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 merge/redirect. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 12:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiislam[edit]

Wikiislam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

It is not notable. MomoShomo 01:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing notable about it. Abureem
• Delete and merge per MomoShindo9Hikaru 01:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette, it says to avoid votes like "delete and merge"--Sefringle 04:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Going with delete here. Good idea, but needs more notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per the discussion on the page. --Haemo 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing to merge. Non-notable. --Kirby♥time 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely.--Sefringle 05:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable. It seems that there is a tendency for certain polemic sites to be called 'notable' but this popularity seems to rest more within a small circle of like-minded people than in actual notability. The Behnam 02:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP. Notable, as evidenced by links to reference in published academic literature on page. Attempts to delete in spite of this are therefore in fairly obvious bad-faith, especially given the subject-nature of the article and the demonstrable pro-Islamic bias of many editors supporting deletion. There is no "discussion" concerning merger on the article's talk page (as Haemo asserts), just a succession of slapped-on deletion tags. There is no discussion among the nay-voting editors here on the article's talk page. Speedy Deletion has already been rejected.--Mike18xx 02:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make ill-considered accusations as that is uncivil. I don't know about the others, but I know you are completely wrong by possibly characterizing me as having a 'pro-Islamic' bias. For example, this doesn't conform to that bias [1]. Please, AGF, and defend the article on grounds of its supposed notability alone. You should retract your accusations of bad-faith from this page. Thanks. The Behnam 03:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Many" does not mean "all", Behnam; I did not single you out specifically, so I have not "characterized" you in any way (I am pleased to see that you're impartial). No retraction then, since, sans lack of discussion on the relevant pages (or, one gathers the impression, even any familiarity with the subject page at all by some of the pro-deletes), the calls for deletion and votes for delection of an article with references remain in bad faith.--Mike18xx 04:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the subject of a single academic essay does not make something necessarily notable. It's just a case study. MomoShomo 04:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What makes it notable (other than the academic essay) is that it's the only Wiki project a citizen of an Islamic nation critical of his birth-faith could dare participate in without having his IP address logged (and therefore available to the government of said nation, or any other retributive entity for that matter).--Mike18xx 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with the criteria at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(web) MomoShomo 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Faith Freedom International. While not notable enough for content, it is worthy of a redircet.--Sefringle 04:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to FFI. - Merzbow 04:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I would otherwise argue for a merge to FFI, but seeing as it is a case study in a scholarly article, it deserves a spot on Wikipedia. However, the article needs to be improved to contain criticism of the website. There obviously is some, judging from the article. If this is not addressed, I would change my position to merge. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There *is* a stub tag on the article -- it'd be nice if some other editors would work to improve it instead of rushing to gank it one way or another.--Mike18xx 04:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide some source that the wiki is notable, most of us would probably change our votes. It's not that we are against the site; its just that we cannot have non-notable articles on wikipedia.--Sefringle 04:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to gather, then, that a stub tag is now just the equivalent of donning a vest with a bullseye painted on it? What is a stub for, if not not to alert people to improve the articale -- rather than go, "Hey! Let's delete this sucker fast-speedy-fast before anybody finds two notable links!" Be that as it may, there are now multiple notable sources, so I earerly await "most of us"'s votes to change.--Mike18xx 23:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the information can be covered in a section in the main FFI article, no need for a separate article as it doesn't appear to been notability standards on its own. --Abnn 05:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article in a scholarly journal establishes notability independant of Faith Freedom International. That article also discusses attempts by critics to sabotage or marginalize this resource, so without impugning the motives of the nominator or voters, I think we should have a high delete threshold for this one.