Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Middle East

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 Keep Eluchil404 08:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zahra Amir Ebrahimi (AfD subpage)

Zahra Amir Ebrahimi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO, and sole event that wikipedia lists in her life already has an article of its own at Iranian sex tape scandal. Thethinredline 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - She's one of the best known actresses in Iran. [1] . And this scandal has made her extremely notable outside of Iran now. [2][3][4] --Oakshade 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep since she is a popular actress she clearly merits an article, but if the article now only lists the scandal perhaps it should be stubbed rather than deleted. Also the article Iranian sex tape scandal would be left dangling strangly unattached on its own without an article on the main character. Rune X2 01:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep well known, and subject of international news KnightLago 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep notable actress in Iran, now well known internationally. Gail Wynand 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sources are cited, and a well known Iranian actress, makes her very popular after the scandal. Terence Ong 11:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Rune. Poor girl. Stammer 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and support a possible stubbing, as per Rune. Ford MF 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and maybe add more than the sex tape scandal.Klymen 10:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Not complete by any means. Stub. JavaWarlord 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but I think the Iranian sex tape scandal should be merged into the article.--MaGioZal 00:26, 8 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I'm going out on a limb here, and I fully expect this to be challenged at WP:DRV (see y'all there). This has already been through one AfD, which closed sans consensus. The issue then was reliable sources. The issue is still reliable sources, and the project simply cannot ignore this fundamental requirement. If actual reliable sources can be found outside his own website which document his existence then by all means re-create. Mackensen (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ali Sina

Ali Sina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Zakir Naik.

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As a point of order, the article should not have had the prod template used by User:72.75.93.131 as that specifically is used for article that have not previously been up as AfD. Are the comments within the "prod" proposal relevant as linked to above or do they give an undue weight to what User:72.75.93.131 says ? Ttiotsw 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not really notable. We can evaluate the lines that are used to establish some sort of notability in his article:

1. An Asia Times (online-only newspaper) editorial mentions him/his website in two lines. Does that really make him notable?
2. He has been mentioned on Frontpage Magazine's website, a highly conservative source. The magazine itself isn't particularly notable nor is there enough material in the article to write about him. The symposium in which he participates includes several other non-notable people.
3. He has been mentioned on WorldNetDaily. This is, again, a highly conservative blog, and the article that mentions him is unattributed to any author; it is unlikely to be a reliable source considering that.
4. He is the author of a non-published book. That doesn't make him notable either.
5. He is the owner of a website that itself is non-notable. That doesn't make him notable.

All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates. There simply isn't enough reliable third-party material about the subject to write a good article about him, which is further an indication of the lack of notability of this person. Azrak 18:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly how is his website not notable? --Matt57 13:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it particularly notable? BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Errr, how exactly being "highly conservative" makes the sources mentioning him unreliable? What does the political leaning of a source has to do with credibility? Had he been mentioned in a "highly liberal" source would you then consider him being notable? 80.179.36.5 11:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the bias of the source is. It matters if the articles are attributed to a writer or not. The articles are unattributed. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

A website that has been banned by Pakistan's IPS's is surely notable.--Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, we would then be able to say that each and every blog on blogspot is notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Blogs werent targetted individually. FaithFreedom.org has been targetted specifically by Pakistan's ISP's and has been banned there. Now you're saying any random blog XYZ is as notable as FaithFreedom because they're also banned? That doesnt make sense, sorry. --Matt57 15:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's the logic you applied. Not I. You would be hard-pressed to prove that every website mentioned here is notable just because it's banned by Pakistani ISP's. BhaiSaab ^talk 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Being banned by a country's IPS can be ONE of the reasons why a website may be notable. Another reason is that the website ranks in the top 30,000 according to Alexa. Another reason why his website is notable is that it seems all Wikipedias who edit on the subject of Islam know about this website. If all of them know and almost all do, his website is notable enough. Everything else combined makes him and his website notable. As I said, people who want this page to be deleted belong to the group that disagrees with his opinions. And again if he has caused so much discussion on Wikipedia, he's DEFINITELY notable. In summary Ali Sina is much more popular than the average college professor and hence is notable.--Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is not really notable

