Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Nelson (convert)

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 of the debate was No consensus. Owen× ☎ 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Nelson (convert)

I simply don't see this going anywhere, and I can't find any solid information. Just because he was mentioned in a book doesn't mean he's all that important. Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 00:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: fair enough, I very much doubt there's any more information about him anywhere either. I thought it would be informative to see this John Nelson on the list of John Nelsons on the disambiguation page. Kevin Hinde

• Verify and expand if possible, otherwise delete per nom. An English convert to Islam in the 16th century could well be notable in and of itself, depending on the circumstances. - Sensor 02:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• looks like a delete to me. unless somebody sees something there worth expanding.—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I downloaded the book from Guttenberg. Nelson gets one mention and as other "converts" are named, its not clear in the passage who would be the first. The author Hakluyt also makes it clear that Nelson was forced to convert. --JJay 03:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: it's not clear from the Thomas Sanders report in Hakluyt, but the reference is quoting a 1998 source (Matar) which makes the claim. Kevin Hinde

Comment: I don't wish to belabor the point but I checked Matar, (Islam in Britain, 1558-1685, Cambridge University Press, 1998) through amazon. Nelson gets one line on pg. 34 without any further research and the source is The voyage made to Tripolis. --JJay 12:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I checked that reference too. The voyage made to Tripolis is the source for the quote about John Nelson. The source for the assertion that the quote about John Nelson in The voyage made to Tripolis is the first time a convert to Islam is named in an English source, is the Matar book. Matar is making that claim as a result of his own research and you can see, in Matar's bibliography, the original sources he has studied in order to be able to make it. Kevin Hinde 22:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep He is the first known English convert to Islam as attributed here and here. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Those sites are hardly verification. They just repeat the info from the original post. Look at the book The voyage made to Tripolis through Guttenberg, which for some reason is not discussed on the Hakluyt page. Why not merge the info there? --JJay 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

A merge would be fine with me, although I would prefer List of converts to Islam over Hakluyt. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Highly unlikely that this information is even accurate. Dottore So 08:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with List of converts to Islam, as trivia --Anetode 09:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I disagree strongly with a merge to List of converts to Islam, since the list consists almost exclusively of 20th century figures, all of whom are notable, verifiable and have pages on the wiki. Merging as trivia to the Hakluyt page, the source of the information, would seem a better solution. --JJay 12:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

But the interest in John Nelson is not that he was written about by Hakluyt. The interest is that he is the first recorded instance of an English convert to Islam. Hence, he is more naturally merged to the List. The fact that the list primarily contains 20th century figures is a problem of the list. If it was supposed to be restircted it should be List of 20th century converts to Islam. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 15:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

To me the interest is verifiability. --JJay 18:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any reason to doubt the source? It was of sufficient verifiability for the BBC. Even so, Nelson could be referred to as being considered to be the first such convert. --Anetode 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge Trollderella 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'm changing my vote from Delete to Keep. Given the discussion this has generated, editors may be able to add new information. Furthermore, the idea of merging this with List of converts to Islam, which is a list of pages, would seem to require that the page stay up. --JJay 21:14, 19 October 2005 (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.