Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. I'm going out on a limb here, and I fully expect this to be challenged at WP:DRV (see y'all there). This has already been through one AfD, which closed sans consensus. The issue then was reliable sources. The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina

Ali Sina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Zakir Naik.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, the article should not have had the prod template used by User:72.75.93.131 as that specifically is used for article that have not previously been up as AfD. Are the comments within the "prod" proposal relevant as linked to above or do they give an undue weight to what User:72.75.93.131 says ? Ttiotsw 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not really notable. We can evaluate the lines that are used to establish some sort of notability in his article:
  1. An Asia Times (online-only newspaper) editorial mentions him/his website in two lines. Does that really make him notable?
  2. He has been mentioned on Frontpage Magazine's website, a highly conservative source. The magazine itself isn't particularly notable nor is there enough material in the article to write about him. The symposium in which he participates includes several other non-notable people.
  3. He has been mentioned on WorldNetDaily. This is, again, a highly conservative blog, and the article that mentions him is unattributed to any author; it is unlikely to be a reliable source considering that.
  4. He is the author of a non-published book. That doesn't make him notable either.
  5. He is the owner of a website that itself is non-notable. That doesn't make him notable.
All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates. There simply isn't enough reliable third-party material about the subject to write a good article about him, which is further an indication of the lack of notability of this person. Azrak 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is his website not notable? --Matt57 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it particularly notable? BhaiSaab talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, how exactly being "highly conservative" makes the sources mentioning him unreliable? What does the political leaning of a source has to do with credibility? Had he been mentioned in a "highly liberal" source would you then consider him being notable? 80.179.36.5 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if the articles are attributed to a writer or not. The articles are unattributed. BhaiSaab talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A website that has been banned by Pakistan's IPS's is surely notable.--Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using that logic, we would then be able to say that each and every blog on blogspot is notable. BhaiSaab talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs werent targetted individually. FaithFreedom.org has been targetted specifically by Pakistan's ISP's and has been banned there. Now you're saying any random blog XYZ is as notable as FaithFreedom because they're also banned? That doesnt make sense, sorry. --Matt57 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the logic you applied. Not I. You would be hard-pressed to prove that every website mentioned here is notable just because it's banned by Pakistani ISP's. BhaiSaab talk 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being banned by a country's IPS can be ONE of the reasons why a website may be notable. Another reason is that the website ranks in the top 30,000 according to Alexa. Another reason why his website is notable is that it seems all Wikipedias who edit on the subject of Islam know about this website. If all of them know and almost all do, his website is notable enough. Everything else combined makes him and his website notable. As I said, people who want this page to be deleted belong to the group that disagrees with his opinions. And again if he has caused so much discussion on Wikipedia, he's DEFINITELY notable. In summary Ali Sina is much more popular than the average college professor and hence is notable.--Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not really notable
  1. Nobody is sure that this person really exist. As his existence cannot be proved how can be he is notable. --Mak82hyd 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Darth Vader is pretty notable and I'm sure he doesn't exist (right?!). I'd also like to see you either prove the existence of [[[God]] or claim he isn't notable. Rune X2 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Just because an article has turned into a soapbox (which is temporary anyway), does not mean the article should be nominated for deletion. Revert Wars also do not imply that an article should be deleted. In case of a bio, the only rationale for deletion can be non-notablility. Here are some reasons why he is notable in my opinion:
Ali Sina passes the Alternate "Professor test" at WP:BIO, which says: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.". The following two points support this:
  1. He passes the "Search engine" test: His name comes up 80,000 times, not counting the results on his own websites and this one. Search engine popularity is one method of the Alternate tests of Notability (see WP:BIO).