1. Nobody is sure that this person really exist. As his existence cannot be proved how can be he is notable. --Mak82hyd 18:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Darth Vader is pretty notable and I'm sure he doesn't exist (right?!). I'd also like to see you either prove the existence of [[[God]] or claim he isn't notable. Rune X2 10:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Just because an article has turned into a soapbox (which is temporary anyway), does not mean the article should be nominated for deletion. Revert Wars also do not imply that an article should be deleted. In case of a bio, the only rationale for deletion can be non-notablility. Here are some reasons why he is notable in my opinion:

Ali Sina passes the Alternate "Professor test" at WP:BIO, which says: "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor, they can and should be included.". The following two points support this:

1. He passes the "Search engine" test: His name comes up 80,000 times, not counting the results on his own websites and this one. Search engine popularity is one method of the Alternate tests of Notability (see WP:BIO).
2. His website is within the top 30,000 websites according to alexa.

So he is definitely more well-known than the average college professor and so according to WP:BIO he is definitely notable and so should not be deleted.--Matt57 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Bogus argument --- that "test" only applies to Wikipedia:Notability (academics) ... is Ali Sina a college professor? Where does Ali Sina teach, so we can compare him with other academics? ... I mean, I've published more than the average college professor, but that doesn't automatically make me notable! —72.75.93.131 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, its not only for college professors. Read it carefully! It says "If the individual is more well known and more published than an average college professor". If the test was for college professors only, they wouldnt say that. The term "average college professor" is used as a meter to gauge popularity. --Matt57 01:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• See the talk page (under Alternative tests) for the rebuttal. —72.75.93.131 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

mate, read the definition properly it says an individual, which means a person and how do u know he exists do have any proof? have u seen him. he is an entity created for some hate purpose. think open minded rather than being islamophobic. 88.108.181.18 22:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He is an entity created for hate purposes? Are'nt you being anti-Islam-ophobic yourself? --Matt57 22:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well the proposed policy only applies to academics. Ali Sina is not an academic as far as we know. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the policy does not only apply to Academics. The Professor Test is a sort of "Meter" to gauge the popularity of any person. That can even apply to a homeless man if he's become that popular. This point was also raised by 72.75.93.131. See the Talk page of this article. --Matt57 04:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Azrak. This person is solely an internet personality. He is not known anywhere else. A large amount of Google hits, therefore, isn't necessarily indicative of notability. BhaiSaab ^talk 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

He's not only known on the internet. His testimony of leaving Islam is present in Ibn Warraq's book Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out. Plus lets remember the fact that he was threatened with lawsuits and death threats. Also, he's debated with famous figures of Islam like Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri. The fact that he has a pseudonym does not mean he's not notable. All these things together reflect that he is a notable ex-muslim. --Matt57 22:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake. I forgot about his mention in that book. Though debating with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri doesn't necessarily make him notable. Montazeri has spoken to thousands of people in his life, but that doesn't make them all notable. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 22:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This person is non notable and his existence is not proved. he might not exist. so how can we have a article on a person who has not been seen by anybody. 88.108.181.18 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: I suspect this IP user is user:Mak82hyd who has already voted above. New IP's should be discarded for these votes. --Matt57 16:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Zakir Naik There does seem to be an effort to censor content from some factions of this afd (especially looking at the previous afd). It is true however that the article itself stinks of being a soap box. I would mark it with clean up tags. She does appear to be a contraversial figure with much written about her in many places. Certainly seems to be one of the more notable critics of Islam although from a more firey than academic bent. Most of the english language coverage does seem to be internet based and often end up back at her web site. The extraordinary level of contraversy however lends quite a bit to the notability claim. Among the 100,000 plus ghits "roughly" a third were about her and many of them were critical to hateful. She seems to have pissed off a large portion of the world. I'd say that makes her notable.--Nick Y. 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The subject is male, not female. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt matter if its male or female. Infact non-biased votes are the best becuase they can see the situation objectively. Plus they made good points. --Matt57 03:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• keep The article needs wikifying, but the subject is notable, as the amount of adverse criticism indicates. and as the amount of debate above illustrates. If we can argue so much about him, he's notable. To me, a very obvious instance of what we want in WP. DGG 06:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - I voted a conditional keep at the first nomination. I wanted the article to follow wikipedia standards but there was no single enhancement whatsoever. There are more than 100 sources and all of them refer to his/their own site. Unbelieveable! his (if he's one real person indeed) notability is so highly questionable. I also have BIG doubts about the involvement of Ali Sina or Ali Sinas in the article. They are campaigning for edit warring and they come all together from a few Anti-Islam forums. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. I considered delete in one of the first VfDs (is this really only the second?) because I didn't think he was notable. However, I think anyone realizing the trends of Wikipedia over the last year or two should realize that notability standards are dropping. He may be less popular than most internet memes but we're even allowing pretty much any book published (even by relatively NN press) have an article. Is Ali Sina notable? Not particularly... but, look at Wikipedia standards... and compared to them I think the answer is he's notable enough. This and the Naik deletion seem like bickering to me... I don't mean the nominator. His intentions seem noble enough to me... I just think that we've gone too far down the road of inclusion to get rid of either Ali Sina or Naik. gren グレン 10:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep This article offers valuable info IP's first edit— 72.83.152.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Strong Delete This person does not exist.how can we have his biography. 84.9.233.19 14:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

