Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International

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 to delete, reasonable argument that the site meets WP:WEB... but please improve referencing in article. W.marsh 04:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faith Freedom International

{{afdanons}}

Faith Freedom International (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Despite a purpotedly high number of hits, this website does not meet any of the criteria at WP:WEB (all mentions of it elsewhere seem to fall under the "trivial coverage" clause of the notability guideline). A previous AfD discussion resulted in the deletion of this article, which seems to have been created again in response to the recent deletion of the Ali Sina article. BhaiSaab ^talk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is only one non-trivial discussion over this website and that is by worldnetdaily, which is an American conservative news blog. We need multiple to prove its notability as per WP:WEB. Other links on the article are all trivial coverages. --TruthSpreader^Talk 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete, unless notability is established. --Striver 16:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, FFI has received enough media attention to make the organization notable. -- Karl Meier 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • [Long discussion moved to talk page.]
• Delete per prev. AfD, does not meet WP:WEB per trivial coverage. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: The problem is this: There are trillions of less notable pages here and they dont get deleted. Why? Because no one cares. But in this case, in case of stuff that is critical of Islam, there are lots of believers who will do anything to get any Islam-critical article deleted. They'll apply all the policies they can to get the stuff out. Thats whats going on. There's a huge opposition to criticism of Islam. Its unfair for material that is anti-Islamic. Obviously Ali Sina is vehemently opposed by Muslims. Maybe the present Islam-critique effort should be focused on Criticms of Islam sections. The big problem there is the Revert wars. Somehow that has to be resolved. --Matt57 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose that you go and "care" about the neglected articles, instead of that we treat this article as a neglected article. The issue is not what views the web site has, the issue is if it is notable. Do we have third party sources covering this web page? Why is this web page notable? . --Striver 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I'm saying. Usually any other lesser-known XYZ person wouldnt have a problem staying in on Wikipedia, but Ali Sina has a problem because of the large group of people who detest him and his views. Right? The bigger problem though is not the existence of Ali Sina. That can be solved and reliable sources can be found. I have no doubt. The bigger problem is endless revert wars in any controversial article and Wikipedia's inefficiency to deal with this scenario. I'm thinking about what can be done. Even if we focused our efforts on Islam-critical articles, Muslims want to revert every word we add in. They will do it if they can. This is the bigger problem. Its not limited to articles about Islam. It applies to any controversial article. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are not controversial. No one cares about the article Spider. You wont see revert wars going on there. But on topics with strongly different opinions and where editors of different beliefs are editing, thats where the problem lies and currently, Wikipedia doesnt have any policies about how to deal with this effectively. New policies have to be made to deal with this. This is what has to be solved before Criticism of Islam can proceed successfully. I dont know whats a good solution for this. Again, obviously when trillions of other lesser known people exist on Wikipedia, its unfair that Ali Sina was singled out. The policies were applied on him strictly, only because all the Muslims on Wikipedia are opposed to his presense. This is a fact. --Matt57 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I lack a dog in this fight, but I disagree on some points you raise and wanted to comment. First, please don't take this the wrong way, but please know that there is no cabal against criticism of Islamic thought. Second, the people who comment on AfD typically have neutral points of view about the subjects being considered - no one is out to get a category of articles; we're only interested in notability and appropriateness for the encyclopedia. We're mostly editor geeks - not politicos. Third, I care about spider, apple, and all other articles about notable things (and you will, in fact, see some strange revert wars going on in articles like that sometimes. Like I said, editor geeks.) However, wikipedia does have good policies for dealing with editors with different points of view - I'd point you to WP:NPOV. When there's a question of which point of view to include, the answer is simple: neither. If there are disputes, there's a procedure for requesting comment. When there's a question of whether an article should be deleted, the article comes here for outside comment. To my mind, no new policies are needed to address that. And, finally, if there are non-notable articles on wikipedia, it's our goal here to smoke them out regardless of subject - you can help by finding articles about non-notable people and sending them to AfD. With that said, I have no idea whether this particular article is notable, so this is just a comment. --TheOtherBob 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob, like I said: there are 100's of articles right now lacking RS. Why was Ali Sina singled out? Because all the Muslims in Wikipedia want him out. You say there's no cabal - do you know of the Muslim guild? It existed until recently. What do you think its purpose was? These people are here to kill Criticism of Islam. Sadly, they wont succeed. The only sad thing is like I said: Ali Sina was singled out for deletion when there are 100's of other articles lacking RS, only because Muslims dont want to see Islam being criticized. Thats common sense. As for RFC, here's the thing: there's a dispute on every edit of the Criticms of Islam section (and its related articles as well). Therefore, filing disputes like this is not efficient. What I'm thinking is, some sort of policing should be done to make sure stuff is not reverted without discussion on the Talk page and anyone who does revert like that, should be suspended for some time. This hsould apply for any highly controversial articles. Do you still think RFC can deal with the edit warring that goes on constantly on an hourly basis on Islam-critical sections? --Matt57 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone wiser than me once said that there is only ever a cabal if you want there to be one. But even if you want to think that some particular group of editors have "formed a cabal," the fact remains that Wikipedia contains checks against that type of POV-pushing - such as AfD.

In any event, I'd ask you to consider the possibility that this article was "singled out" only on the good-faith belief that its subject may be non-notable. In that regard, you may want to review the requirement that we assume good faith - I wouldn't assume that any marking of an article for deletion is based on bad-faith religious bias of some sort.

If you think there are 100's of other articles without reliable sources that should also be deleted - bring them here for deletion. It's good for the encyclopedia. That we haven't gotten around to discussing other articles yet doesn't mean that we are "targeting" the article we are discussing.

