Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Butler


 * 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 keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Amir Butler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This person fails notability, and reliable sources have not been added after 2 months Sefringle 05:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Recurring dreams 09:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In the news recently and in the past. John Vandenberg 09:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amir Butler is consistently a news-maker in Australia, and his views on Muslims are significantly employed. Abureem 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Jayvdb. -- Mattinbgn/talk 20:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable figure in Australia's Muslim community as per Jayvdb. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here is another article where ABC Australia contacted 11 prominent Muslims of Australia for their opinions. Amir is included: http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/muslim.htm . It's amazing we are arguing about his prominence when he is routinely called onto by media sources re:Muslims in Australia. Abureem 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's a great primary reference. Thanks. Finally, a journalist who regards Butler as a peer journalist to be quoted and therefore meets WP:BIO. If somebody could update the article to reflect that, I'll go with a Keep. Well done everybody in improving the article. Assize 22:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: Golden Wattle has added this to the article. John Vandenberg 03:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - references now provided to support notability claims--Golden Wattle talk 03:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the additional references. In my view, being referred to in Parliament once or twice, and being referred to in a few articles doesn't necessarily makes you notable under Wikipedia polices. Assize 07:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment in response perhaps if you actually reviewed the guidelines at Notability (people) it might help. The guidelines mention secondary sources independant of the subject and cited by peers.  Butler has been cited by his peers (see for example the ABC PM external link provided).  He has also been cited in parliaments in two different countries as somebody who has something notable to say on a high profile topic.  Seems to me to pass the pokemon test.  He is also a published journalist is more than one publication.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No substantial secondary sources, therefore not notable according to Wikipedia policies. The only substantial source is an article in The Age written by Amir and is not about him. The article really needs more secondary sources to be considered notable. Otherwise, article needs to address "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" under WP:BIO. The article doesn't really address this. Assize 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jayvdb comment appears to be in the edit history of the page and is "suitable sources are already on the article and reasonable notability can be inferred from google news".Assize 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Further Comment. Looking at the sources cited by Jayvdb, Muslimmatters, Austrolabe, Antiware.com, Iviews and SpikedOnline are all blog sites and I would suggest not acceptable secondary sources. AmirButler.com is the subject's own website which cannot be used as secondary source. The last reference is an article written by the subject, not about him. At this stage, there are no secondary sources which support notability. Assize 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to lack of secondary sources - John Vandenb u erg provided a Google news search. This has an article in the Herald Sun from 10 April this year also he wrote for The Age in 2005 and he has written for Asia Times Online. He has been cited in the UK parliament as an authority on matters to do with legislation about religious hatred  and similarly in the NSW parliament.  Not all sources available are blog sites. I find it surprising that we would consider not having an article for somebody who is cited as an authority on matters of religious vilification and muslims.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sadly, I dont have a castle; merely an ant-hill. :-) John Vandenberg 00:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. My comments about references was in respect of those quoted in the written article. I understand that it is practice that a "keeper" should update the article and include the relevant references if they really want to keep the article. Looking at the additional references quoted above, they show that Amir has written a few articles for some newspapers.  I don't think that makes him a journalist of the required fame under the Wikipedia guidelines. Assize 07:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jayvdb. Tim.bounceback(talk 12:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If we don't have reliable secondary sources, then we can't write an article about him, regardless of notability. Andjam 03:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Since when is Hansard not a reliable secondary source - have you read neither the article nor the links provided in it?--Golden Wattle talk 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to regard Hansard as more of a primary source, with minimal editorial oversight, and yes I did. Andjam 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems notable enough, given cites in two parliaments, as well as the other commentary provided. Lankiveil 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep, I've just added another secondary reference. --Takver 12:13, 12 May 2007 (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.