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 KEEP. -Doc ^ask? 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aladin article was nominated for deletion on 01/01/06 and January 11 2006. The result of the discussions were keep and No consensus, respectively. An archived record of these discussions can be found here and here.

The first "keep" vote was based on this version of the article, which turned out to be full of nonverifiable facts (a wikipedically correct way to say it was full of lies).

After the artcle was stripped down to what is verifiable, the second "no consensus" vote was the result of some people thinking it would be smart not to delete the article, but make it into a redirect to Aladdin. Since I am insisting on a real deletion of the article , after a small revert war and an exchange of insults (I am sorry I got myself dragged into it) I moved aladin to aladin (magician) and now initiating a new vote.

Note to closing admin: The voting section below is filled with sockpuppets, meatpuppets and strawman sockpuppets. Close at your own risk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides two new users voting delete, I see only experienced editors here. Your alarmist comment is unwarranted and should be removed. -- JJay 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You're correct. My comment should read as it now stands. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever makes you happy. I doubt that an admin needs your help though. -- JJay 15:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that I do not need yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a misleading comment. Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 18:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a corect comment. Primary sources are not appropriate to wikipedia. Primary source are for experts. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, i.e., on opinions of proven experts, who can evaluate corrrectness and validity of primary sources. An interview, even in most reputable newspaper is not a critical material. A newspaper bears no responsibility for what aladin may bable about himself. Government press releases say nothing about the importance of this person. Your opinion about matters nothing. it is your original research of small shreds of information. Mukadderat 20:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a very new user Mukadderat, I would strongly suggest that you cease making these types of unfounded accusations and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies. All articles here are constructed from bits of information. The policy is very specific. Notably, it states that: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources" -- JJay 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a very old used JJay, I would strongly suggest to refresh your knowledge of many ither rules. Foe exmple Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I fail to understand how a person can be notable, if nearly all information about him is what he says about him. The only independent source is a line in the list of London city hall staff. It is not a big deal to find info about a person on 'net. Pray tell me what text from his article stub says that this person is notable? For example, care to explain me what this 'alkhemi' is? How many persons? What projects? What did he intersesting do as Vice-Chair? You intentionally dodging the question of his notability. Instead, you twisting the issue as if it is a problem to prove that he exisits. Of course, he does exist! but he is a nobody. To prove otherwise would be original research I am talking about. Mukadderat 04:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • After 3 AfDs and endless talk page discussions I am aware of your opinion. Please maintain your opinion (which to use your own words above, "matters nothing"). However, your refusal to accept any published sources, such as the Times article, is a violation of policy ("Verifiability, not truth"). Many experienced editors have pointed out that your statements regarding primary sources and continued willfull distortion of the meaning of original research are further violations. As you do not understand policy here regarding verification, sources or original research- and seem bent on creating your own- we have nothing to discuss. -- JJay 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Times" article is aladin's word of mouth. It is not a critical essay of a profesional magician. Two questions to you. (1) What exactly is written in Times article? Why I have an impresion that nobody read it? (2) Times article spells his name as "Aladdin" (capital 'a', etc. ) I find it suspicious that at his website aladin convenienly clipped out the name from the quotation. Are we speaking about the same person? What the heck is this alkemi? Does it exist anywhere but the brain of ladin? That is original research. You conveniently ignore all raised doubts. If you are going to blindly copy in wikipeida everything you read in newspapers, yuo are in big trouble, my naive friend. Mukadderat 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would strongly suggest that you cease making these types of unfounded accusations and familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability and other policies. All articles here are constructed from bits of information. The policy is very specific. Notably, it states that: "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources" -- JJay 16:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • YOu are dodging my direct doubts and delve into policies and accusations that I am new (and hence stupid). OK. Fine. Her is your policy: Wikipedia:Notability (people): the most relevant entry is "Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers". The next one is "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage". The current article does not show fitness to any of these. To claim that aladin is "widely recognized" or "significant pres coverage" is a theory not supported neither primary nor secondary sources, hence original research (with the possible exception of aladin himself, who is not reputable source). Mukadderat 17:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Start with the Times feature and make up your own mind. -- JJay 17:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The person is not proved to be notable. The evidence discussed in talk:aladin (magician) is very scant (excluding aladin's web page) and leaves reasonable doubts even whether they speak about the same person. So at the moment attempts to prove this person amount to original research (and fruitless so far IMO). Mukadderat 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: User account created 2 January 2006, and entered the Aladin discussion within ~36 hours. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I cannot stand when AfDs are repeated so quickly, seemingly until the desired result is achieved. Give the page a chance to breathe, see if it can be worked with. If in 60 days it still wasnt up to par, I'd think harder about deletion. Phantasmo 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Phantasmo account created 3 January 2006, entered deletion discussions (Saugeen Stripper) immediately. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • You missed the point of my explanation. The stripped page was not deleted on a pure technicality. Mukadderat 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No mention of any outstanding illusions invented by this magician. Make it disappear. Ruby 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Workerbee 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. User's second edit. -- JJay 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I object to that re-direct comment quite frankly, the result was no-conensus, keep NOT no-consensus;re-direct. Further to that, the man is viable, is noticable and without sockpuppets the vote was 15-5 in favour of keep first time round. Sadly I feel the allegations to sock-puppeting is getting pretty bad because anyone daring to have an opinion is being called one at the moment. --RBlowes 19:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: account created 2 January 2006, entered deletion discussions (Cindy the Dolphin) immediately. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but WP:RFE. Percy Snoodle 19:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was long discussion, and supporters had their very fat chance to expand. Mukadderat 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with expansion is that most of the sources on this person turn out to come from the subject of the article xyrself, and to be either exaggerations or outright falsehoods. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep,During the first deletion I seemed fairly sure of his notability but for the second one I was less sure. However, I have thought about it logically and I present to you the evidence:
  • Fact- There was a 4-page supplement in The Times regarding aladin. People outside the UK will claim this is journalistic and from an unreliable source. However, The Times takes steps to ensure that the information contained in their newspapers is correct and they very rarely (if ever) fail for hoaxes.
  • Fact- This is the most certain of the facts. Aladin was vice chair for Ken Livingstone’s Cultural Strategy in the mayoral assembly. He is described in the press released as “a magician and live artist” [1]. Several of the users who are against aladin have described this as unreliable. However, vigerous checks are made by the Mayor’s office. They have access to previous work information and other databases. They have to check them vigerously as if they are found to be fruedalant the bad publicity would be tremendous. They also have check all officials due to the threat of terroism.
  • Fact- Aladin’s daughter appeared on the National Geographic Channel. The summary of the documentry includes
  • “Aladin is a London-based magician of international acclaim, who was brought to that city as a child”[2]. Although the documentry concentrates on his daughter, it also features aladin himself. Some might say that the National Geographic Channel is unreliable. Let me assure you this, the National Geographic Channel is a worldwide channel and also checks the content it provides.
  • Thus, the above three sources are extremely reliable and checks will have been made for the conent that derives for them as any bad publicity received could ruin their reputation. All three assures it’s customers that the conent it provides is accurate. I have no reason to doubt this. If you have doubts e-mail them and find out.
  • Fact- Aladin is also featured in the “Book of Cool” demonstrating how to pull off card tricks. This is an actual book and can be verified and bought. Aladin is in it. No question about it. Furthermore, Aladin was interview for the Family Tech Show in regards to this book. [3]
  • Thus, my vote is a Strong Keep as I have done my research. I have discounted all information that I see as unreliable and I have seen a magician notable enough for his inclusion in wikipedia. The only reason why I can see that the notability of aladin is still debated is due to the original article that completely over hyped him. aladin may not be a Darren Brown but he is certainly a magician with a colourful culture who has a cult status, especially in Bangledesh and India.
  • Englishrose 20:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • re:Fact: in 1998 Times (which was not The Times, but its saturday entertaniment supplement the Saturday Times Magazine, with less rigorous jurnalism, see aladin's own website for details) the person "Aladdin" is described, not "aladin"; you have yet to prove this is the same person. And I don't see his fame increased since 1998. (and I see it quite suspicious that aladin conveniently clipped out the name from the quotation shown at his website.)