Do I think that RfC and our other processes can deal with edit-warring when dealing with difficult and controversial subjects? Yes - because I assume good faith. Will it always work? Nope. Will it be easy or efficient? Not a chance. But the alternative - assuming bad faith and cutting off editing of the encyclopedia - is far more damaging to the project than any amount of editing warring can ever be. --TheOtherBob 00:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Bob, none of us infidels care about an XYZ obscure Islamic leader having his page. But these people do care about Ali Sina and they'll try all they can to get him out of here. Can I remind you that attempts were made to delete Category:Former Muslims and List of people who left Islam? See whats going on there? Thats what they do. Islam won over Wikipedia in this case because Zakir Naik was allowed to stay and Ali Sina was deleted. Ali Sina cant come out in public and debate, or else he'll be killed. I dont have the time or desire to go and battle pages of obscure Islamic figures into deletion, none of us cares about that. But for muslims Ali Sina is prominent and must go. With 80,000 hits on Google, a high ranking website and debates with famous Islamic figures he's much more notable than so many other folks on Wikipedia i.e. he obviously passes the professer test because he's well more well known than the average college professor. These guys have the guts to say he's non-notable, when infact each one of them knows of his name since a long time. The basic problem is the selective application of the policies. We're getting some good third party sources now. The admin was unfair and did not allow us time to put these sources in. After a good number of sources are in, I will attempt a request for undeletion of this page. --Matt57 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Matt is right. There is definitely a cabal to uproot any criticism of Islam. It is no secret that Muslims do not like their faith critiqued and they have killed those who dare to. So it is shortsighted to believe these very Muslims suddenly become disimpassioned about their religion when they become editors of wikipedia. Show me one Islamic country where the critics of Islam are not in jail. I also agree with Matt, this matter requires some serious consideration; otherwise what suffers is fairness in wikipedia. Furthermore the Ali Sina article was deleted illegally. ‘’’The votes were 18 to 17 in favor of Keep.’’’ As the result that article should be reinstalled. If the result of voting is not going to be respected, why vote at all? Faithfreedom.org has received over four million unique visitors in the last 15 months and it received one million page views per month. This movement of the ex-Muslims is entirely Internet based. It can’t have any other way to operate or its members would become target of assassination. Its popularity should only be measured based on how many visits it receives. Faith freedom International has over half a million entries in Google. [[1]] How do you measure notability? OceanSplash 03:30 6 Dec. (UTC)

While I do disagree with your views on that, I know full well that I have zero chance of convincing you that Wikipedia isn't being overwhelmed by a Muslim cabal, so I'll just leave it at that. One note, though - AfD is not a "vote," it's a discussion. If, for example, two people made persuasive delete comments ("This article fails WP:Band"), and 50 people "voted" keep based only on something entirely non-persuasive (e.g. "but we really like our friends' band!") - an article would be properly deleted. It's a discussion, not a vote. --TheOtherBob 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And who makes the decision on the persuasiveness of a discussion? OceanSplash 19:35 6 Dec. (UTC)

• Keep this site has clearly been the subject of multiple non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, several of which are already linked. This article will forever be fraught with problems and prone to original research, soapboxing and vandalism, but if we stick to the sources and leave the editorialising to them I think we should be on solid ground for an article. Guy (Help!) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of any reliable secondary source regarding faith freedom. If this would be the case, we would be able to save "Ali Sina" article for sure, as he is the main author on this website. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It seems that lots of wikipedia editor are having some "personal agenda and bias" towards criticism in any manner which is against the freedom of speech. I think these editor are trying to kill the best knowledge source on internet (wikipedia) by this kind of attitude. So as a normal web surfers, now we have to look on other sources for right information if this attitude continues for longer period here. Pas1975 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I have been looking for those RS that give it N, but have failed to do so. Could you, for my convineance give me a link to those multiple RS that give non-trivial covereage of this website? Thanks. --Striver 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -- I could find nothing substantial (i.e., no primary or secondary material not generated by the organization itself) on a cursory Google search, but am open to other evidence of notability. BYT 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a horribly terrible article, but the controversies it has created in the media make it notable. Xiner 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What media? Could you please show me those RS media it has created controversies in? --Striver 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Examining the sources present in the article, FrontPageMagazine has no non-trivial mention of FFI, Asia Times mentions it as a throw-away example, Hugh Fitzgerald has no non-trivial mention, and The Post Chronicle not only has no mention of FFI, but the commentary section it's taken from has such beauties as "Most illegal immigrants have no interest in learning our language, paying taxes or doing anything at all that benefits the nation." Provide multiple non-trivial mentions in third party secondary sources and this passes our foundational policies, but right now it does not. - 152.91.9.144 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Please see the following article from WorldNetDaily, the world's largest independent, professional online news source, proving the noteworthiness of FaithFreedom.org: http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 72.136.43.94 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is good coverage from a third party. Do you have multiple such coverage? I do not know if the site is RS, so i will not comment on that. --Striver 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is a right wing propaganda organ, about as much of a WP:RS as Moveon.org.