^ POSSIBLE DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

since when was an AfD a "vote"? ITAQALLAH 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - just a terminology issue so it is not "VOTES" but "Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.". Matt57 is highlighting suspicions regarding multiple recommendations of what he feels is a IP sock puppet. Ttiotsw 01:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete He is no academic. He is someone like me and you. There is no reason why an *encyclopedia* should have a page for him. --Aminz 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Um yea, unfortunately, muslims like you and infidels like me dont have a website that ranks in the top 30,000, or have 80,000 hits on their name in google, are prospective authors of a book and have their testimony included in Ibn Warraq's book. I guess he is like us after all. --Matt57 18:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep . The sheer hatred and bigotry that he engenders in others makes him notable and also make it wise of him to be somewhat untracable: his Pseudonymity is not grounds for deletion. The google hits also help his notablility. I've done a few edits to this page, some stick and other get reverted. I don't like my edits reverted on any page as I feel I research each edit reasonably well but I'm happy to admit I am wrong when I'm wrong but with the reverts done to my edits on this page I don't feel I'm wrong. Even if it is proven later that he is simply a meme then I feel he represents an archetype of an apostate muslim - thats notable. Ttiotsw 23:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep Ali Sina is a highly notable founder of Faith Freedom International, which states on its web site that it is a grassroots movement of ex-Muslims whose 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[5]--CltFn 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep With a review of sources, this article has the potential to provide very valuable information. The very fact that so many pro-muslim vandals are around signifies the importance of this person.
• Comment: Nominator, you said: "All the other sources used in his article are from his very own website or affiliates." Remember that some people are smart and make sure news articles don't disappear when links go dead by keeping copies on their own pages. The location where articles are stored are not relevant. Who wrote them is. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This article is about a person whose real name we do not know, we do not know if he exists or not. He (supposed to) run hate websites and write there. People who hate Islam use him as reference on wikipedia Islamic articles. What degrees he had? We have no idea. We live in a world where every hater of Islam is appreciate on wikipedia and outside it. No one cares if he use Quran Ayats out-of-context or if he really exist. Shame!. --- ALM 17:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Per CltFn's comments. -- Karl Meier 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Is that even his real name??? Wikipidian 22:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep - He seems to be an important person, has also written a book. His website has been banned in Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. That makes him very notableOutsider2810 02:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per everyone above. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 11:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Interesting how almost everyone who wants him deleted belong to the group of people who disagree with his views. Looks like this is going to be a no-consensus again and so the article will stay. --Matt57 13:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per everyone above. Peace, please. Arrow740 13:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as per Szvest This person's notability at one end, but this article has become a ground for gross violation of WP:RS, which says: "Widely acknowledged extremist organizations or individuals should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used in articles about those organizations or individuals and their activities, and even then should be used with caution." And there seems very little hope to improve the article with abiding all these policies. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I think that the issue of "notability" doesn't apply since there are tons of articles on wiki about fictional Pokemon and Star Wars characters and planets. As for the soapbox issue: If there is edit-warring or inappropriate editing going on in the article, it can be dealt with according to wiki guidelines and policy. It has been long-established that POV issues in the article are not the basis for an article's deletion. I agree that there is some suspicious/bad faith nom stuff going on, all the argument's put forth center on his views etc, it wouldn't surprise me if the delete votes belong to people who share an opposition to his views like Matt57 said. Baristarim 13:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - This is an example of Wikipedia being used for getting more visitors. Its deletion will do more good to Wikipedia than lot of editors wasting time on reverting/correcting the advertizing campaigns for the site of a (fictional?) person. --Soft coder^Talk 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Fortunately it is not the case that all people who claim to be ex-Muslims are liars. Arrow740 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• CommentFortunately, all who claim to be ex-muslims are so ignorant of Islam , that calling them an ex-muslim sounds like "propagating a lie".Not to mention their levels of hate & phobia . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 11:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Svest and Azrak. ITAQALLAH 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: what matt said.--D-Boy 03:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Is one sure if this is a single person or multiple persons with assumed names publishing a website MerryJ-Ho 19:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: 'His' website is notable given the Alexa rankings. Questions about existence of such a person may be genuine but they are certainly no grounds for deletion of this entry. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 23:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• delete no education, an article with only linkes to himself... i might have missed it, but were is the third party source that gives notability`? TerrorStorm had 300 000 google hits and was deleted as NN film, since it was a internet only film, considering that 80 000 seems totaly non-notable. 30 000 Alexa rating = notable? Do we really want 30 000 webpages here? Prisonplanet was deleted as non-notable, and it had far higher Alexa ranking, round 10 000 if i am not wrong. --Striver 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. He is a self created, self sustained myth. With no face, no education, no credibility, no decency ....no nothing . The article copies his own views about himself . He also sends his worshipers to keep this article , his well known friends/clones include CltFn & Karl Meir . The only reason this article is kept is to increase his site's hitrate . Is wikipedia open for marketing ?? F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep FaithFreedom has a forum with hundreds of thousands of posts. The site itself is often linked to by other sites. The website is definitely notable. That makes an article on the owner worth having. Weather the name is real or a pseudonym, is really immaterial – except that if such doubts exists it should be noted in the article. Rune X2 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete : Firstly because he's anonymous, secondly anyone can send an email to the pentagon/whitehouse/state department/president of the US or any other country for that matter and claim to have 'debated' when they get a reply. He's not-notable. A simple search on google trends for "Ali Sina" will verify this [6], and since some people want to link this AfD with the Zakir Naik Article, just take a look at the people searching for Zakir Naik compared to Steve Ballmer [7]. Anyway, coming back to the article, I think it worthless enough to be deleted, and create a seperate faithfreedom article if that site is popular. Why not make articles about users that have 10000+ edits on wikipedia then (just for reference). thestick 11:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many forums in Indian Express online for example where they post their links - like Want to find the truth (?) on Islam ..Click www.faithfree***.com.In short..spamming.MerryJ-Ho

• Keep for all good reasons stated above, especially by Matt57 72.136.43.94 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) ~anonymous 09:10, 4 December 2006 Eastern Time

• Keep though perhaps Merge with the faithfreedom article. Notable personality (even if through a nom de plume) like Ibn Warraq and others. He uses a pseudonym to avoid death threats (unlike poor Irshad Manji). The fact that his name is unknown is not enough reason to delete the article.His only association is with faithfreedom so perhaps merge both articles. Hkelkar 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Expected,seeing your voting patterns MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• On balance, I'm going with Keep. I think it's important that the tone of the article be as close to NPOV as possible, and I hope interested parties will monitor this. If this means lots of rewriting, frequent edits and reverts I don't mind, so long as everyone involves assumes good faith and acts as constructively as they can. Debate is healthy, and this guy does appear notable enough. WMMartin 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - the article seems to assert notability.Bakaman 17:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Expected,seeing your voting patterns. MerryJ-Ho 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:TROLL. Also I voted keep at the other dude as well. Nobody needs your fundywatching either.Bakaman 17:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Alexa rankings are among the most controversial methods of website measurements.Working as a Webmaster of an Industry Magazine, I have tested and discarded Alexa as an accurate tool.MerryJ-Ho 17:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? How come? If thats so, why is Yahoo #1 and Wikipedia #12? --Matt57 21:12, 4 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.

