Deletion of Ahmad Thomson

Comment: non-notable individual per . Note to Ahmad Thomson: If this AfD does not close with the deletion of the article, file a complaint with  to have it removed. —&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:OTRS)

Comment: That the page has been here since 2005, when it looked like this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&oldid=23099873.  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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&oldid=39772660.  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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&oldid=55093807.)  Editors came and went, Thomson weighed in periodically to snow the article with myriad un- and self-sourced edits (here, for example,: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&oldid=427962283 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahmad_Thomson&diff=724116052&oldid=724108047. My interest in this is that while I object to  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  to whitewash the past, and if Wikipedia is  it is also .   In conclusion, notability is , 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  
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMO||WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE||WP:PROMO||WP:NOTCENSORED||WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE)

Comment: 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 . Additionally, she devotes less than half a page on Thomson
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)