Thank you, Striver. WorldNetDaily only did one story on Ali Sina and FaithFreedom.org (so far). I know other online journals have done stories as well, and some of them, like the WND article, are pointed to as external links at the bottom of the Wikipedia article about FaithFreedom (as discussed at the top of the talk page). I expect more articles will be appearing in secondary sources when Dr. Sina's first book is released publicly this coming year, at which time there will be an even greater need for an article on FaithFreedom.org and/or Dr. Sina here at Wikipedia.org than there has been here already. I'm sorry, Striver, but I do not know the meaning of the abbreviation RS. What is RS? 72.136.43.94 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"RS" measn Reliable Source, it is a term used to describe ... reliable sources. Im bot sure if WorldNetDaily is RS, on the other hand, im not sure if WP:WEB demands that. --Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, again, Striver. I consider WorldNetDaily a reliable source. I know they have a point of view, but they are careful about making sure the facts back up their point of view. The editor in chief, Joseph Farah, has over 30 years experience in the mainstream newspaper business, including work as the top editor at a major newspaper. WND sends out independent investigative journalists to places in the world and writes their own copy rather than simply relying on Reuters, etc. As for the previous unsigned commentator in this thread who called it a "right wing propaganda organ" that is true in the objective sense but false in the perjorative sense of the meaning of the word "propaganda" (i.e. "to propagate ideas" vs. "to propagate ideas through lies", respectively). It is thanks to the propagation of certain ideas promoted by the editor in chief at WND that my thinking moved away from knee-jerk liberal responsiveness to thoughtful consideration of all points of view, left, right, center and others. In short, WND is well written independent journalism and no amount of slagging off against it will change that fact. I only wish they would give Ali Sina and FaithFreedom more space on their site. One exclusive article back in September, 2004 is not enough. I'm sure, however, that when Ali Sina's book is published, WND will give it some more coverage, though. Oh, and one more thing. Would people please refrain from referring to WorldNetDaily as a "blog". I know what a "blog" is, and WorldNetDaily is much more than a mere blog. Would you call Al Jazeera or MSNBC blogs? C'mon!74.102.57.243 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The web site is quite notable and states that Faith Freedom International is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims. Its goals are to (a) unmask Islam and show that it is an imperialistic ideology akin to Nazism but disguised as religion and (b) to help Muslims leave it, end this culture of hate caused by their "us" vs. "them" ethos and embrace the human race in amity. We strive for the unity of Mankind through the elimination of Islam, the most insidious doctrine of hate. [2] --CltFn 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per WP:WEB. We need to prove that this site has been subject of discussion in multiple non-trivial publications. It simply fails in this respect. I hate to say that, but there is no other legitimate option to me. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Matt57 and Karl Meier --Sefringle 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Its should be deleted as with Ali sina I dont see why so much anti muslim bias in this wikipedia. there are most western people in wikipedia and some of them are anti muslim and thats why non notable and non existing entities like ali sina gets too much attention. matt57 why dont u care about the people who are critical of all religion as u r only interested in Anti ISlam. why are u bias mate. I am a muslim but I never wrote anti christian or athiesm or any other material. why is this bias only with muslims. plz matt explain me. all the reference comes from either FFI site or sister site why not provide NPOV sites which claim FFI or Ali Sina is notable. Even Ali sina Existence is Disputed how can we have his page and his website page if his existence. I think this site is run by anti muslim bias group. matt57 people like FFI web admins and u are trying to increase the hatred towards islam and muslims fall in this hatred and hate the western world even though there are lot of westerners who are neutral and not bias. Mak82hyd 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You want this page deleted because you find him offensive? That is not against the wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Religion --Sefringle 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But it definitely is against WP:WEB as there is only one non-trivial coverage and still from a conservative news paper. The article is simply driving traffic to the website and getting a higher search engine ranking. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No. the site is definently notable.--Sefringle 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com(top 10000),islamicity.com(top 10000) and many more. I will start building articles on these websites, organisations soon. Mak82hyd 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check my paragraph again, I have marked in BOLD letters NON NOTABLE and NON EXISTED and I could not find any reliable sources. Prove Notablility they call themselves international so can u tell me there head office address. please I will love to know it. They dont have any registered office. I searched a lot to find it. --Mak82hyd 23:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about which notability guidelines we are using here. Under WP:ORG, an organization must be verified to have a certain scope (such as "international"). However, we are using WP:WEB here, and there is no such requirement. It doesn't matter if they claim to be international and they aren't really (although obviously any Internet site is "international"). It doesn't matter if they have an office or a snailmail address that you can mail them at. Read WP:WEB very carefully and you will see that geographic scope and mailing address are not mentioned there. This particular concern is irrelevent. — coelacan talk — 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - if there's a Zakir Naik page there should be this page. Newton's third law.Bakaman 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Change my opinion as now have some evidence. Little bit clearer how this site matches notability though still say it's a bit premature to add the Faith Freedom International as an article as the site is undergoing some re-org. New opinion filled Ttiotsw 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) (old opinion) Ttiotsw 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been many underground organizations in the history some of them with huge impact. FFI is very much known even though most of its contributors do not use their real name. Only because an anonymous group of people have managed to create so much fear in Muslims it is worth mentioning it. As for Ali Sina’s anonymity, it is only a speculation. He has been silent on that question and maybe because he prefers his enemies think he is not using his real name so they don’t go after him. A man whose existence is disputed and has managed to stir this much emotions makes him notable. We can’t blame him for using a pseudonym when he is constantly under the threat of assassination. Did you see this [[3]] today? OceanSplash 19:40 6 Dec. (UTC)

• Comment The Ali Sina and FFI AfD's are the subject of a forum thread in FFI's "Breaking News" section: http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33368. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This definitely shows their ability to use FF website for wikipedia and vice versa. TruthSpreader^Talk 03:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So, whats the point of bring that link here? After all its "non-notable" to you right? What are you trying to prove? Ofcourse they'll talk about it. Its Ali Sina's website and forum. Like any other forum, there are 100's of threads at that forum. Bob, can you see the "Cabal" here? Its obvious, isnt it? --Matt57 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't change the subject. This site is being used to manipulate wikipedia and then wikipedia is being used to drive traffic to it. It is as simple as this. And this website simply fails WP:WEB as well. TruthSpreader^Talk 04:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

TruthSpreader, WHERE is your proof that Wikipedia produces most of FFI's traffic or any significant part of it? The site has always been popular - look at its Alexa logs. Thats WHY its entry was created in Wikipedia - correct? Also, where is your proof that the site is used to "manipulate" Wikipedia? You're assuming BAD FAITH here, right TruthSpreader? --Matt57 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read about google's pigeon ranking system, besides other things, one of the most important criteria is links which are directed to the website and from which websites. Wikipedia is a high ranked website and hence, any link from wikipedia counts a lot on Google's ranking system. And secondly, the link of the forum shows clearly and you know what! TruthSpreader^Talk 04:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So you mean that if any site links to Wikipedia and Wikipedia links to it as well, then that "site is being used to manipulate wikipedia and then wikipedia is being used to drive traffic to it."? I dont get it. What are you tryring to say? You've failed to explain how the site is being used to "manipulate" Wikipedia. Nothing can manipulate Wikipedia. If that was the case, then everyone would be 'manipulating' Wikipedia. --Matt57 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Where is your proof that the site is used to 'manipulate' Wikipedia?" Let's see...

