Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fomi
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. WaltonOne 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fomi
Delete: No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. The article is simply a quotation of the website verbatim. Strothra 15:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: More soap than Marilyn Chambers in a bubble bath. --WebHamster 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: This is fairly notable in Sweden. And the article is well written and interesting. Also, may I remind you, that we have an article on Faith Freedom International. This is the exact same thing. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:42 07 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Response - WP:WAX applies. --WebHamster 12:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete: Notability not demonstrated. The article has had plenty of time to develop, and has not progressed beyond a formless, free wp hosted airtime for FOMI's own soundbites. Swedish article has not demonstrated notability either, not with independent references which are normally required of all articles at WP. The tone is heavily POV due to lack of independent references or any other content taken from secondary sources. Three quarters of the article are directly copied from FOMI website, without commentary. In my mind this is more than what is generally meant by "fair use" in the US. FOMI's website says that all its members are anonymous. It says their primary work is done through an unmoderated internet forum. So far as I can see, FOMI is very unlikely to be a notable organization, thus there is nothing so far suggesting this is a good "keep".Professor marginalia 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with reservations: Now that an independent reference has been uncovered, I think the article can be improved. The organization's talking points need to be removed, the opposing view of the organization described in the reference should be described as well.Professor marginalia 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: This is one of the cases when censorship is rearing it's ugly head trying to turn wikipedia into a PC-moderated climate of an elite group of opinionated know-it-all's. And the forums are moderated. They're also working together with other notable organisations and seem to have a tendency to keep articles fair and factually correct. If this deletion would be finished I think wiki would have to begin deleting ~20% of the information in the database since a lot of it is of similar style. One thing I do agree with is that it might need update on information beyond the current description of the site itself. ---Mononucleid-- 18:50, September 8th 2007 (CET)
- Note The above comment is the user's first and only contribution to Wikipedia. --Strothra 17:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree with some of the criticizm about the article on FOMI not being very explanatory to non-swedes about why it actually does have importance and notability. FOMI has been mentioned in various reports on religion, secularism, islamophobia and similar. FOMI is well known in the nordic academic world. I don't agree to the SOAPBOX opinion at all though. FOMI does have a political stance, but nothing anti-islamic is being spread here in the form of articles, op-eds or whatever. That would, in my opinion, be required for deleting with reference to soapbox. - Frater illum 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Also, closing admin should note that the above comment is one of the user's first contribs to Wiki. --Strothra 02:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note:Would you be able to identify references for these mentions you allude to? The article needs to have references to demonstrate notability.Professor marginalia 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a {{cleanup}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:50 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Professor marginalia is correct, there is no notability established here whatsoever. No sources, nothing that even suggests notability in the "nordic academic world." Right now, Soapbox applies because the article is being used simply to portray FOMI's political views using its exact words verbatim. --Strothra 02:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is not a {{cleanup}} tag. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:50 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Note:Would you be able to identify references for these mentions you allude to? The article needs to have references to demonstrate notability.Professor marginalia 23:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: A Google on "Forum mot islamisering" brings up 43 000 hits. It is a well known organization, cited, criticized and agreed with in everything from bloggs and forums to argumentative articles in newspapers. I agree with the article in its present form not reflecting this fact, but as such, it should be updated to reflect this, not to be deleted, since the organization is noteworthy. I still resent the soapbox implication. If I go to Wiki for facts about an organization, I want the views of that organization, whether it be Hamas, CAIR, FFI or any other. Soapbox applies to op-eds and propaganda. To say "This organization doesn't like sharia" and to say "Sharia is bad because ..." are two entirely different things. This article is not soapbox. Poorly presented notability in need of improvement, sure. Soapbox in need of deletion, not at all. Also, I've been registered since february 2007, so please don't imply that I am recently registered or whatever. Frater illum 10:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And if you add "-blog" to the search string you get 538 hits, and as we all know blogs are not a recommended source for WP articles. --WebHamster 12:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 6 edits, all were in February when you registered. Since then your account was inactive until you took notice of this AfD. Being a new editor isn't qualified by time, but by edit history. Unless, of course, you were editing with a different account. --Strothra 13:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, can we put aside his editing history for a change? Because it's really beside the point. Since none of you wanting it deleted live in Sweden, who are you to decide its notability? