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 no consensus over reliability of cited sources, default to taking no administrative action, without prejudice against a possible merge proposal outside the AfD process. Deryck C. 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sina (activist)[edit]

Ali Sina (activist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a pseudonym. Single source (Jerusalem Post) and a passing mention (Asia Times) do not establish notability for a stand alone article. The JP article only repeats the self-published claims of Sina's website. All verifiable info can be located at the website's article, Faith Freedom International. Article has a tendency to either be a WP:SOAPBOX for Sina/FFI's views, or a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the merits of the arguments are debated. Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted.

Previous AfDs:

The Interior (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, just noticed your addition. Your source [1] is a press release from the poorly named SION. Doesn't really help with notability, or even verifying who this person is. He's a doctor? The Interior (Talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reuters is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. They will not publish any news release. All members of SION are notable personalitie. This is an important international organization. User: OceanSplash 07:48 25 January 2012
  • I don't know their selection criteria for press releases, but they do preface it with "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Which makes it self-published (though relayed through Reuters). The Interior (Talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Re the pseudonym issue, that is not the reason for deletion. The reason is lack of reliable, verifiable information on which we can base a biographical article. With MM, Larry King, etc. that is not a problem. The Interior (Talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the google Test if you don't mind me asking? The Interior (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this google test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't work like that. It's explained on the page itself why a Google test is not a measure of notability - see Wikipedia:GOOGLETEST#Notability - and also WP:GOOGLEHITS. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify all I said in addition to being the founder of an organisation ,that he had sufficient hits on the net.Of course hits alone do not mean notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is that he had sufficient RS hits on the net, that is a reasonable rationale. If a person has sufficient substantial RS coverage, they meet WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or else Weak Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Sina is doing about the same thing as Mr. Tzotzis is doing: holding debates with notable people, and telling on his own website his opinion about Islam. The main difference is that Ali Sina is slightly more famous than Tzortzis, as one could see in the number of third-party references (and here, where he is placed at the same level as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasrin). This might be weakly in favour of Sina. On the other hand, as there is already an article about his website, I think it is a bit overdone to have TWO articles on Sina's work. I would say that we merge the article with the FFI article, on the condition that nothing substantial will be deleted for the reason that this article is about FFI, and not about Sina. Jeff5102 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We all agree that the Jerusalem Post article is substantial RS coverage. In my opinion the other RS coverage -- even that shown in the other refs now in the article -- is sufficient to indicate the necessary substantial multiple RS coverage. There are enough RS refs, from all over the world, to reflect notability here. Half a dozen editors have noted the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, those half dozen editors don't appear to have read our notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They appear to have read it, and to be applying it dispassionately. Ros -- we've just gone through two noms by you where you also attacked the editors for not agreeing with you, in similar fashion. And those both ended up closing as keeps, with your view not being the consensus one. Its possible to have different views, but there's no need to belittle everyone whose view differs from yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you literally have editors arguing that the fact that reliable sources haven't covered the subject is a reason why we should cover him, or that vanity presses or mentions in a list constitute reliable significant coverage, I think we can safely say that at least some of the editors have not read the notability and reliability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several sources have been recently added to demonstrate notability, I've looked at some of these below.
  • LaRed21 - not a reliable source - user submitted content.
  • Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out is published by World Net Daily - see RSN discussion here
  • Death of the Grown-up - This is not available in preview, how did the editor view this content? Where is the mention? What is the mention? Page numbers (and an excerpt) would be nice if I'm to verify this.
  • Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington By Paul E. Sperry - First, this is just an excerpt with no information on the subject at all. Nelson Current is World Net Daily, see above
  • Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam - Academica is an on demand publisher - not RS.
In short, these are very shaky refs. But more importantly, there still is no substantial coverage. It's true, there is quite a few mentions of Ali Sina out there in Googleland, but I haven't been able to find any non-fringe coverage. (i'll take a look at the PDF's when I get back to my home unit) The Interior (Talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources PDF sources added:
  • Arches Quarterly: single, passing mention
  • Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out - single, passing mention. You have attached this to Dissent (magazine) magazine, this is not indicated by the publishing information.
  • “Leaving Islam: A Preliminary Study of Conversion out of Islam” Is an unpublished symposium report - see this caveat on the title page: [© Draft Paper. Please do not cite without author's permission]. Not RS.
  • I also note that you have formatted the Reuter's press release as a news report. This (if used at all) needs to be clearly labelled as a press release. There's a template here: WP:CITET. The Interior (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is beyond cavil that the article in The Jerusalem Post is substantial RS coverage. As to the number of other articles in addition to that one, at times we have a situation where articles are only local in nature. That's not the case here -- quite the opposite; the subject has attracted international coverage. Indeed, even coverage in different languages. WP:GNG states that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." Here, we have a large number of RS sources covering the subject, in addition to the significant substantive treatment by The Jerusalem Post, and their "nature" is, helpfully, an international one. Furthermore, WP:BASIC tells us that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". This subject clearly meets that standard. It in fact does have substantial coverage, by The Jerusalem Post. And in addition, it has coverage by a number of RS sources -- per the guideline, those may be combined to further demonstrate the "multiple" part of the RS coverage requirement. Some of the dozen and a half sources are longer than other, but the books and articles and paper as a whole certainly meet the above standard, when couple with the full-fledged, devoted-to-the subject, article in The Jerusalem Post. It is not surprise therefore that -- even in the face of one or two editors constantly getting in the face of each keep !voter -- half a dozen editors here have !voted keep, more than have indicated support for either other option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm sure you know, AfDs are discussions, not votes. In regards to your above argument, it hinges on multiple mentions in reliable sources. I still feel that hasn't been demonstrated. You haven't replied to any of the specific challenges to the refs you have added, which do not meet the RS threshold. The Interior (Talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the new sources added, have you found one that gives substantial coverage and meets our RS benchmark? I'm concerned that all that citing did was give an appearance of a well sourced article. Please take another look at those sources. The Interior (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Our RS policy isn't suspended during AFDs, as much as users sometimes like to stack articles with bad references to make them look more notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but I do see now that whatever I write here, you people will never stop arguing me. I have better things to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (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.
More