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 05:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That shouldn't be necessary, as Wikipedia often deals with contentious material. Remember that there is also Wikipedia:Deletion Review available if you think that an individual AfD resulted in the wrong decision. --Abnn 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was skeptical until I saw that it is the subject of an entire paper by a respected Danish professor in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal; this is probably not the last word on WikiIslam.Proabivouac 05:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria at the web notability page states that it must be the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works", not just one. MomoShomo 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be best if you could find additional publications as the criteria outlined on Wikipedia:Notability (web) requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", right now you only have one published work. --Abnn 05:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More added.--Mike18xx 08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to Merge and redirect.Proabivouac 20:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple sources requirement seems pretty clear. It should be merged and redirected, without prejudice against its recreation in the future if and when the situation changes.Proabivouac 00:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Rustavo and Proabivouac. -- Karl Meier 07:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another attempt to promote FaithFreedom. Does not look notable to keep. Google search generate 49k results but majority of them are blog or faith-freedom website itself [2]. --- A. L. M. 08:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think it's notable enough on its own (and don't know how the article could be expanded). Alexa rank over one million. Redirect to Faith Freedom International, with a brief mention in that article. - Mike Rosoft 09:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some curious body might add WikiIslam's mission statement in the article. I've held off doing so just to see if *any* editor here was even obliquely interested in fleshing out a stub instead of just smothering it in the cradle.--Mike18xx 10:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep does assert its notability in links, but actual site could use more traffic Guycalledryan 10:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FFI Where is the notability here? I also have to note that after months of disappearence Mike18xx (talk · contribs) suddenly appears w/ something new. It sounds like if this user has been setting up the website before bring it here creating an article about it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If impugning the motives of editors is permissible in this conversation, as you seem to think, I'd like to impugn the motives of a curiously dispropportionate number of Muslimm editors who are Hell-bent on shoving everything they don't like under the rug. "It sounds like" (i.e., I am certain that) you have no idea at all what WikiIslam is, who created it (you could easily look it up just by following the external links, a procedure you are clearly proficient in doing as you're able to click my user link), and haven't the slightest interest in it other than learning that it's critical of Islam and must therefore be suppressed by any expedient means possible. Fayssalf, you are hardly unique in this regard, in this very thread even. Meanwhile, I have never proposed an article for deletion, no matter how lacking in "notability" -- I guess that's just the difference between you and me, Fayssalf: I'm happy to let individuals make up their own minds regards what is "notable" and concern myself purely with what is accurate, while you are of a thought-management mentality.--Mike18xx 17:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First it wasn't me who brought the article here. Second if you think my judgment here was based on any religious motive than you are wrong and my history would prove you that. I've edited till today exactly 10180 unique pages compared w/ 269 of yours. Do the math. The difference between you and me is that i've never been blocked. That was a link to your block log of course (not mine) to show how lucky you are to be still in the community editing. So, my observation is totally legit. I suspect your ways to be clear w/ you. You came back suddenly to promote a website (whatever website it would be - based on one notable source). Good luck anyway. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, then, what's your excuse for just making junk up by implying that *I* had anything to do with the creation of ("setting up") WikiIslam (the site itself, not the page here)? When people just make stuff up, I quite naturally suspect their motives regarding anything else they do.--Mike18xx 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not based on nothing. I am sorry but i can't trust you. Please refer to this thread for more details. There has been a lot of fuss about it. You are not obliged to explain to me your raison d'être here in wikipedia but of course a sudden appearance after almost 9 months is highly questionable and i am entitled to announce it to the public.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