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:41 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- WP is not a regional encyclopaedia, therefore regionality is not an issue for deletion or inclusion. Residence of editors is immaterial. --WebHamster 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to claim that it's not notable, then you had better make sure you know what you're talking about. Residence of editors, is important in this case if you're going to decide it as not-notable. Because this is notable in Sweden. Obviously, a Swedish organisation is not notable in the US. But then again, English Wikipedia isn't limited to the Anglophone world. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is dependent on WP guidelines not the residence of the editor who thinks it should be kept (or deleted). To implement what you suggest is a precedence that could have lots of negative ramifications for the whole of WP. --WebHamster 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're obviously doing your best, to misunderstand me. Look, I'll be clear: you are not the right person to decide what's notable in Sweden, for you are not a Swedish resident. It's like I would try to delete an article about a company in China based on my subjective opinion, that it is not notable. Well, who am I to decide what's hot and what's not in China? I think I got my point across. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:20 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not deciding what's notable in Sweden. I'm opining on what's notable in the English language version of Wikipedia. Your comments sound remarkably like a straw man argument to me. I haven't mentioned Sweden. --WebHamster 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarifying the problem:The personal assurance by an editor (their residence is irrelevant) that a subject is notable may be sufficient for the short term in a newly launched article. However this article has been given 6-7 months to develop and editors have as of yet failed to identify a single reference. The Swedish article suffers the same faults as this one. It too was proposed for deletion, and in that case only a WP:WAX argument was used to save it. I have been unable to find a single usable reference with google. They were each self-references in various blogs, or in some cases, mentions by other bloggers. The following guideline was developed to help judge self-published websites-Notability-web-and thus far this article doesn't meet criteria in the guideline. Many arguments have been offered to defend the article which are, unfortunately, beside the point. The point is that notability needs to be verified with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. NPOV is impossible if the contents of the article consist entirely of self-claims written by FOMI itself. Independent published verification is a key requirement at wikipedia.Professor marginalia 15:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not deciding what's notable in Sweden. I'm opining on what's notable in the English language version of Wikipedia. Your comments sound remarkably like a straw man argument to me. I haven't mentioned Sweden. --WebHamster 15:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're obviously doing your best, to misunderstand me. Look, I'll be clear: you are not the right person to decide what's notable in Sweden, for you are not a Swedish resident. It's like I would try to delete an article about a company in China based on my subjective opinion, that it is not notable. Well, who am I to decide what's hot and what's not in China? I think I got my point across. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:20 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is dependent on WP guidelines not the residence of the editor who thinks it should be kept (or deleted). To implement what you suggest is a precedence that could have lots of negative ramifications for the whole of WP. --WebHamster 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] No question about it; 42,400 hits is certainly notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- As stated previously, the vast majority of those are either blogs or FOMI's own publications. Not to mention the fact that the FOMI website is nothing more than an internet discussion forum. --Strothra 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I try to eliminate from the websearch the hits at fomi's own websites, hits to refs to the articles here at wikipedia, and blogs--I only have 900, and so far as I've seen they're each (for those relevant to organization) self publish internet forums as well. It might be more productive to a "keep" to genuinely find the refs needed rather than to simply guess about whether they do in fact exist.Professor marginalia 16:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to "The point is that notability needs to be verified with non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.", examples of notability: http://www.mkc.botkyrka.se/biblioteket/7683/2005-02.pdf published with ISSN 1404-5370 by Integrationsverket in 2005. It is a governmental organization, English info can be found at http://www.migrationsverket.se/english.jsp The report itself bears the not so flattering title "Racism and xenophobia in Sweden". On pages 101 and 102, FOMI is adressed and mentioned. I'm not going to argue on whether criticism of islam can be categorized as racism or not, but for a governmental organization on immigration to mention you in a nationwide report, it needs to have risen over the radar of non-notability before that, yes? That report is two years old by the way, and FOMI has since then had a large increase when it comes to public awareness over the internet. - Frater illum 17:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't consider 2 minor mentions in 2 small paragraphs from a 260 page document to be trivial? It's certainly not "substantial". Although I can't speak Swedish I can extrapolate and I got the impression that the two paragraphs it was mentioned in were referring to FOMI as an example of that type of website rather than comments specifically about FOMI. I could have misunderstood it of course... --WebHamster 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- FOMI is mentioned in this government report, so we have a reference finally. I'm inclined toward a "Keep" with reservations. I can make out the outline of the issue as expressed in the report. The immigration agency takes an alternative position of the organization as one which is encouraging islamophobia in Sweden.Professor marginalia 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" The contents of that report, vis-a-vis FOMI, could hardly be called substantial, and from what I could make out its inclusion was incidental to the main crux of the report. Although it is indeed a reference, that's all it is, virtually a passing reference, certainly not what WP:N calls for.