"And this guy doesn't listen to facts, so we need a whole lot of people complaining and correcting him to "persuade" him to leave this article alone with his deliberate misinformation." [4]

"Maybe someone from here could take a look at that Wiki-article and offer a third opinion on these issues?" , "the wikipedia article on the quarans miracles needs editing. It would be much better if a member of ffi did this instead of a confused muslim." [5]

Ok, BhaiSaab, that quote is from some guy literally named "qwertyasdfgh". Who knows, it could be a muslim giving a bad name to the forum, or someone working along with you, right? Dont trust these kinds of quotes and form opinions based on some anon user called "qwertyasdfgh" with 17 posts in the forum. --Matt57 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I planted several hundred users in the FFI forums during October for the sole purpose of making the forums look bad in this AfD, because I knew that two months later a user named Karl Meier would create an article for FFI in Wikipedia and it would be put up for deletion. Great conspiracy theory. Come on now, FFI users are quite capable of embarrassing themselves on their own without my intervention. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Voting hardly takes a minute. Please encourage as many people to vote as you can. You can cast your vote by clicking here..."[6] which caused a massive amount of anons/sockpuppets on this AfD.

Just a few of the many threads I found. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Obviously they dont know that new user accounts are not paid much importance to. Anyone can do this kind of voting. Your original link doesnt show any "please vote!" stuff. --Matt57 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My point is that some opinions are being solicited in a forum with at least a couple hundred members and anons might come here and try to influence the decision thinking that this is a vote. BhaiSaab ^talk 04:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Admins are wise enough to disregard anon votes and new user accounts. Usually you guys are good in watching out for that. On the other hand, your brother Herald below is a new user and no one complained. --Matt57 04:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because I don't go around checking accounts that are not "red links" or perhaps because he just posted a few minutes ago? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Truthspreader and Itaqallah. Herald_reply 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: I suspect that Heraldd might be an abusive sock puppet. He has only made three edits to Wikipedia outside his userspace, and two out of three of these edits has been votes at the vote for deletion regarding Ali Sina and now Faith Freedom International. -- Karl Meier 10:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Anti Islam or anti anything is not ground for deletion. Wikipedia is not created to be the mouthpiece for Muslims. It must be impartial and that means those who have views against Islam must also be mentioned. Ali Sina’s article must also be restored because it received more votes for keep. OceanSplash 04:00, 6 Dec. (UAC)
• Strong Keep The links alone prove that he is notable. Great job Karl Meier. Arrow740 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those links are great. I hope more are found and that should eventually help to undelete Ali Sina.--Matt57 05:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--D-Boy 07:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:WEB because it meets Criterion 1, as shown by the evidence provided above. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to Weak Delete unless article is rewritten. Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Which evidence? There is only one website notable and even that is right winged conservative website. Others are all trivial coverages. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The first, second and fourth sites of the second part of the external links list all mention FFI. Not of them are affiliated with Anti-Islam at first glance. Correct me if I'm wrong. Gizza^{Chat <;;font color="teal">©} 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Worldnetnews is notable for being conservative online news blog. Frontpagemag and jihadwatch are owned by Robert Spencer, these all websites are closely interlocked and you can see links as well. And lastly, the coverage in Asia times is a trivial coverage. Hence, we are only left with worldnetnews blog. TruthSpreader^Talk 08:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, i agree. The worldnetnews blog is indeed non-trivial third party coverage, but that is all we have, more non-trivial third party coverage than one is required by WP:WEB#1.--Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Gizza, What do you want rewritten? What's the problem? — coelacan talk — 08:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well no reply even though I left the same question on your talk page and you made other contributions after that. Let me discuss "rewriting." I'm going to assume that your issue is that the article should be rewritten to be more NPOV since that's what so many other "delete" votes have been, although my argument applies equally to all requests for rewrite-or-delete. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed explains that in NPOV cases, deletion is not the answer, but tagging is. The point is that an NPOV problem, unlike a notability problem, can always be solved by better editing and so there's no need to delete. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD/Wikietiquette says "The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either." And at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion it says "For problems that do not require deletion, including ... POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Over and over again we see that if a problem can be fixed by rewriting then there is no argument for deletion. "Rewrite-or-delete" is simply not a valid argument, because it sets up a false dichotomy. The reality is don't-delete-because-rewrite-is-possible. You've said that you want a rewrite, so you feel that rewrite is possible, therefore you don't have any grounds to call for deletion. — coelacan talk — 11:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - Same reason for deleting Ali Sina article. Faith freedom International is as anonymous as Ali sina. An organization with title International, with no known office world wide ? Now that Ali Sina is redirected to this article, all the advertisement going on in Ali sina will just be moved to this article. There is no much difference that an article is about a fictional person or about a fictional organization. --Soft coder^Talk 08:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No offence, but the issue is not wether the founder is anonymous or not, he could very be anonymous and notable per WP:WEP. Unfourtunaly, i see no evidence of this, except for non-trivial coverage from a semi-far right blog.--Striver 10:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your contorted last sentence is a metaphor for your arguments. Arrow740 02:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep though it starts with a lie. It says on top of the main page that This site is blocked in Islamic countries. I just have one concern. The article if kept should not be filled with the website agenda in order to promote it here. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 11:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but would change to Keep if Article had enough of a re-write to prevent it looking like propaganda for this site; it has already improved somewhat since it went up (at which point I had tagged as speedy delete, but very quickly changed my mind and reverted as it had already been tagged as such twice before and I didn't want to get into a fight about it). Davidprior 12:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - non-notable organisation. This was obviously created in response to removal of Ali Sina, and thus the same rational that led to the deletion of that particular article applies here. Wikipidian 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep- Website is notable enough. It is indeed blocked in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia [7]. That, coupled with their high gpr, is something interesting... Hkelkar 19:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why FFI people couldn't be specific stating explicitly that it is being blocked in KSA instead of all Muslim countries? It not a positive thing for a site claiming to present the "truth". -- Szvest ^{Wiki me up ®} 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

So are pornography and gambling websites, what's your point? Wikipidian 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Camel toe has a completely different meaning in Saudi Arabia but I wouldn't bet on it ? (sorry couldn't resist that one) Ttiotsw 03:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The external links in the article are admittedly a small claim to notability, but the sites in the links in my experience often quote Faithfreedom. Concerning the organization specifically, assuming their edit counter isn't messed with, they've had more than four million hits in like a year, that's pretty notable to me. Homestarmy 01:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Appears to be a marketing technique. Link to Wikipedia and increase Search engine,emarketing rankings and a Spam.MerryJ-Ho 10:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They don't need to. Their GPR is already pretty high, and relevant google searches point to their site first, or second, or third... Hkelkar 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The freaky blog site, managed by characters we do not know things Ali sina. Otherwise create all blog site articles. They are not notable. --- ALM 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Szvest and WP:WEB criteria, Tewfik^Talk 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

