Talk:Imran Ahmed (strategist)

Notability
I was unable to find any significant, independent coverage of Ahmed in reliable sources. Several of the sources originally cited in the article were not reliable (op-eds and or questionable reliability publicaitons). The Independent source has nothing of substance except quotes from Ahmed, which do not show notability. The only source that might have coverage—I was not able to access—is the FT source.

Note: he is not the same person as the author of Unimagined: A Muslim Boy Meets the West or The Perfect Gentleman: A Muslim Boy Meets the West: A Memoir (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Imran Ahmed has been interviewed by the Financial Times . Where the line in notability is drawn is subjective, but he is certainly more notable at this point than many Wikipedia articles.
 * Someone who frequently appears in the top publications in the UK is notable:.
 * There are also many, many articles written by him and being a "columnist and author" is enough to make one notable (see Peggy Noonan) DenverCoder19 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interviews don't count for notability unless there is significant content that is written by the journalist based on information that is not just what he told him. It's paywalled so I can't tell if this is the case,but even if there was significant coverage, multiple sources are needed.
 * Publishing a source does not count for notability. No independent sources, no article. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "Interviews don't count for notability unless there is significant content that is written by the journalist based on information that is not just what he told him"
 * That's great, because there is significant content written by the journalist that is not just what Imran said.
 * By your reasoning, since there is independent content, this article should exist. DenverCoder19 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Out of the 9 current sources, only five seem to be secondary sources (including the FT article, which is behind a paywall). One source is an article by Ahmed himself. The three others are just short little summary blurbs. Out of the first five, the biggest article is the one from Tablet, with the rest just mentioning him more in passing. I always struggle with interpreting WP:GNG myself, but does one or two in-depth articles count enough to qualify? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was brought to the attention of this article through WP:NPP. I've a fair amount of research and do believe it barely scrapes past GNG. As I said here:
 * Notably, there's this Financial Times article and this CNBC article which are about him and for the most part independent. There are also quite a few WP:INTERVIEWS with him that offer enough coverage outside of the transcript, like this Independent article and this CBC article. This article is mainly about him. There is this post on the Canadian Women's Foundation. There's also a lot of less-significant coverage in articles like this one. There are more trivial mentions in lots of articles like this one and this one.
 * There's 2 articles (FT and Tablet) that are WP:INDEPTH. The other interviews are iffy because they don't offer much coverage outside of the transcript. There are some smaller bits of sustained coverage (around one paragraph each) in inter/national newspapers like the Washington Post and the BBC. This is probably an article I would decline at AfC but "accept" at NPP. I usually follow WP:THREE at AfC (at least three in-depth reliable, independent sources). NPP is less strict and I usually look for 2 in-depth reliable, independent sources. This article has at least 2 in-depth independent sources, many interviews with major news orgs, and lots of less-significant coverage in other major newspapers. It most likely does meet GNG. I recommend bringing it to AfD to get other opinions. Clear  friend  a  💬  02:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * These standard generally apply to entertainment figures etc., where coverage is inflated because they are trying to "get the word out". Many of the sources of Ahmed are not favorable, and are in fact critiquing him in a balanced appraisal of what his political career and new efforts mean. DenverCoder19 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it credibly states that Imran Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which would make him rather significant as a British political intellectual. In addition, two independent sources, the Financial Times and The Independent, covered Imran Ahmed in detail. Given that these sources exist, I believe that it would be better to evaluate this article at AFD. --2601:647:6880:C97B:BCB8:895F:7403:1B3C (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Highly notable
If anyone can name someone with a track record like this that is not notable, that has (1) testified before a major parliament (2) had a full-feature interview in a publication of the highest tier of notability (3) appears regularly on text and cable news, who is not notable, I will reconsider notability. However, taken together, this seems wildly inconsistent, especially with other biographies that are published.

Imran Ahmed has been published in many notable publications, holds many important posts, and is considered perhaps a leading expert in online "hate". I find it very odd that there are calls for deletion about a well-known UK political strategist.

1. He has been written about or for nearly every major publication in the U.K.

2. He had a full feature interview in the Financial Times. The FT may not be known as well in America, but it is as credible and notable as UK publications get.

3. He has testified before the U.S. congress.

4. He sits on the U.K.'s online hate board, separately and above from his post at CCDH.

5. He is a member of the prestigious Alan Turing Institute.

Overall, this seems also to be part of Wikipedia's American-centricism.

His appointments to notable anti-"hate" posts separately and above his role with CCDH means that he is a notable above and beyond his involvement in CCDH. DenverCoder19 (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * More sources, in addition to those in the articele:
 * https://canadianwomen.org/blog/countering-digital-hate-with-imran-ahmed/
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/24/twitter-musk-reverses-suspensions/
 * https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65934748
 * https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes
 * https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/musk-hate-speech-lawsuit-x-twitter-1.6931655
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-attack-labour-adviser-imran-ahmed-parliament-westminster-bridge-terror-describe-witness-a7645451.html
 * https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-attack-labour-adviser-imran-ahmed-parliament-westminster-bridge-terror-describe-witness-a7645451.html
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/ccdh-head-says-he-wont-stop-exposing-twitter-problems-after-musk-suit.html DenverCoder19 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)