    • re:Fact: There were hundreds of thousands of people sitting in city hall offices around the globe. What exactly notable he did in this position?
    • re:Fact: this is part of a series "Running For Freedom" about various immigrants. So here Roxanne his daugter is notable not he
    • re:Fact: what is the notability of the Book of Cool itself? Any public library has hundreds of hokus-pokus books.
    • Mukadderat 20:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1 The Saturday Times Magazine is The Times' supplement as you said but it's still written and belongs to The Times and is checked in exactly the same way. If the Saturday Times Magazine has false info then it rubs off on the newspaper, which creates bad publicity, thus the same checks have to be made.
      • 2 He played an important role in Ken Livingstone's campaign for London mayor, that's what makes him different. Plus, he is described as a notable magician in the press release. Every claim they make gets scutanised especially by those running against Ken Lingstone for mayor. Thus, they can't afford to make mistakes.
      • 3 The very fact that the National Geographic Channel describes him as a notable magician is important as they have to research their claims and subjects. Yes as I said, checks are made by the above three.
      • 4 It's a book that features notable people in their fields. For example, the pool section is by Thorsten HohmannEuropean Straight Pool champion and German 9-ball champion and the Rugby section is by Carlos Spencer, New Zealand's 4th test points top scorer. Englishrose 21:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Derren Brown, not Darren. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Where is the fire? Per Phantasmo and the new evidence from Englishrose, give this article the time it needs to be improved. Grandwazir 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you must work hard to find any info about this person, despite very long discussion, says that he is nonnotable. Mukadderat 20:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the infomation isn't readily on hand through google doesn't mean someone isn't notable. I'm a resident the UK and I can definally say that the Times is a excellent newspaper and doesn't usually fall for hoaxes. Needs to be drasically improved not deleted. Grandwazir 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to raise a full-blown sockpuppet alarm here: Grandwazir has a editing pattern that is very similar to the already proven sockpuppets "Tiksustoo, Autumnleaf, Robsmommy, Grroin, Aloodum, and Aboutoxfordstudent": Few edits, and while the range of articles is diverse, it correlates very closely to those other UIDs. Additionaly, the first deletion vote has been filled with sockpuppets, so there is quite a high chance that will just try again here. Peter S. 21:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Grandwazir has accomplished hundreds of edits, and has been around since July 2005. Considering that, and his pattern of edits, he does not look like a sockpuppet to me. On the other hand, User:Mukadderat does. The account has only been around since January 2, 2006, and he jumped into the Aladin discussion within 48 hours of starting on Wikipedia. Elonka 21:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although I will admit that I have only been contributing in a regular fashion fairly recently I don't think you could call me a sockpuppet. In fact looking at your talk page I see you have a habit of accusing people of being sockpuppets when they don't agree with you. This isn't the way to conduct yourself around wikipedia and it won't get you any respect. Prehaps you should reread WP:CIVIL. Grandwazir 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You just got me thinking here but didn't User:Mukadderat step up his actions on deleting this article the very moment User:DreamGuy got blocked? Take that as you will. --RBlowes 23:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • DreamGuy is rolling on the floor laughing now. If not my intervention, DreamGuy would have safely killed this article. But I have a different idea about wikipedia rules. Mukadderat 01:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm sure he has a wonderful sense of humour enough to take my comment lightly, although your ideals and DreamGuys ideals seem to be common, just you go about it in different yet similiar ways. Unless I see otherwise, that's probably how it will remain. --RBlowes 01:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Only out of respect to you as an editor I am politely pointing out that DreamGuy got himself blocked exactly because of edit war with me. I hope this notice will trigger some sense of humor in other people here as well. Mukadderat 02:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see nothing verifiable or notable. Can I also request the admin closing this AfD checks for sockpuppets, since the other AfDs for this article also show signs of sockpuppetry. Ian¹³_ID:540053 20:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused Is there a WP:AUTO problem here? Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no WP:Auto problem. All the original information in the article has been completely wiped clean (the article was originally over hyped to the point that it looked like a publicity exercise). Since it's been wiped clean, it has written by several experienced editors. Englishrose 20:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • the "experienced editors" failed to notice holes in their original research. Mukadderat 21:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable enough. And btw, the first deletion vote was seriously spoiled by Aladin's sockpuppets [4], which allowed him to vote at least 4 times [5], so I'd like to ask for a new sockpuppet check to the outcome of this vote, too. Thanks. Peter S. 