How come it comforms to WP:WEB, when there is only one non-trivial coverage? TruthSpreader^Talk 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Ali Sina and his organization, while holding extreme views, are notable. - Merzbow 02:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why did the Ali Sina article ended up deleted after an afd, since notability could not be established? --Striver 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

No you are mistaken - there was a consensus and the result should have been keep BUT the admin felt the page had too few cites (which I agree with him as a result). This was a technical reason regarding the mechanics of the actual article not actual notability reason. Ali Sina is still notable enough person to be quoted as they have contributed to a book by a notable person in this field of Islamic apologetics though as yet no article would stick (which has different criteria for inclusion). Ttiotsw 09:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. advertisement. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 10:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Ttiotsw pointing out that organizations and individuals have different notability requirements. FFI meets notability while Sina might not. I would also add to the other links that have been compiled here: Humanists.net (who are a pretty big site) republish FFI's material, see [8] and [9], Internet Infidels finds them notable enough [10], as does Positive Atheism [11]. — coelacan talk — 14:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Coverage by Internet Infidels is trivial as per WP:WEB. I would doubt that if other websites are very notable themselves. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think Internet Infidels is trivial. It's pretty widely discussed. But anyway, Humanists.net is run by the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is notable enough. And they are republishing FFI's material, so this satisfies criteria 3 of WP:WEB. — coelacan talk — 16:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:WEB, trivial coverage is: newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores. And Internet Infidels coverage comes under publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories and also brief summary of the nature of the content. TruthSpreader^Talk 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, i really enjoy this: They have "rational thinking" as their headline, and then quote qur'an 4:78 together with a pic of 911. Wow, i wish i had that kind rational powers! Anyway all thre links provided above are presumably writen by the author of the site, considering that they all are under a special "alisina" sub-directory. I still see only one right blog giving this site notable coverage per WP:WEB, so i am not convinced that this articles fullfills any inclusion criteria. Its also nice that he reiterates the old "Palestinians celebrate" lie. Go Sinai! --Striver 16:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure that the FFI stuff on Humanists.net is written by Ali Sina. However, that is immaterial to the notability. What matters is that the Institute for Humanist Studies are republishing his FFI work, and that fulfills criterion 3, which says "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators". It doesn't ask for the content to be rewritten in someone else's words. I am also disappointed with the "Palestinians celebrate" stuff, and I think that Sina is unfortunately repeating some nasty far-right talking points there. But whether or not I respect him has nothing to do with the organization's notability, which is clearly established by IHS's republishing, even without regard to others' arguments for notability above. — coelacan talk — 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As per Institute for Humanist Studies, IHS offers free Web hosting to Humanist and related websites through Humanists.net. It is a hosting service and doesn't fulfil the third clause in WP:WEB. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. But they say "At Humanists.net we provide free Web hosting and e-mail to organizations and individuals whose Web presence has the potential to contribute to the health of the global secular or humanist movements. We offer this service because we are committed to the cooperative use of innovation and technology in promoting the humanist perspective."[12] So they approve of the FFI's work. The line is pretty fuzzy here between what would constitute republishing ("We will reprint anything you hand to us") and hosting ("Here, go ahead and use our tools to reprint your work"). In principle the two are no different if the organization providing the tools is in explicit approval of the subsite's contents. And even if it didn't count for criterion 3, then the IHS's inclusion of FFI on their site would reduce to an instance of criterion 1, and would be another cite in addition to the WorldNetDaily cite. — coelacan talk — 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read their FAQ section:[13], you'll come to know that they will give space to anyone who will conform to their agenda. Hence, even I and you can get space there if we show that our website's agenda is similar to theirs. It definitely deosn't fulfill anyone of the criteria in WP:WEB. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

They say on the FAQ that "Additionally, you will be asked to agree to a list of terms and conditions provided to you before your account is created." So they exercise discretion. And regardless of how inclusionist they may be, the statement I quoted above, "...whose Web presence has the potential to contribute to the health of the global secular or humanist movements..." shows that they aren't just hosting, but they are explicitly approving of what they host. That's in principle the same as republishing, so it satisfies criterion 3. And I maintain that if it did not, it's still approval and citation thus criterion 1. — coelacan talk — 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But the criteria is lenient. When they say you'll have to agree with terms and conditions, that means agreeing with terms and conditions just like when you agree with terms and conditions while installing Microsoft office or making an account on Gmail. I am pretty sure that I and you can also host our content if helping humanity is part of our website's agenda and this will not make our site notable. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But will GMail say that you "contribute to the health of the global XYZ movement?" There is the issue of explicit, stated approval of FFI's work here, and that distinguishes it from mere hosting with TOS. In any case, the requirements are not that lenient. One's organization would have to work to support humanism, and that means that neither you nor I could get on board. — coelacan talk — 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Gmail asks you not to abuse their service and not to use for illegal purposes. Similar conditions are those. There is nothing in the statement that would stop me or you from hosting data on thier server if we have a website with the aim of helping humanity. This is not criteria of notability. Institute for Humanist Studies is notable, not their free webhosting service. It would be very much different if they would host that data on their regular website with their content. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm afraid you have misunderstood what humanism is. It is not simply a dedication to "helping humanity." Nearly everyone on earth believes in "helping humanity." A rather smaller fraction of people are "humanists." And a review of the other hosted sites there and IHS's own definition of humanism[14] suggests that they are in fact limiting the scope of "humanism" to "secular humanism" only. You could not host your site there without being dishonest about your core beliefs, and neither could I. — coelacan talk — 18:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we will have to leave this to the closing admin to conclude. :) TruthSpreader^Talk 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Striver, your user page says that you are a Wikipedia Inclusionist. Why are you working against that philosophy in the case of this particular article? — coelacan talk — 16:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

lol, yeah, i forgot about that. I wrote that half a year ago, before i realized that i was in among an enormous minority of people having that view. They deleted prison planet. They deleted Terrorstorm. Man, i they can delete terrorstorm, then f it...--Striver 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Please, don't lash out in revenge against this article. — coelacan talk — 20:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a two sentence summary in the "Off Site" section of a semi-obscure internet site constitutes "coverage". Ill let the closing admin decide that. --Striver 16:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It has been argued that WorldnetDaily, FrontpageMag, and JihadWatch are all the same group. I haven't seen evidence that WorldnetDaily and FrontpageMag are the same. Someone said they are "linked" which I presume was meant to say that they sometimes publish work by the other, but that is no argument against counting them separately. After all, the Associated Press is "linked" but different newspapers still count separately. And even if they were all under the same company, that would be nothing unusual in these days of media conglomeration. The Washington Post Company owns both The Washington Post and Newsweek but these are still separate sources. — coelacan talk — 17:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