--WebHamster 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, FOMI is not CIA, all right? I'm sure there are more references to FOMI available. Just don't expect this to be the most cited site on the Internet. Also, may I remind you, that FOMI exists in Norway as well. So, it's a multi-national organisation. That's one extra point for its notability. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:13 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Are you proposing that we allow WP articles on the premise that people can guess that there are references to uphold notability? As regards Norway, are we talking bricks & mortar or are we talking exists in a virtual sense? --WebHamster 21:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, FOMI is not CIA, all right? I'm sure there are more references to FOMI available. Just don't expect this to be the most cited site on the Internet. Also, may I remind you, that FOMI exists in Norway as well. So, it's a multi-national organisation. That's one extra point for its notability. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:13 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" The contents of that report, vis-a-vis FOMI, could hardly be called substantial, and from what I could make out its inclusion was incidental to the main crux of the report. Although it is indeed a reference, that's all it is, virtually a passing reference, certainly not what WP:N calls for.--WebHamster 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [1] No question about it; 42,400 hits is certainly notable. — EliasAlucard|Talk 17:55 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Notability is dependent on WP guidelines not the residence of the editor who thinks it should be kept (or deleted). To implement what you suggest is a precedence that could have lots of negative ramifications for the whole of WP. --WebHamster 14:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to claim that it's not notable, then you had better make sure you know what you're talking about. Residence of editors, is important in this case if you're going to decide it as not-notable. Because this is notable in Sweden. Obviously, a Swedish organisation is not notable in the US. But then again, English Wikipedia isn't limited to the Anglophone world. — EliasAlucard|Talk 16:04 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- WP is not a regional encyclopaedia, therefore regionality is not an issue for deletion or inclusion. Residence of editors is immaterial. --WebHamster 13:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, can we put aside his editing history for a change? Because it's really beside the point. Since none of you wanting it deleted live in Sweden, who are you to decide its notability? — EliasAlucard|Talk 15:41 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
Search and you will find... [2] Being charged for Islamophobia does sound notable to me. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:43 09 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't that a new buzzword for religious racism? If it is then it's hardly notable. It's not as if it's new the Moslems have been getting it in the neck from non-moslems for centuries. As regards the article FOMI gets a 1 line incidental mention as an example (maybe the journo had seen something about them recently?). Personally I just think it's a backlash for the cartoon debacle. It sounds like it's not so much notability as being dumb enough to shout out in "public" something that they know to be illegal then getting it in the neck from the authorities. I still don't see anything that is notable about these bigoted people. Bigots are ten-a-penny, websites and soapboxers are ten-a-penny. FOMI is just one more in a long line. --WebHamster 21:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Search and you will find... [3] "--another blog link. Blogs aren't references. One very minor reference is a very slim start, but I agree the article is not worth keeping if that's all there is published about FOMI, period. More refs are important, and need to be hunted down. But blog buzz, in any language, is not a relevant cite for wikipedia.Professor marginalia 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better then? It's the same report, hosted on a political site. Never mind if the previous link was a blog, what's notable here is the incident in itself; FOMI was charged for Islamophobia. Oh and by the way: Isn't that a new buzzword for religious racism? — Last I checked, criticism of religion(s) did not involve race. You only devalue the word racist if you conflate it with criticism of religion. Also, the entire reason you want this article deleted, based on your last post, seems to be religious censorship. It's not as if it's new the Moslems have been getting it in the neck from non-moslems for centuries. — You don't care about historical accuracy, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- Errr, let me see, The Crusades were before The Beatles, or was it before Depeche Mode my memory's a bit hazy on things so long ago? Now I wonder how many white, non-Arabic Moslems had to put up with grief from FOMI and the like? Be honest; it's frequently presumed that any Arabic looking person is a Moslem and very rarely presumed that a blonde caucasian is anything but a Christian. Of course race and religion are intertwined, especially amongst the average