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes ur right. Without the sockpuppets in the last vote, the out come would have 15-5 in favour of keep rather than 19-5. Englishrose 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. David | Talk 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you are running for Arbcom. I'd suggest you to practice explaining your decisions, then. Mukadderat 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Englishrose. Isn't there some rule about bringing substantially the same article to AfD Three times in less than a month!? If there isn't perhaps we need to think about it. Jcuk 21:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't look into my explanations carefully: first, it was not substantially the same. the first one was bullshitting. The second vote failed on technicality. So indeed, we need to think abut it: how come the first nonsense version was kept? How people vote without looking into essense? Mukadderat 21:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the first vote got a "keep" vote because people assumed that all those false references where true. And also because Aladin voted at least 4 times. Those references are now pretty much gone. And yes, the second vote failed on technicality, so third time's the charm :-) Peter S. 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That essence you speak of goes very deep BOTH ways I may point out. There is some extremely obnoxious behaviour on both sides of the spectrum, it would be handy to look at both sides rather than just the points Mukadderat and Englishrose point out here. Also Peter S. I may point out you're doing exactly what I'm talking about here, you have no proof at all that voters are Aladin himself or his fans or whatever figment you to fabricate. In fact I think I'll stoop to your level right now and say that everyone voting Delete are actually accounts owned by Ali baba who is quite annoyed his old enemy Aladin has suddenly gained a rapport with some people! Mind I mention your slate page that was highlighted earlier on? I'll leave that to someone else to post. --RBlowes 21:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Though the original votes were "Keep" and "No consensus", there seems to be a vendetta against this page. The main culprit is User:DreamGuy who keeps redirecting the page without consensus, and User:Mukadderat who has nominated the article for deletion again, for the third time in as many weeks. A thoroughly referenced page is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eenasul_Fateh&diff=prev&oldid=35951929 . Elonka 21:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your original research of collecting bits into one place. It remains to prove that everything is about the same person. And his notability is still not seen. And there is nothing wrong with a vendetta against suspected garbage. Mukadderat 22:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Be careful what you call original research. Original research is information that is not gather from a reputable source. Are you honestly calling The Times supplement magazine, the National Geographic Channel, British government press releases in the cause of the London mayoral team as not from a reputable source? Englishrose 23:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saying that there is no reason to think that these small pieces reputable sources speak about the same person. The information is disconnected bits. Also, no one of these sources establishes significant notability. The Times article says "you probably never heard about this man". Newspapers write about millions of people, and not all of them are notable. his notability as a magician or as a member of city council is not established: what exaclty he did? Mukadderat 00:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:AUTO. Rewrite contains provable innacuricies. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) still confused. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Aladin is fully deserving of inclusion in this project as per my votes and comments in the two previous Afds. This is becoming sad and pathetic. -- JJay 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this is a somewhat marginal articel, and should be improved. But I think there is some reasonable evidence of notabiliy, and shown above. To be clear, i am opting for keep with the assumption that the article would NOT be redirected to Alladin or any similar page. DES ^(talk) 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and don't redirect without editorial consensus. Durova 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough to me. Why is this so contentious? He's a magician! Grandmasterka 02:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now, as per Englishrose. Bjelleklang - talk 03:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • FACT: User:English Rose constantly presents sources that have turned out to be false and hoaxed, she did so on the first vote and is no doing so again.
  • FACT: There was RAMPANT proven sockpuppeting on both the original creation of the articles and votes. It's very likely that there were some accounts used that could not be traced using purely techinical means.
  • FACT: We now suddenly have all sorts of newbies jumping in to vote keep based upon these forged sources, YET AGAIN.
  • FACT: If this article survives this vote, all you are doing is proving that hoaxers can blatantly spam Wikipedia and get away with it thanks to use of sockpuppets and people not taking the time to look into when they are getting lied to.