WorldnetDaily is notable and is the only notable site for the website under discussion although it still belongs to right wing conversatives. If you go to frontpagemag, you'll find Jihadwatch link at the top of every page. Both of these are sister websites in this regard and also in their agenda and content. How much Jihadwatch+frontpagemag are connected with worldnetdail, I am not sure! TruthSpreader^Talk 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

FrontPageMag.com is published by David Horowitz, who is known by almost everyone on the left and right in America who lived through the sixties. It's hard to see how this group could be any more notable. He and his magazine are huge. — coelacan talk — 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is renowned, but the coverage is trivial. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like news coverage of a symposium and there's nothing trivial about that. I assume you mean that FFI's connection to the symposium is trivial? Well, it's a symposium with a Muslim activist who is a board member of a mosque, and Ali Sina who is introduced solely in the context of being "the founder of Faith Freedom International". So FFI is the reason he's there, and that's hardly trivial. If John Gilmore were introduced at a symposium as being a founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, this would not be a trivial link to the EFF, if the EFF was the reason why Gilmore was invited. — coelacan talk — 18:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This event adds notability to Ali Sina, not FF. As per WP:WEB it is still trivial, as there is no non-trivial documentation or coverage or republication of FF even after this syposium by frontpagemag. TruthSpreader^Talk 18:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're backpedaling on your own words now. You already admitted above that the WorldNetDaily coverage was notable. So there is "non-trivial documentation or coverage or republication of FF even after this syposium by frontpagemag." Anyway, if Ali Sina is introduced at the beginning of the symposium as being the founder of FFI (and thus worth inviting) then it obviously does add notability to FFI, the same as Gilmore's invitation on the merit of being an EFF founder would be notable for EFF. It's special pleading to say otherwise. — coelacan talk — 18:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant that after this event, frontpagemag didn't publish any of the content from FF or gave a non-trivial treatment to FF exclusively on their website. I am not denying to worldnetdaily coverage at all. And I think, we'll have to leave it to closing admin to decide. :) TruthSpreader^Talk 19:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. WP:WEB says criterion 1 is: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This would apply to apologetics sites faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, would it not? The sources (such as the Qur'an) that they use to argue against FFI are independent of FFI itself, and the sites themselves are far too extensive to be called trivial. That would make two more instances of criterion 1. And there's also this coverage by the Independent Centre for Strategic Studies and Analysis (the site is down at the moment so I grabbed the Web Archive). ICSSA is independent and their coverage is also non-trivial, and their site wasn't set up just to counter FFI (although neither was faith-freedom.org which is a redirect to part of a larger site). So these citations, especially ICSSA, seem to be solidly in the camp of WP:WEB criterion 1, making at least five separate non-trivial instances by my count (WorldNetDaily, FrontPageMag, ICSSA, f-f.org, ff.com); did I miss any others? And I'm still convinced that the IHS's hosting with explicit endorsement of content is in principle no different from republishing. — coelacan talk — 22:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fuzzy Sapiens! (by that I mean that you've shown this site to be notable, just as the fictional Holloway proved his Fuzzies to be sapient.) — Rickyrab | Talk 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, the refered sites which are criticizing FF are not notable. The second link you gave, is about Ali Sina, and not about FF, as I stated in a previous comment! TruthSpreader^Talk 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the third link I gave? Obviously the first and second reference FF since they named themselves after it. So I will assume you meant the ICSSA link. First of all, let me discuss the two FF-named sites, faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, as I think you misunderstand the WP:WEB requirements. Read criterion 1 again: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Nowhere does it say that the third-party sources have to be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. It just says they have to be non-trivial. This, itself, is a non-trivial distinction. For example, in an article on a scientific phenomenon, we might use the existence of articles in certain published peer-reviewed journals to establish notability. There are literally thousands of such journals that would be acceptable for this purpose, and they are not all notable enough to bother having Wikipedia articles made for them, but they would still be non-trivial and acceptable to use to justify notability for a scientific phenomenon. This is the difference between notability and non-triviality. They are not the same and one bar is lower. I submit that the FF-named sites are extensive and referenced enough to be considered non-trivial here. — coelacan talk — 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When you rewrote the first clause, you forgot to mention that what does it includes. And if you look at the examples given at WP:WEB, all the referred websites and organizations are notable in that case, while faithfreedom.com et. al. are not notable at all. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"When you rewrote the first clause, you forgot to mention that what does it includes." I'm sorry, I cannot make sense of that sentence. Can you rephrase it? Anyway, the set of examples at WP:WEB is obviously for the kiddies. It's a very simple "how to" but not at all binding; in the real world we have fuzzy situations and we have to argue the distinctions on their merits. Saying that my links are not like the examples given is not, alone, an argument. My point regarding use of non-notable yet non-trivial citations for other articles, like scientific phenomena, still stands. We can use them in such instances so I see no reason not to here, espcially when the guideline specifically says non-trivial, not non-notable. Faithfreedom.com, for instance, might not be notable enough for its own article, I'll grant you that. But that doesn't automatically mean that it's not a valid citation for something that is more notable, like FFI. — coelacan talk — 04:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, regarding the ICSSA link, you say it's all about Ali Sina and not about FF. The link I gave is an article on the ICSSA site that references a debate between Ali Sina and Yamin Zakaria. Perhaps you have forgotten what the early Faith Freedom site was primarily about. It was anti-Islam with an gimmick offer to remove the site (later with $50,000 tacked on to the offer) for anyone who could defeat Sina in a debate about Islam. The first two lines of the front page were: "The movement of ex-Muslim secularists and humanists to lead Muslims out of faith of hate and into the fold of humanity WE WILL REMOVE THIS SITE IF PROVEN WRONG."[15] Faith Freedom hinged its very existence on the debate offer, became synonymous with the debate offer. Zakaria took up the debate, hoping to take the money and use it for some Muslim charity and to shut down Faith Freedom's website, and then the debate was catalogued on both sites, Faith Freedom[16] and ICSSA[17]. The ICSSA copy of the debate even discusses and links to Faith Freedom.[18] So if the ICSSA site is discussing and linking to Faith Freedom in the context of the debate, and the debate took place with Zakaria's intent of shutting down Faith Freedom, then it's pretty hard to say that the ICSSA site is all about Sina but not about Faith Freedom. — coelacan talk — 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is funny that Ali Sina’s article was deleted under the pretext that he was not notable. Now we are told that he is notable, it is FFI that is not notable. :) OceanSplash 08:00 9 Dec. 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable site with active discussion group on religion in general, along with Islam in particular, although it was set up with the intent of an anti-Islamic bias. It is notable in the same way that Stormfront.org is notable, as a large Internet society of people focused on a general topic. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mate! Stormfront.org has many non-trivial coverages and hence is different from the site under discussion. TruthSpreader^Talk 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• • So? Even plenty of trivial sources that add up to a nontrivial set of information can be useful. Moreover, the site itself is arguably a good provider of information about itself. Nonetheless, the motives of the person behind it are poorly understood - I take it for granted that he thinks Islam sucks, but don't know much other than what he says. This is where third-party sources might be useful, as well as in calculating its effect. And even numerous trivial sources exploring different facets of the site can add up to a nontrivial source. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The desire to get this article deleted is part of the wider effort to silence all critics of Islam on wikipedia. I call everyone's attention to the related discussions here and here. For example, there is a bizarre attempt to brand Robert Spencer as a partisan/extremist website, and to limit use of his books to the article about him. Arrow740 08:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hey Guys i think this article should be deleted. it just shows a website and its motto. I think its not needed in wikipedia. if it is needed only because it was on alexa rankings in top 30000 website once in last yr. then please tell me, can i make articles on islamonline.net (which is in top 1000 ranking), islam-qa.com (top 10000), islamicity.com (top 10000) and many more. I will start building articles on this websites, organisations soon. Mak82hyd 18:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion:Go right on ahead, make those articles. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you don't need to make ALL of them! At least one of them has an article already! — Rickyrab | Talk 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I just created stubs on islam-qa.com and islamicity.com. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, for making the stubs on that mate. I really appreciate it. it just shows there are people on wikipedia who have neutral point of view and non bias. Mak82hyd 20:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Mak82hyd, another editor already addressed your concern at Talk:Faith Freedom International#This article should be deleted(See this discussion please and give ur reponse). The article was only linking to the old archive entry page. The article has now been updated, and as you can see the FFI site is much more than a motto. So now that your concern has been addressed and the articles you wanted to balance POV have been made, are you ready to change your vote to "keep" on this article? — coelacan talk — 20:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for ur comments. I dont think the article has been made NPOV. I still suggest the article should be deleted as the site just shows HATE towards a faith and suggest killing of all muslims. I can never support a site like this and any site which is full of hatred towards innocents. even if a muslim site comes up and suggest all americans be killed wherever they are as they have invaded countries and killed innocent people, 'I will never support it'. killing anybody in the name of religion and in the name of terrorism cannot be justified, unless for self defense in combat situation like war in Iraq and Afghanistan(when Some country just come and attack your country for OIL or Personal agenda, claiming excuses like terrorism, WMD etc. Mak82hyd 22:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point here. It is about verifying sources. Please provide the link to where the site under discussion advocates, "suggest killing of all muslims" Ttiotsw 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.iiop.org/Debate.php check the website as reference for my statement