  2. His website is within the top 30,000 websites according to alexa.
So he is definitely more well-known than the average college professor and so according to WP:BIO he is definitely notable and so should not be deleted.--Matt57 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bogus argument --- that "test" only applies to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ... is Ali Sina a college professor? Where does Ali Sina teach, so we can compare him with other academics? ... I mean, I've published more than the average college professor, but that doesn't automatically make me notable! —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not only for college professors. Read it carefully! It says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor". If the test was for college professors only, they wouldnt say that. The term "average college professor" is used as a meter to gauge popularity. --Matt57 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
mate, read the definition properly it says an individual, which means a person and how do u know he exists do have any proof? have u seen him. he is an entity created for some hate purpose. think open minded rather than being islamophobic. 88.108.181.18 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is an entity created for hate purposes? Are'nt you being anti-Islam-ophobic yourself? --Matt57 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the proposed policy only applies to academics. Ali Sina is not an academic as far as we know. BhaiSaab talk 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the policy does not only apply to Academics. The Professor Test is a sort of "Meter" to gauge the popularity of any person. That can even apply to a homeless man if he's become that popular. This point was also raised by 72.75.93.131. See the Talk page of this article. --Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Azrak. This person is solely an internet personality. He is not known anywhere else. A large amount of Google hits, therefore, isn't necessarily indicative of notability. BhaiSaab talk 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He's not only known on the internet. His testimony of leaving Islam is present in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Plus lets remember the fact that he was threatened with lawsuits and death threats. Also, he's debated with famous figures of Islam like Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. The fact that he has a pseudonym does not mean he's not notable. All these things together reflect that he is a notable ex-muslim. --Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I forgot about his mention in that book. Though debating with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri doesn't necessarily make him notable. Montazeri has spoken to thousands of people in his life, but that doesn't make them all notable. BhaiSaab talk 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is non notable and his existence is not proved. he might not exist. so how can we have a article on a person who has not been seen by anybody. 88.108.181.18 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: I suspect this IP user is user:Mak82hyd who has already voted above. New IP's should be discarded for these votes. --Matt57 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Zakir Naik There does seem to be an effort to censor content from some factions of this afd (especially looking at the previous afd). It is true however that the article itself stinks of being a soap box. I would mark it with clean up tags. She does appear to be a contraversial figure with much written about her in many places. Certainly seems to be one of the more notable critics of Islam although from a more firey than academic bent. Most of the english language coverage does seem to be internet based and often end up back at her web site. The extraordinary level of contraversy however lends quite a bit to the notability claim. Among the 100,000 plus ghits "roughly" a third were about her and many of them were critical to hateful. She seems to have pissed off a large portion of the world. I'd say that makes her notable.--Nick Y. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is male, not female. BhaiSaab talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter if its male or female. Infact non-biased votes are the best becuase they can see the situation objectively. Plus they made good points. --Matt57 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article needs wikifying, but the subject is notable, as the amount of adverse criticism indicates. and as the amount of debate above illustrates. If we can argue so much about him, he's notable. To me, a very obvious instance of what we want in WP. DGG 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I voted a conditional keep at the first nomination. I wanted the article to follow wikipedia standards but there was no single enhancement whatsoever. There are more than 100 sources and all of them refer to his/their own site. Unbelieveable! his (if he's one real person indeed) notability is so highly questionable. I also have BIG doubts about the involvement of Ali Sina or Ali Sinas in the article. They are campaigning for edit warring and they come all together from a few Anti-Islam forums. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I considered delete in one of the first VfDs (is this really only the second?) because I didn't think he was notable. However, I think anyone realizing the trends of Wikipedia over the last year or two should realize that notability standards are dropping. He may be less popular than most internet memes but we're even allowing pretty much any book published (even by relatively NN press) have an article. Is Ali Sina notable? Not particularly... but, look at Wikipedia standards... and compared to them I think the answer is he's notable enough. This and the Naik deletion seem like bickering to me... I don't mean the nominator. His intentions seem noble enough to me... I just think that we've gone too far down the road of inclusion to get rid of either Ali Sina or Naik. gren グレン 10:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep This article offers valuable info IP's first edit— 72.83.152.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Delete This person does not exist.how can we have his biography. 84.9.233.19 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
since when was an AfD a "vote"? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - just a terminology issue so it is not "VOTES" but "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.". Matt57 is highlighting suspicions regarding multiple recommendations of what he feels is a IP sock puppet. Ttiotsw 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete He is no academic. He is someone like me and you. There is no reason why an *encyclopedia* should have a page for him. --Aminz 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um yea, unfortunately, muslims like you and infidels like me dont have a website that ranks in the top 30,000, or have 80,000 hits on their name in google, are prospective authors of a book and have their testimony included in Ibn Warraq's book. I guess he is like us after all. --Matt57 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep . The sheer hatred and bigotry that he engenders in others makes him notable and also make it wise of him to be somewhat untracable: his Pseudonymity is not grounds for deletion. The google hits also help his notablility. I've done a few edits to this page, some stick and other get reverted. I don't like my edits reverted on any page as I feel I research each edit reasonably well but I'm happy to admit I am wrong when I'm wrong but with the reverts done to my edits on this page I don't feel I'm wrong. Even if it is proven later that he is simply a meme then I feel he represents an archetype of an apostate muslim - thats notable. Ttiotsw 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ali Sina is a highly notable founder of Faith Freedom International, which states on its web site that it is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims whose goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity[1]--CltFn 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep With a review of sources, this article has the potential to provide very valuable information. The very fact that so many pro-muslim vandals are around signifies the importance of this person.