Why is it so "highly questionable" if someone has an on-again/off-again affair with Wikipedia instead of being married to it -- eh? FayssalF? One needn't be logged in to edit this place -- except to CREATE an article. When one is not logged in, one's history is logged under an IP address, not a user-name. All you're seeing is the fact that I haven't created a new article in nine months. Meanwhile, I have this big, steaming turd in the form of your unretracted conspiracy theory that I have a hand in creating Wikiislam during my mysterious absence.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite unique? Probably. Quite unique to spot blatant POV displayed on my screen. Who edited this ill-documented (i don't have a name for it in fact) → "it quickly become a clearinghouse for news from Islamic nations and repository for information critial of Islam."? How, when, where? it has become a clearinghouse? Well this is our business here in this house and our duty is get rid of nonsense of this kind and we are doing quite fine w/ it.

As for if i have already navigated this famous and notable Wikiislam, yes i surely did in three occasions today.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

Excellent! Now that you've been there, it should be clear to you exactly how silly it is to suppose that I've been working to make the place in the last nine months when it's been around since 2005.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, i noted the following:

• The relatively long enough main article about Islam got 2 references in total! After more than 6 months of hard work they only could gather 2 references???? Is it logical for an allegedly notable clearinghouse wiki especialized in Islam?!!! Is this a joke or what? Do they lack expertise in there or what?
• It says anyone can edit. Fine but Nope. It is just a misleading lie. To edit there one has to log in. So why they aren't clear enough? Why do users have to register ? Isn’t free for all as it states in the main front page? There is no explanation for that at the FAQ.

—This is part of a comment by [[User:User:FayssalF|User:FayssalF]] , which got interrupted by the following:

So? Register and then edit. Where's the lie?--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ll leave to the editors there the task of being more creative on using templates. The same main article got a ((inuse)) template but not for the disclaimer which state that “This article is intended primarily for kafir” being this way part of the article intro! Do they have to put that notice on top of every article? If yes than they should obviously think about creating templates. When?

So which kind of interest I would have in it after that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'll have an unlimited number of reasons to loathe and seek to delete this Wikipedia page because you do not like its subject regardless of notability.--Mike18xx 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Only if you take my 01:10, 17 May 2007 comment as nonsense. Please don't inflate the meaning of the term "notability". It sounds like you are talking about something really notable. If you consider that this clearinghouse wiki is notable because of one reference while the Islam article in that specialized wiki is using 1 reference more than i'll go to out on my limb and guess that you are trolling. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably..."? -- look, there's no reason to write anything else after that, because your position on the matter becomes crystal clear: "Notability" may be important for Wikipedia, but for you it's just a convenient excuse to be exploited as best as possible before moving on to another convenient excuse to delete should previous excuses come up short. Why else would you cop to my inquiry ending with "...regardless of notability"? Thanks for the stipulation.--Mike18xx 02:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It seems a suitable article, I see it being notable as it has to do with Wikimedia. Regards — The Sunshine Man 16:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do w/ Wikimedia Foundation? How is that? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • This isn't a Wikimedia project. The closest relation I see is that it's running Mediawiki. That doesn't make it notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine had his term reversed. As the article itself clearly states, WikiIslam utilizes the Mediawiki interface (not that it's a Wikimedia project).--Mike18xx 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, but use of Wikimedia, as I note, doesn't make an article notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into the article on Faith Freedom International. only one source of real, substantial coverage - so it doesn't meet the requirement of multiple reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 16:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - This [3] is only one aspect of the notability. --ProtectWomen 17:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the other aspects are...? MomoShomo 17:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That WikiIslam is a wiki which doesn't display IP addresses so an apostate's articles don't lead to a fatwa being issued and him or her being hunted down by murder-minded fanatics.--Mike18xx 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's notability policy. It really doesn't make any sense for you to keep bringing it up. MomoShomo 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Per Sefringle as at this point in time, it needs more coverage to deserve an article of its own. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. IP198 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unclear even if the Springer link is referring to this particular Wiki or not. Either way unclear why it is even remotely notable other than being a subset of Faith Freedom International (which in itself scrapes through) and certainly parts of a notable site do not automatically mean subset is notable in its own right. Ttiotsw 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely clear that the Springer link is referring to WikiIslam (although it doesn't help when Momo deletes the full-text link into order to obfusicate the issue). No one else is having trouble with that particular aspect.--Mike18xx 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as noted above; if this gets more independent coverage, it may be worthy of an article in the future, but right now, it's probably best discussed as a project of the parent organization. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, per much of above. gren グレン 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe there are now sufficient notable links and references for Wikiislam (which has been evolving as this discussion has been ongoing.--Mike18xx 22:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So far, references consist of an image on WI, an article about the satirical cartoons, and an article that cites WI as a reference itself. External links consist rightly of WI, a Wikistats rank, and two links to what appears to be a discertation making a case around "islamophobia" (sic) in conjunction with WI. I'm not sure that these constitute reliable sources for the purpose. My !vote stands, for now. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep- It is important enough to be used in a study of a scholarly paper and also was presented at a conference. It is therefore important enough for Wikipedia. With time, it can be improved upon. Outsider2810 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this article survives the AfD, I suggest that it be moved to WikiIslam (a slight capitalization change). When I first saw this AfD, I misread the article as "Wikii Slam" because of the awkward capitalization. I did not wish to move the article during the AfD, as this is obviously a contentious issue, and my actions may have been misinterpreted. Charlie 09:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect as per above. Obviously notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in wikipedia, not notable enough or seperate enough from FFI to have own article. (It's a stub as it stands now, but it seems that any extra material wouldn't be worth including on wikipedia.) Single academic case study not enough justification for notability - academics can write case studies about more or less anything! BobFromBrockley 14:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to FFI, keeping the history. Not notable for a separate article. John Vandenberg 02:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. One of the very few chances for muslims to post editorials & views that might go against the accepted status-quo supported by their totalitarian regimes. I also agree with Charlie above that the name should change to WikiIslam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Populous (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - User 3rd edit