No - where on the FFI web site. Please provide the original statement from FFI (i.e. the site under discussion). We are not discussing the http://www.iiop.org/ site but the FFI site. How can I trust what some other web site says when you are saying that FFI is making this statement. Ttiotsw 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mak82hyd, if you are admitting that your concerns about notability and sourcing have been resolved, and the only reason you have left for voting "Delete" is because you don't like the content of the site, then your vote won't actually be counted. We have plenty of hate sites already, like Stormfront.org. I don't believe that FFI is a "hate site", but in any case it doesn't matter, if it were that still wouldn't count against the FFI article one bit. You don't get to simply have a "vote up or down" here; you have to actually give reasons why the site is or is not notable. If you can't give such a reason (that hasn't already been addressed above) then your vote won't mean anything, sorry. — coelacan talk — 23:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have never said my concerns have been resolved. I dont think they are resolved. I have just added some more concerns. The question is still notability and sources. the sources provided are still from the same site and not third party sources. please provide some notable sources like newspapers or telivision or any other sources. I know u guys dont have any except one which is a American conservative site. This article has no basis to be in wikipedia. Mak82hyd 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you overlooked the ICSSA source. ICSSA is a Canadian Muslim think tank, and they also covered Faith Freedom. I won't repeat everything, just look at the earlier discussion of it. So that's another third party source (very third party indeed) and with that alone we now have multiple third party sources (I gave others you overlooked too, but you really only need to acknowledge this one). Multiple third party sources satistfies WP:WEB, to put it simply. — coelacan talk — 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