• Strong delete of article, but preserving talk pages and history to retain proof of the sockpuppeting and blatant fraud so we can follow these spammer's edits elsewhere to remove furhter corruption to this encyclopedia. DreamGuy 03:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fact- There will be checks on the sock puppets this time.
  • Fact- Are you saying that the government press releases is a hoax? Are you honesty saying that articles in The Times are a hoax or the National Geographic Channel is a hoax? Please recognise these sources.
  • Fact- This is coming from a guy who has been blocked for persuing a personal vendatta against the article. Englishrose 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm here, have you even looked at those sources? Englishrose 07:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • FACT: I am not a newbie, I am not a sockpuppet, I do my own fact-checking, and I still vote Strong Keep. Elonka 04:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Elonka, please don't vote "keep" in bold two times, it might confuse the admins, thanks. Peter S. 12:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed. And thanks for reformatting the page, it's much more readable now. Elonka 00:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. Grandmasterka 04:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Notability not established, NG reference not on him as a magician, no independent sources of information can be found (most sources are "interviews"!!). --Ragib 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I laid out my reasoning at length in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin. That and my weak keep still stand. Uncle G 13:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Rob 18:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Should have been nuked as vanity the first time. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Though the very first version of the article did have unfounded claims, I believe the magician is notable. Check here for a list of press clippings. The problem is verification, since not all of the sources are on Google, which makes it difficult to refute claims of fraud. The article has thus been stripped down to only sources which are verifiable via search engine, which, granted, makes it look a bit weak. Even at this bare minimum though, I believe that it still meets the standard for notability. Elonka 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't "get it": it is alreayd proven you cannot believe this guy when he writes about himself. Care to notice that all these clippings are older than 2000, so that it is very difficult to verify, whether some of these one-liners are indeed about him? He was almost unknown 6 years ago and totally unknown today. That's how your dedicated original research is to be interpreted. He is nobody. Mukadderat 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mukadderat, as JJay pointed out to you above, you are new to Wikipedia (having just started on January 2, 2006 and jumped into this discussion almost immediately), and you should be careful what you describe as original research. All articles in Wikipedia are collected from bits of information in other sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I do agree that a source should not be assumed to be valid just because it appears on a personal webpage, but neither does that mean that all of the sources on the press clippings page should be assumed to be false. The Aladin (magician) article should be kept and expanded, as reputable sources are verified. Elonka 05:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please leave your mentoring tone to your sons, stop twisting my words. I am not denying that this person exists. (By the way, it was me who first added his real name and defended his existence, despite multiple hints that I have something personal against him). So far all your efforts did not prove that he is worth inclusion into wikipedia, ie, his notability. There are tens of millions of people you may find mentioned in newspapers and over internet. Your original research is your theory that he did something notable so that he is worth inclusion in wikipedia. (By the way, what exactly did he do notable, please?) And read my question carefully: I am asking what he did, not what he was.Mukadderat 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isn't original research something which hasn't been cited by a reputable source, a reputable source being the Times, NGC and the book thereafter mentioned above? Basically anything cited by reputable sources is therefore not original research, correct? Therefore there's no real need to throw the "original research" tag around here when it's NOT. Although I do understand you're asking what he did so fair comment. --RBlowes 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, in response to a question to Meir Yedid they said: "There was a reference to him in a Feb. 2004 issue when he was featured in an Oxford Student article by Tamara Cohen (Feb. 19). Do not know anything else about him." I'd have to read the article to see how important the mention is, but the fact Meir Yedid knows about it means he's not entirely non-notable as a magician. Mgm|^(talk) 11:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin. The on-line archive of The Oxford Student (linked to directly from the prior AFD discussion) contains no such article. The only place where the purported text of such an article can be found is the press cuttings page on Aladin's own web site. See Jamie Kane for why news coverage that is published on a subject's own web site is not to be trusted. Uncle G 10:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, never heard of that guy. Balanga 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. User's first edit. -- JJay 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete. Changing my vote due to the research I mention at the article's talk page. It might be useful to keep and debunk the claims. --TStone 08:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC) . Viewed from the internal perspective, it doesn't seem that he has contributed anything important at all to the evolution of magic, based on my own knowledge, together with searching for his name at Meir Yedid's Magic Times and at the forums at Magic Cafe and Genii (best 3 places to look when in doubt). Regarding the external perspective, I can't say anything really. He might very well be famous in the english public's eye. --TStone 17:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User account created one week ago, with approximately 150 edits -- Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note 2: Many of those edits were to correct my own spelling errors :-) And the 3 external links I mentioned are the best places to research questions like this, and are out of my control.--TStone 05:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. It's a stub, but seems to be a stub about a notable magician. The references look like enough to assert notability to me. Original Research would be if the wikipedia doing the editing himself called up this guy personally and asked him questions, which he then published only on wikipedia. Now, if that same wikipedian performed this interview, published that interview in, say, The Times, or National Geographic, and then cited that as a source, it would NOT constitute as Original Research. If the external articles in question weren't written by wikipedians at all, then that's even another step removed.