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 Keep --Durin 16:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein (South Park)

Somebody can't be serious. A seperate article on Hussein as a "South Park character?"--FuriousFreddy 03:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Actually, he has appeared as a character in many episodes of the show as well as the feature film, and has developed a sort-of backstory and character independent from the real Saddam Hussein, so, yeah, it's valid. wikipediatrix 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can't believe I'm supporting this article, but it seems quite clear that Saddam Hussein is recurring character on the South Park series. -- tariqabjotu 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge with Recurring South Park characters. He is already listed there and this just seems to have several pictures. TJ Spyke 04:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same article? This article is actually rather long and involved. How can you say it "just seems to have several pictures"?? wikipediatrix 04:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot of that is fluff and not needed. I don't think he needs his own article though because his entry on Recurring South Park characters is more than adequate. TJ Spyke 05:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Fictional Saddam in South Park universe is a fairly developed recurring character. Rohirok 05:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know anything about South Park, frankly, but I believe this character has appeared several times on the series. So its a keep. Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 05:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is among the most popular and well-known characters of South Park and has been fleshed out on the show quite a bit compared to other recurring characters.Gdo01 07:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep well-known character in the South Park universe set apart from the real-life Hussein.--Jersey Devil 07:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons above. Gazpacho 08:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per wikipediatrix. Mikker ^(...) 10:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, well-known character, this entry was popular with people in my university. Also, this character seems to be independent of the real Saddam Hussein, so it's worth keeping. Fancruft and POV in the article can easily be removed. --TheM62Manchester 10:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep as a very notable ficitional character. Thε Halo ^Θ 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per TJ Spike. Powers ^T 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable minor character. Appears in movie as well as recurring appearances in shows. Pathlessdesert 16:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, put it on the Saddam Hussein page and see if they want to keep it--it doesn't merit this, though, even as parody. -Kmaguir1 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. The character is independent of the real Hussein and shouldn't be included with the Southpark wikipage because he's not essential to outlining the show. I think the character is notable enough to warrant it's own page for clarification because of his reoccurance in the program. -Shazbot85^Talk 06:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I never comment per XYZ ever in anything, but its all been said above. Per them - GIen 12:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This should be deleted; it's covered sufficiently on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_in_U.S._popular_culture . -Kmaguir1 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Glen's per them.--Anthony Krupp 19:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep please the character is notable and recurring too wiki is not paper Yuckfoo 22:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Saddam Hussein is notable, South Park is notable, Saddam Hussein on South park is but a subset of the two. Unlike most of the other characters on the series, who are fictional, this one is a real and notable person who gets lampooned by South Park from time to time. He is not a main character, but is the representation of a dictator, who could just as well be Kim Jong-il, Adolph Hitler or Fidel Castro if not for the desire to have a recognisable politico-cultural date-stamp. A separate article on him would not appear justified. Church of Scientology and Tom Cruise, have a section within the article. It can be merged into Recurring South Park characters per Spyke. Ohconfucius 02:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Not really a speedy keep per se, but definitely notable nonetheless. RFerreira 07:20, 29 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bradley M. Faircloth

• Delete Being KIA in Iraq is not grounds enough for notability. Not every Soldier or Marine killed deserves their own page here.--Looper5920 12:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - am moving deletion tag to the article page, where it belongs. Personally have no real opinion one way or another about the notability of the subject. Badbilltucker 16:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete requires a secondary reference to substantiate notability. Addhoc 13:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being killed in action is not sufficient grounds for inclusion. Millions of people were killed in action in WWI and WWII and we certainly can't give all of them an article. Wikipedia is not a memorial. -- Necrothesp 14:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - tragic but not notable. Nuttah68 21:27, 26 August 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.