The vote, so far, is Delete:7, Keep:10, Merge:12, give or take a waffling here or there. Accordingly, as the author of the page in question, I am merging the article on my own initiative -- and that should, I think, wrap things up here.--Mike18xx 05:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Ali sina could come up with 100 more sites and then we may have to include 100 more articles based upon the same shared notability. But because it is hosted by FFI and FFI is what makes wikiislam the article should be a subject within the FFi article.

Oh yes and the Delete as calculated by mikeXXX on 05:52, 18 May 2007 is not correct i calculated 9 Votes for Delete The last delete vote being given on 18:42, 16 May 2007.(Misleading with false information in a typical FFI style huh ? just kidding please dont begin attacking me)

Facts. 1 Delete Nothing notable about it. Abureem

2 Delete and merge per MomoShindo9Hikaru

3 Delete .Good idea, but needs more notability. --Dennis The Tiger

4 Delete There is nothing to merge. Non-notable. --Kirby♥time

5 Delete - Non-notable. The Behnam

6 Delete --Abnn

7 Delete . --- A. L. M.

8 Delete per nom. IP198 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

9 Delete. Ttiotsw

The votes counted as keep are 9 due to the fact that one voter changed his vote from keep to Merge. FACT overlooked earlier.(common FFI habit) STRONG KEEP. .--Mike18xx..Weak keep - -- Cielomobile talk. Keep .-Rustavo. Keep. .Proabivouac (who later changed it to merge so its not counted i suppose). Keep . -- Karl Meier. Weak Keep Guycalledryan. Weak keep — The Sunshine Man 16. Keep/Merge - --ProtectWomen. Strong Keep- Outsider2810. Strong Keep.- Populous. Z2qc1

• Comment Lets not tally early. We shouldn't declare a winner before the polls close. Let the closing admin determine what should happen.--Sefringle 06:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "It is not notable"- is not a nomination. --JJay 19:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. GreenJoe 19:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agreed that we should wait for the admin to tally. However my idea of publishing the tally was to correct the false information given earlier. Cant allow that to happen and i think thats not a very bad thing to do.
• Delete or merge per nom. No sources. Arbustoo 07:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it has become apparent that User:Mike18xx has been canvassing off-wiki to influence the outcome of this AfD, as well as encourage 3RR gaming on the article itself. [4]. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the Meccapedians never network. What a hypocritical jokester you are.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.171.199 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 May 2007

having trouble logging in, Mike? ITAQALLAH 08:55, 22 May 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.