lowly-educated bigot. Anyway, this is not the place to continue this line of discussion. I still remain unconvinced that these guys are anything but your typical non-notable bigots who don't deserve an article, not because they are bigots, but because they just don't rate in the scheme of things. Like it or not in this day and age there are far too many "Islamophobes" around to make any particular one notable, certainly not this one. I suggest that you (me too) keep this debate on track and keep to the pertinent points, i.e. lack of notability and lack of substantial, non-trivial references. --WebHamster 23:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is this better then? ". I'm not impressed by it, no. It was written by a blogger identifying himself as "Fjordman". General note to all parties commenting-please remember to focus on the relevant issues, ie references and notability, and avoid debating here about the controversy over whether or not FOMI is a racist organization.Professor marginalia 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Crusades were a 400 year late response to the massive, and brutally violent Muslim conquest. Never mind that though, the Crusades were after all racist! Anyway, all jokes aside. It's becoming more and more clear, that you WebHamster, want this article deleted, simply because you find it offensive. You clearly have NPOV issues here, and you are disregarding just about everything because you want this article deleted. Needless to say, you obviously have NPOV issues because you're somehow trying to make this a racist issue, yet it's not. I'm sorry, but we're obviously dealing with censorship issues here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:52 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- In which case you'd be very wrong. I couldn't give a fig about their beliefs (or anyone else's for that matter). Quite simply I don't think they are notable. They are just one more organisation in an arm's-length list of similar organisations, nothing makes them stand out from the rest. As for my own POV, I'm an atheist who dislikes any and all organised religions. It doesn't matter to me whether it's Islam, Pentecostal or Moonies they're all a bunch of charlatans seeking power and control over something. My comments about bigotry is meant as a descriptive term, not a pejorative term. Now we have my bio out of the way let's get back to the notability issue eh? --WebHamster 01:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Crusades were a 400 year late response to the massive, and brutally violent Muslim conquest. Never mind that though, the Crusades were after all racist! Anyway, all jokes aside. It's becoming more and more clear, that you WebHamster, want this article deleted, simply because you find it offensive. You clearly have NPOV issues here, and you are disregarding just about everything because you want this article deleted. Needless to say, you obviously have NPOV issues because you're somehow trying to make this a racist issue, yet it's not. I'm sorry, but we're obviously dealing with censorship issues here. — EliasAlucard|Talk 02:52 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- "Is this better then? ". I'm not impressed by it, no. It was written by a blogger identifying himself as "Fjordman". General note to all parties commenting-please remember to focus on the relevant issues, ie references and notability, and avoid debating here about the controversy over whether or not FOMI is a racist organization.Professor marginalia 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, let me see, The Crusades were before The Beatles, or was it before Depeche Mode my memory's a bit hazy on things so long ago? Now I wonder how many white, non-Arabic Moslems had to put up with grief from FOMI and the like? Be honest; it's frequently presumed that any Arabic looking person is a Moslem and very rarely presumed that a blonde caucasian is anything but a Christian. Of course race and religion are intertwined, especially amongst the average lowly-educated bigot. Anyway, this is not the place to continue this line of discussion. I still remain unconvinced that these guys are anything but your typical non-notable bigots who don't deserve an article, not because they are bigots, but because they just don't rate in the scheme of things. Like it or not in this day and age there are far too many "Islamophobes" around to make any particular one notable, certainly not this one. I suggest that you (me too) keep this debate on track and keep to the pertinent points, i.e. lack of notability and lack of substantial, non-trivial references. --WebHamster 23:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this better then? It's the same report, hosted on a political site. Never mind if the previous link was a blog, what's notable here is the incident in itself; FOMI was charged for Islamophobia. Oh and by the way: Isn't that a new buzzword for religious racism? — Last I checked, criticism of religion(s) did not involve race. You only devalue the word racist if you conflate it with criticism of religion. Also, the entire reason you want this article deleted, based on your last post, seems to be religious censorship. It's not as if it's new the Moslems have been getting it in the neck from non-moslems for centuries. — You don't care about historical accuracy, do you? — EliasAlucard|Talk 01:10 10 Sept, 2007 (UTC)
- "Search and you will find... [3] "--another blog link. Blogs aren't references. One very minor reference is a very slim start, but I agree the article is not worth keeping if that's all there is published about FOMI, period. More refs are important, and need to be hunted down. But blog buzz, in any language, is not a relevant cite for wikipedia.Professor marginalia 22:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lack of independent sources means this article has insufficient evidence to demonstrate notability per WP:ORG. --Gavin Collins 14:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article relisted as per talkpage request. - Mailer Diablo 16:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the length of this AfD, we still have no proof of notability. Bfigura (talk) 17:18, 11 September 2007 (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.