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 Keep Deville (Talk) 14:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCG International Risk

Delete Fails WP:CORP. 1190 Ghits; only this one is actually a third party article about the company, and it is not exclusively about SCG. Other hits are either press releases, directory listings, or the company's own website. Mike Christie (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment; I've been through most of the citations from Jamie (thanks for the detailed list). Most do not qualify, but a couple do; I think the company is marginally notable and am changing to comment. I will look further at the WP:CORP policy and think about revising my vote again. I would vote Keep if some of the "opaque" sources are shown to be direct non-trivial coverage of SCG, as opposed to Jamie Smith. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Christie - thanks for doing a great job editing. But since you've looked at the contribution I've continued to add to it and feel that it actually does comply with WP:CORP which states that:

The criteria for companies and corporations requires that the company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.

As you can see there are considerably more than just the third party article you noted. I just hadn't the time to finish adding everything - the contribution is only a few hours old. These are comparable to other companies that have been used for their justification. Here's a list:

• [8] Licensed to Kill, Hired Guns in the War on Terror by Robert Young Pelton (Crown, September 2006)

This is a book about the SCG's area; can't tell from Amazon what level of coverage there is. Jamie, could you give some information about the contents? Does it treat SCG specifically as a subject, e.g. by devoting a chapter to SCG? Or does it mention them as a background name, by saying for example that someone mentioned in the book works for them? If this book directly treats SCG as a primary subject, it would be strong evidence for notability. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• National Public Radio broadcast of Marketplace. Subject: Recruiting soldiers for private security work worldwide describing SCG's recruiting and hiring practices in Iraq and Afghanistan by Steve Henn (April 13, 2004)

This qualifies -- it's an article about the business of security, and it starts with a few seconds of interview with Jamie Smith, who had a bullet in his arm. SCG are not the direct topic of the article, but they are a lead example given as one of the businesses in this area. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good Housekeeping "Rescuing Lilly" article about SCG's role in assisting with recovery of kidnapped children. Author Amy Engeler (Date: May 1, 2004)

As with the Amazon story the content isn't clear; can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Virginia-Pilot Newspaper. Beach man wounded in mideast. A Virginia Beach security contractor was shot and wounded near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border this week. Jamie Smith, the owner of SCG International Risk, was hit in the arm Monday night...(April 10, 2004 in FRONT section, page A13 by Joanne Kimberlin)

I don't see how this makes SCG itself notable; as with a couple of other links here, the implied notability is more Jamie's than SCG's. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• CNN Reporter Kevin Sites interview SCG CEO Jamie Smith. (Subject: Kidnapping of Robert Pelton, Meg Smaker and Mark Wedeven) (Date: 28Jan03)

This is hard to assess without knowing more about the interview. It sounds as though the topic was the kidnapping, and Jamie is being interviewed in his capacity as an expert. I don't think this contributes much to SCG's own notability. The intention of the notability clause in WP:CORP is that the writer took the business in question as their subject. That doesn't sound like it's the case here. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Chicago Tribune article Published April 2, 2004 describing the company's role in the Iraq War and in providing contractors in support

This qualifies; there are three paragraphs in this news story where Jamie Smith is interviewed specifically discussing security firms in Iraq and describing SCG's own deployment. It's not in-depth coverage, but it's there. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• The Left Coaster article entitled The New And Improved Hessian published April 2, 2005 describing the company's role in the Iraq War

Same quotes as the Trib piece above; given that the Tribune is the more important outlet, I don't think this adds anything. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• National Public Radio interview with company CEO regarding company's training of Air Marshals in wake of Miami shooting. Aired December 5, 2005

This is an interview with Jamie Smith, the CEO of SCG (and also apparently the creator of this Wikipedia article). He was interviewed in his capacity as an erstwhile instructor of air marshals; the interviewer ends by saying that he is now CEO of SCG International, but there is no other mention of the company. This really isn't coverage of SCG itself. Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• Article describing the company's role in the Iraq and Afghanistan war

This is a listing in an appendix that lists many companies; this is essentially a directory listing and doesn't qualify as coverage.

