are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 23:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced claims are not misleading, they are just unreferenced. For example, the Islam Channel interview as an expert guest went out to several million viewers which people watched live. We have no reference or citation for it (yet). It is absurd to suggest it is misleading. Again, further calls to entirely delete an article which appears to be indicative of improper bias or a non-NPOV approach as it is illogical and irrational. Where citations are needed, they should be gathered, or even requested. A line of text to provide a context for the Holland controversy and interview is not unreasonable in light of the gravity of the story. It is a regular practice for articles. Removing the contexts for debates, activities or discussions are designed to create a prejudicial view of individuals. The further calls based on non-notability, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, are now discredited. The individual (whether people like it or not) is a regular Muslim spokesman on British television. People are curious to know more about him. This is what WP is for.Avenger786 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started this discussion, which is starting to get a bit rambling, so I though it would be a good time to respond to what appear to be the key arguments in favour of keeping this article and make the case for delete:

(1) That Mohammed Ansar is "a great advocate for equality and unity among different faiths" and has done praiseworthy work challenging bigotry. I don't doubt that this is the case, but so are many other people who do not merit a Wiki page. This is simply not an argument which should be considered as it does not provide any evidence of his personal significance.

(2) That Ansar regularly appears on television/comments in the media. He should perhaps be compared with Raheem Kassam, whose Wiki page was recently (and in my view, rightly) deleted on the grounds that he did not meet the notability guidelines, despite there being greater evidence of him appearing regularly in major media outlets like the BBC.

To go through his (listed) media appearances one by one: (a) The Big Questions - he was not a main guest and merely contributed to a discussion - he was not the subject of the programme.

(b) The Politics Show - he only appeared on a local edition of this show, not the national one. He is clearly invited on as a representative of the Muslim Council of Southampton (ie the area where that local edition was broadcast) and therefore this is only evidence of him being involved in a local group which was asked to contribute to a local TV discussion, not of his own personal significance. Again, he was merely contributing to a discussion rather than being the subject of the programme.

(c) Sunday Morning Live - is not a prominent programme and he was just one of three guests who contributed to the discussion in the studio. Again, he was merely a contributor to a discussion.

(d) A number of radio programmes - which are all unsourced but there is no evidence provided that he was anything other than a contributor to a discussion, rather than the subject of the programmes.

Significant concern that the irrational and unfounded nature of these arguments suggest a serious level of subjective bias against the subject of this article.

Also concerning is the suggestion Muslim commentators are being removed from WP unreasonably

Avenger786 These are serious allegations which you are making against me, and entirely unfounded. Suggest we stick to topic of discussion rather than suggesting that one another has malign motives for taking part. --Q1445 (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Objective assessment of the article has resulted in redaction and deletion of the less notable community work. We cannot commit death by a thousand cuts and so we must recognise his media appearances and noteworthy debates (specifically against the far right in Britain). Avenger786 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note - Notability guidelines cannot be applied prejudicially to support a concluded view to remove an article. As there is no straightforward explanation for the non-neutral stance of the objectors (or the personalised attacks) and the extreme nature of the responses (deletion not revision) we can only conclude other motives.

I would conclude that there is no evidence of media interest in Ansar himself - he has merely contributed to discussions about other matters.

(3) That he regularly engages with significant people on Twitter. To this I would provide two responses: (a) This is no evidence that he himself is of significance. Anybody can create a Twitter account and engage with anybody they like through it. (b) Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If somebody can provide an independent source which explains the significance of Ansar's role on Twitter then there would be grounds for a discussion. However, in the absence of any third party sources about Ansar's activity on Twitter then his Twitter activity should not be considered an argument in favour of his inclusion on Wiki.

(4) That he has debated with prominent figures like Anjem Choudary or Tommy Robinson. This is much like points one and three; it provides no evidence that Ansar himself is of significance.

(5) That attempts to delete Ansar's page are "Islamophobia" and are intended to somehow attack a moderate figure. This is a serious allegation. If there is any evidence of Wikipedia editors holding anti-Muslim views then they should certainly be held to account through proper processes. However, this is an entirely separate matter to the question of Ansar's personal significance - which is what we are discussing here. If there is evidence of his personal significance, then he should stay. However, my view is very much that there is no such evidence and therefore this article should be deleted.

Unfounded objections are being posited which are refuted from the reference themselves and we now also see evidence of other potentially prejudicial actions. Inferences must be drawn from illogical actions and arguments which are ill conceived.

(6) That the proper citations have not yet caught up with Ansar. At best this is original research and at worst this is pure conjecture. Every article needs proper citations now - not in the hypothetical future - and the fact there aren't enough yet is precisely why this article should be deleted.

To conclude, this article should be deleted. It is incumbent upon those who want to keep it to prove that Ansar is himself significant. They need to provide third party, independent sources which prove that there is external interest in Ansar as a figure - not simply that he has contributed to discussions about other matters. 08:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Q1445 (talk • contribs)

Nobody is suggesting that we should discard media commentators. However, there needs to be a way of objectively assessing whether somebody is notable, not merely the opinions of individual contributors. The way of assessing this is whether there are independent and significant secondary sources about the subject of the article. Unless there are examples of such sources (I have searched the internet and found none) then this article should be deleted. Q1445 (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need to answer a simple question: how many appearances on national television as a guest / expert commentator do we need to have for someone to make them notable?
The guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria are pretty clear. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" There are two key matters of importance arising from this. (1) Ansar is not the subject of any of the sources (merely a contributor to a discussion about something else) and (2) the sources provided are not secondary. --Q1445 (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q1445 (talk) 09:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Application of the WP Notability Guidelines[edit]

The relevant sections are made available below

A. "People are likely to be 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; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."

B. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

C. An accepted category is specifically stated to include "opinion makers with significant roles in television shows" (as defined in the guidelines).

In special cases it is stated that where a case fails to meet basic criteria but meeting additional criteria, if neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria, either:

  1. Merge the article into a broader article providing context, or
  2. If no article currently exists into which the person can be merged, consider writing the article yourself or request the article be written.

Where there is a failure to explain the subject's notability Try to improve it by

  1. rewriting it yourself or
  2. asking the article's editor(s) for advice.

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources:

  1. Look for sources yourself, or
  2. Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources, or
  3. Put a tag on the article to notify other editors

SUMMARY

- on Sunday Morning Live, Ansar is on the show as a main guest introduced by the presenter as he has written a guide on sex education for schools
- on The Big Questions, Ansar debates the leader of the far right in Europe (English Defence League), the first orthodox Muslim to do so on daytime British television

Enough time has been given to this matter. There is evidence of personalised attacks and unfounded allegations which include the wilful ignoring of evidence which shows that the person meets notability criteria. This article will be returned to active status Avenger786 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Mr Ansar has encouraged his supporters to contribute to this discussion by posting a link on his facebook page. I have deleted the claims that he is a 'lecturer' at Winchester University as there is no reference to Mr Ansar on the University's website. The use of the label 'lecturer' is misleading in this case as it implies academic qualifications. If you have any evidence that Mr Ansar has ever been appointed as a university lecturer then please feel free to re-instate and reference the deleted (contentious) claim. I have deleted the 'creeping sharia' section as again, there is no evidence whatsoever for Mr Ansar's involvement in the issue. None of the references quoted cite Mr Ansar at all. Perhaps the section would be more appropriate on the Tommy Robinson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 08:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please OliviaCunningham stop vandalising the article, especially whilst it is under review and discussion. Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures. Visiting lecturers are not always listed on the website. Either we can ask him for a confirmatory email or we need some other evidence - you should elucidate clearly what evidence you would like to support the stipulation. As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article kencf0618 who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme.

This discussion would benefit from some external involvement, ideally from experience Wiki editors who have not previously been involved in this article - I am therefore making a request for comment

Having done so, I think that we should keep this focused on the absolutely key issue, whether or not Ansar has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria

The problem with this article is that there are no secondary sources about Ansar. Consider the following guidance about sources: "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.[5] For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.[6] Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review.[7] Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources

Similarly, "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Wikipedia:N#Self-promotion_and_indiscriminate_publicity

The absence of secondary sources which focus on the subject of this article means that it does not meet the basic notability guidelines.

It also does not meet the additional criteria for a biography ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times" or "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" Q1445 (talk) 09:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines have been listed above clearly - they should be considered in the round. We cannot misapply them by disregarding guidelines which are inconvenient. All of these repeated objections have been answered ad nauseam - repeating them again is unhelpful. Primary and secondary sources are not always required or relevant especially when the person is regularly appearing on our television screens as an opinion maker / commentator, the videos ARE primary sources of information. There seems to be a concerted effort to discredit and delete this person's contributions, article and presence on WP. It smells fishy. The objections are clearly non-NPOV. The WP guidelines support categorisation of this person as notable and despite a lack or primary sources - we have the videos available of him on the BBC in discussion programs as an expert guest. Avenger786 (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Avenger. "Mr Ansar says himself he is visiting lecturer at the University and he regularly Tweets when he is going in to deliver his lectures" "As per the creeping sharia matter, that was added by the originator of this article kencf0618 who has stated that it was Ansar and Robinson's television debate and subsequent exchanges which lead to the meme" Please stop accusing people of vandalism, bias and Islamophobia and discuss the article and its references instead. The two statements you have made above are hearsay and are not independent references. Please provide a reliable independent reference that the above issues are true or delete the claims. The statement about being a universtiy lecturer in particular is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaCunningham (talk • contribs) 10:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is inadequate evidence that Ansar is independently believed to be a significant figure - and I believe the key evidence for this is the absence of secondary material about him. The only sources adduced so far have been primary sources which show that Ansar has contributed to a number of media programmes - of varying levels of significance and with varying levels of prominence himself. Avenger786 maintains that this itself is evidence of Ansar's notability. However, it should be noted that this is the opinion of said user, and that there is no independent corroboration of this. I do not believe that this concern has been answered at any point in the extensive discussions above.

This is clearly going nowhere fast. The question of whether or not Mohammed Ansar is a notable enough figure to merit an article in Wikipedia is chiefly being debated by Avenger786 and myself (albeit with limited input from a couple of others) and therefore I suggest this would be an appropriate time to use the third opinion process (Wikipedia:Third_opinion). Is this an acceptable course of action to those involved?

Q1445 (talk) 08:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Avenger786 is correct that the article is now much shorter. However, this merely highlights the lack of meaningful content. I have suggested that kencf0618 might want to contribute to this discussion to see if he can highlight any independent, significant, secondary sources which would attest to Ansar's notability. I will also seek input from Wikipedia:BLPN Q1445 (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been following the discussion (which has been very interesting given the issues in play), and suffice to say I am satisfied that the criteria for the subject's notability or lack thereof are being duly considered. To date I know of no such sources, so I'm just letting the process play out. kencf0618 (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (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.
More