  • Comment: Nominator, you said: "All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates." Remember that some people are smart and make sure news articles don't disappear when links go dead by keeping copies on their own pages. The location where articles are stored are not relevant. Who wrote them is. - Mgm|(talk) 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is about a person whose real name we do not know, we do not know if he exists or not. He (supposed to) run hate websites and write there. People who hate Islam use him as reference on wikipedia Islamic articles. What degrees he had? We have no idea. We live in a world where every hater of Islam is appreciate on wikipedia and outside it. No one cares if he use Quran Ayats out-of-context or if he really exist. Shame!. --- ALM 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per CltFn's comments. -- Karl Meier 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is that even his real name??? Wikipidian 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - He seems to be an important person, has also written a book. His website has been banned in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That makes him very notableOutsider2810 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Interesting how almost everyone who wants him deleted belong to the group of people who disagree with his views. Looks like this is going to be a no-consensus again and so the article will stay. --Matt57 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per everyone above. Peace, please. Arrow740 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per Szvest This person's notability at one end, but this article has become a ground for gross violation of WP:RS, which says: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." And there seems very little hope to improve the article with abiding all these policies. TruthSpreaderTalk 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think that the issue of "notability" doesn't apply since there are tons of articles on wiki about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets. As for the soapbox issue: If there is edit-warring or inappropriate editing going on in the article, it can be dealt with according to wiki guidelines and policy. It has been long-established that POV issues in the article are not the basis for an article's deletion. I agree that there is some suspicious/bad faith nom stuff going on, all the argument's put forth center on his views etc, it wouldn't surprise me if the delete votes belong to people who share an opposition to his views like Matt57 said. Baristarim 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This is an example of Wikipedia being used for getting more visitors. Its deletion will do more good to Wikipedia than lot of editors wasting time on reverting/correcting the advertizing campaigns for the site of a (fictional?) person. --Soft coderTalk 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fortunately it is not the case that all people who claim to be ex-Muslims are liars. Arrow740 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentFortunately, all who claim to be ex-muslims are so ignorant of Islam , that calling them an ex-muslim sounds like "propagating a lie".Not to mention their levels of hate & phobia . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Svest and Azrak. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: what matt said.--D-Boy 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Is one sure if this is a single person or multiple persons with assumed names publishing a website MerryJ-Ho 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 'His' website is notable given the Alexa rankings. Questions about existence of such a person may be genuine but they are certainly no grounds for deletion of this entry. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no education, an article with only linkes to himself... i might have missed it, but were is the third party source that gives notability`? TerrorStorm had 300 000 google hits and was deleted as NN film, since it was a internet only film, considering that 80 000 seems totaly non-notable. 30 000 Alexa rating = notable? Do we really want 30 000 webpages here? Prisonplanet was deleted as non-notable, and it had far higher Alexa ranking, round 10 000 if i am not wrong. --Striver 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He is a self created, self sustained myth. With no face, no education, no credibility, no decency ....no nothing . The article copies his own views about himself . He also sends his worshipers to keep this article , his well known friends/clones include CltFn & Karl Meir . The only reason this article is kept is to increase his site's hitrate . Is wikipedia open for marketing ?? F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FaithFreedom has a forum with hundreds of thousands of posts. The site itself is often linked to by other sites. The website is definitely notable. That makes an article on the owner worth having. Weather the name is real or a pseudonym, is really immaterial – except that if such doubts exists it should be noted in the article. Rune X2 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Firstly because he's anonymous, secondly anyone can send an email to the pentagon/whitehouse/state department/president of the US or any other country for that matter and claim to have 'debated' when they get a reply. He's not-notable. A simple search on google trends for "Ali Sina" will verify this [2], and since some people want to link this AfD with the Zakir Naik Article, just take a look at the people searching for Zakir Naik compared to Steve Ballmer [3]. Anyway, coming back to the article, I think it worthless enough to be deleted, and create a seperate faithfreedom article if that site is popular. Why not make articles about users that have 10000+ edits on wikipedia then (just for reference). thestick 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many forums in Indian Express online for example where they post their links - like Want to find the truth (?) on Islam ..Click www.faithfree***.com.In short..spamming.MerryJ-Ho
  • Keep for all good reasons stated above, especially by Matt57 72.136.43.94 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~anonymous 09:10, 4 December 2006 Eastern Time[reply]
  • Keep though perhaps Merge with the faithfreedom article. Notable personality (even if through a nom de plume) like Ibn Warraq and others. He uses a pseudonym to avoid death threats (unlike poor Irshad Manji). The fact that his name is unknown is not enough reason to delete the article.His only association is with faithfreedom so perhaps merge both articles. Hkelkar 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expected,seeing your voting patterns MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, I'm going with Keep. I think it's important that the tone of the article be as close to NPOV as possible, and I hope interested parties will monitor this. If this means lots of rewriting, frequent edits and reverts I don't mind, so long as everyone involves assumes good faith and acts as constructively as they can. Debate is healthy, and this guy does appear notable enough. WMMartin 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article seems to assert notability.Bakaman 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expected,seeing your voting patterns. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TROLL. Also I voted keep at the other dude as well. Nobody needs your fundywatching either.Bakaman 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Alexa rankings are among the most controversial methods of website measurements.Working as a Webmaster of an Industry Magazine, I have tested and discarded Alexa as an accurate tool.MerryJ-Ho 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How come? If thats so, why is Yahoo #1 and Wikipedia #12? --Matt57 21:12, 4 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ali_Sina_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144454751"