  If this Aladin guy were to write an autobiography, you know, about himself, consisting only of information he knows about his own life, and publishes that autobiography, and a wikipedian then goes and references that autobiography, that is also not Original Research. I know that's not the case here, but the person advocating the deletion of this article seems to be of the opinion that just because these articles being referenced quote the man directly, use information that came from the man himself, that this is a case of Original Research. This is not the case. That's simply not what Original Research is! Fieari 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • May I indicate you that you are misdirecting the issue I am questioning. The current content of the article is not questioned. The notability of person is questioned; please read carefuly Wikipedia:Notability (people). To claim that person is notable at the moment constitutes original research IMO. Mukadderat 17:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak conditional keep WP:V version of this article reads "Aladin is a magician. From 2000 to 2004, aladin served on the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group for London." That is what my keep vote is designed to keep. Any additional information added about the hoax firm "alkhemi" or the individuals birth location, or the contentes of any puff-piece single-sourced article (most of which appear to be totally innacurate) would cause me to vote "delete" to an article that is commercial spam and damaging the encyclopedia. This keep is also a vote only to keep "aladin (magician)" "aladin" will be a redirect to a disambig page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I respectfully ask you how does your vote agree with Wikipedia:Notability (people)? In my opinion the version you suggest (and I would agree with) hardly speaks notability. Mukadderat 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. As a die-hard inclusionist, I find the notability requirements excessive and I do not vote in line with them. The article I presented is verifiable and not promotional or autobiographical. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Your position (if I understand it correctly) that all verifiable information is encyclopedic looks interesting to me. Mukadderat 21:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hipocrite, just to check, are you saying that your vote is to keep this version, if rolled into the page at Aladin (magician) ? Elonka 17:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitevely not. That article has the following information that is not relevent, not verified/verifiable: "Vice-Chair" "Fateh lives with a woman named Rebecca, of Jewish origin. They have a daughter named Roxanna, who was the subject of a documentary about their family on the National Geographic channel. Fateh's father was a Bengali ambassador.[6]." I argue that information that is single sourced from aladin himself (the documentary, the puff pieces) fail WP:RS. Additionally, it is badly written. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is sourced from National Geographic Channel [7]. May I ask why you believe that National Geographic is not a reputable source? Elonka 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not "National Geographic", which was source; it was aladin's braggadoccio: "works as a global management strategist". sheesh! I called myself something like that when I was jobless. Mukadderat 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - if this is all the verifiable information available on this guy, then I can't see a reason to keep. Does every magician deserve a place on wikipedia? Does every magician with a webpage? Every magician with a webpage who has been interviewed on the radio? --Pierremenard 20:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeerist, another one?? Alright, move to Eenasul Fateh and turn aladin into a redirect to that (delete the resulting redirect at aladin (magician)). Put a note at the top of E.F. to explain to anyone who ACTUALLY is trying to get to Aladdin, though I'm beginning to think that's a smokescreen. If he's not notable as a magician, then let's put him at his legal name, wherein his myriad, if small, contribtutions to the world can be recorded. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity-style spam of very ordinary magician per Pierremenard et al. If we keep this one, can I add one on my son, too? HE juggles. And has been interviewed on video which was on the web on an obscure site which is now dead but I can prove he was really juggling. Honest. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:56, 25 January 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.