U have talk about one concern which is FFI insistence of killing muslims but what about notability and reliable sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mak82hyd (talk • contribs). 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't distort the issue. It is you who are quoting http://www.iiop.org/ and yet haven't shown where on FFI they say this. Is IIOP now a reliable source ? Ttiotsw 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I just showed you the ICSSA source. Read what I just said. — coelacan talk — 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Look Guys we are deviating from the discussion I said something and i gave reference and i dont want to go in deeper regarding my concern of ffi authors wants all muslims to be killed. u can check that in the reference. The discussion here is NON NOTABILITY and Reliable sources. I have not created any article with non notable sources and i will not agree this article stay there without third party sources and notability concerns addressed. Mak82hyd 01:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have replied and replied concerning notability. For the third (fourth?) time, read this: I guess you overlooked the ICSSA source. ICSSA is a Canadian Muslim think tank, and they also covered Faith Freedom. I won't repeat everything, just look at the earlier discussion of it. So that's another third party source (very third party indeed) and with that alone we now have multiple third party sources (I gave others you overlooked too, but you really only need to acknowledge this one). Multiple third party sources satistfies WP:WEB, to put it simply. There, notability per WP:WEB established. Unless you can expain to me how a Muslim thnk tank discussing Faith Freedom International is somehow not sufficient for WP:WEB, then your objection is resolved. — coelacan talk — 01:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mak82hyd: FFI is not advocating violence. It is a site made by ex-Muslims created to oppose the ideology of Islam. I am afraid you are not being truthful when you say “The author wants all Muslims to be killed”. Plese provide a link. It is clear that you do not like anyone criticizing Islam. What you are doing is character assassination with libel. Assuming what you say is true, which is not, still FFI remains notable and has to have an article in Wikipedia. What we are witnessing here is censorship. Muslims do not tolerate criticism of their religion. They will try to silence anyone who dares to speak against their faith. Why all the Muslims, including their top politicians, were outraged over Pope’s statement on Islam? Some of them even called for his death. Muslims should learn to tolerate criticism. This long discussion jsut shows how intolerant they are of those criticizing their faith. OceanSplash 3:34 10 Dec. 2006 (UTC)

islamonline.net, islamicity.com, islam-qa.com has been speedily deleted even without discussion by bias admins so why should this article is getting debate and AFD. its hould be deleted as well. I have given 15 references from american television channels and newspapers still my article islam-qa has been deleted. what can i expect with these bias and islam haters of wikipedia. Mak82hyd 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The website Answering-Christianity.com is another third party site with extensive coverage of FaithFreedom.org Google has this cached page for Wikipedians to examine and consider: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:HgC1mhQaGyoJ:www.answering-christianity.com/faithfreedom_rebuttals.htm+icssa+faithfreedom&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=6 74.102.58.135 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong KeepThe arguemnts for deletion abot this group do not sound NPOV to me, though they all claim to be. DGG 08:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentHere are a few notable sites that either talk about FFI and Ali Sina or have published Mr. Sina’s articles.

http://jimball.com.au/Postmodernism.htm http://sydneykendall.thinkertothinker.com/?page_id=16 http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2006/July/Fallaci/index.html Here is a radio interview with Ali Sina http://www.wideawakesradio.com/category/wideawakesradio/kit-and-heidi/ Jim Ball, Sydney's number one radio broadcaster says, "Ali Sina is the Iranian ex-Muslim behind the website faithfreedom.org . Along with other former Muslims such as Ibn Warraq, Sina is spearheading what may be the first organized movement of ex-Muslims in Islamic history, ….It is no exaggeration to say that if the likes of Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan prevail in the face of the traditional death penalty for leaving Islam, then Islam will never again be the same." Obviously both Ali Sina and FFI are notable enough. We might actually be wittnessing the start of a real revolution in Islamic world. This is worth reporting. Obviously Muslims are not very pleased with this situation and will do anything to censor it. OceanSplash 9:58 11 Dec. 2006 (UTC)

The internet makes it possible. Arrow740 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, some good stuff here. Jim Ball is a talk show host on Sydney's 2GB radio station which has been in business for 80 years. His coverage (and he explicitely mentions Faith Freedom) is very notable. Iranian.com is also pretty heavy, and they are publishing Sina on there representing Faith Freedom at the link you gave. With these two, plus ICSSA's apologetics, IHS's endorsment, WorldNetDaily's article, and FrontPageMag's symposium, we're safely into notability. I'm still going to be picky and ask you to keep in mind, OceanSplash, that anti-Scientologist and anti-Creationist articles get the same AfD maneuvers pulled on them, so don't overlook the wider scope of the problem. But you were dead on earlier when you said "It is funny that Ali Sina’s article was deleted under the pretext that he was not notable. Now we are told that he is notable, it is FFI that is not notable." — coelacan talk — 10:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• no vote It is strange that there is a lesser notability threshold for websites than for people. Those sources that are provided do not even begin to meet WP:BIO. Not even close... but they are multiple. I have not seen conclusive evidence for more than one of them being non-trivial... so i advice closing admin to take a really close look at the evidence provided and ask himself: "Do we want to include all the websites that can bring fourth an equal un-impresive and borderline list of third party coverage"? "Ali Sinai is the owner/host/random of FFI" is hardly non-trivial. Or is it? Does mutliple occurences of that equal it to one non-trivial coverage? Should a traffic rating of 24,746 considered a merit? i don't know. In any case, i don't feel comfortable voting delete to this. But i would like to point out that PrisonPlanet, a site that is infinetly more refered to by third party source and has a rating of 5,972 was deleted as nn. To the closing admin: I will take the result of this afd as setting a precedence. Do we want a bunch of sites with this merit? Remeber that notability is a key issue of WP. --Striver 12:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You think even the ICSSA thing is trivial? When the very purpose of the debate was to shut down Faith Freedom? Is the FrontPageMag symposium trivial if Sina was invited solely because of his FFI work? Several of the other Sina/FFI pieces are also of the Sina-is-here-because-of-FFI sort. Two Muslim websites, faith-freedom.org and faithfreedom.com, have been registered just to fight against FFI; is that trivial? I keep seeing people say "trivial, trivial" but there's no explanation of why or how. Nobody's explained to me how ICSSA's coverage is trivial, for instance, and that's been sitting here for a couple of days during which anyone could have responded point by point. And by the way, I just checked WP:BIO and the first criterion is "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person." Which is plainly what we have here, though I've argued that since all the Sina coverage has been because of FFI then it should count as such, yet it was argued elsewhere that such coverage was not notable for Sina and now here somehow it's not notable for FFI either? It's starting to feel like we're just getting the run-around. — coelacan talk — 19:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, just as with many other websites--it's going to be hard to find 'neutral'/reliable outside commentary about this site. In a sense it's notable... but in a sense it will always create problems like FFIIslamonline and other such sites have. that's my comment from Islamonline vfdgren グレン 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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.