• Robert Young Pelton's World: Traveling Right about SCG's training courses for those traveling to war zones

This is just a one-line mention of one of SCG's course in Pelton's article; this is very marginal to qualify as coverage of the company.Mike Christie (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

• ABC News, Air Marshal Followed Training, SCG International Risk's CEO discussing training and actions of Air Marshals
• SWAT Magazine article October 2003 edition. (Subject: SCG High Threat Vehicle Dismount training).
• People Magazine article on SCG International Risk CEO Jamie Smith and private security firms in Afghanistan and Iraq. Date: April 2004
• Nuts Magazine (UK) SWAT training discussed in interview with SCG Training Division Instructor Todd Smith. (Date: March Issue 2004)
• FHM Magazine (UK) article on SCG training SWAT teams. Author goes through SWAT training in USA w/SCG Training Division Instructors Todd Smith and Randy Lewis. (Date: March Issue 2004)
• Company press release describing deployment to US Gulf Coast to provide support in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
• SCG International Risk website

Jamie@scgonline.net 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:V M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 20:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  Okay, how the heck does this violate WP:V? O_o I think I meant WP:VAIN. Anyway, maybe weak keep is better, per Captainktainer. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 03:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, much against my better judgment. That's an extensive list of sources right there. I'd much rather all of these companies would disappear off the face of the earth... but the fact of the matter remains that this company easily meets and exceeds the requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP. Captainktainer * Talk 23:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agree - keep. Meets requirements of WP:V and WP:CORP.Ghostscg 00:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
• keep -- Geo Swan 07:46, 1 September 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. W.marsh 00:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Power of Israel in the United States

The Power of Israel in the United States (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

Non-notable book. Publisher seems to be a vanity press - note that they don't have their own domain name but are a subpage of a print on demand company. [9] The book is in only 3 of 10,000+ libraries in worldcat [10] The only sources I see that have written about this book are blogs, indymedia, conspiracy theory and the usual David Duke/jewwatch.org/vanguardnewsnetwork crap GabrielF 16:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom, non-notable vanity press conspiracy book. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete The book in question is already detailed in the main James Petrus page. Its serves no purpose. Time for de-dupe. scope_creep 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • James Petras' page does not explain on this book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ScottM 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign in first time)
• Delete per nom. Crockspot 19:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is also not a Barnes and Nobles, we do not need articles on every book ever made. --NuclearZer0 19:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom, totally non-notable.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all of above. Also we already have an article on Israel lobby in the United States and this seems to be just another book on the same theory. I don't think we need an article on every book ever published. 6SJ7 21:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not about a book --Nielswik_(talk) 02:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not? what's it about, then?
• Delete per nom, and assign the creator of the article some public service (under control of the Lobby, of course) ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article may be recreated if and when the book meets Wikipedian standards. gidonb 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I was really looking forward to reading an article about this subject and am very annoyed it turns out to be an advert for a book. --Mike 23:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This isn't aplace to get cheap exposure. Robovski 01:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable, 88,200 google hits, reviewed by Amazon, in bookmaster, etc. (see the google search result). You may not find it ind WOrldCat yet because it is new --Nielswik_(talk) 02:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  A customer review at Amazon.com does not indicate notability in any way, shape or form, Bookmaster is the publisher that prints the books - see WP:COI, this also doesn't speak to notability. Clearly this article fails any reasonable notability guideline. GabrielF 03:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete spamvertisement. Tbeatty 02:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not every single book out there is notable. Khoikhoi 04:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Isarig 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, can always recreate it later if it gains notability.--Rosicrucian 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviously. Amoruso 09:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• keep unless we're going to completely hand Wikipedia over to the Israeli censors. --75.17.183.177 09:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The above vote is by a user banned from WP for disruption, personal atatcks and antisemitism. Isarig 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone adds significantly more information such as a summary and criticisms and/or praise from notable sources (preferably print sources and by experts in the field). --GHcool 09:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I tried to, but some people censored it (see the article's history) --Nielswik_(talk) 10:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last version did not contain any useful information, but was loaded with POV and of questionable grammar. Removing that is not censorship...--Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, does not seem notable, and the current article is useless. --Stephan Schulz 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The ZOG strikes again .. he he he. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn book, Tewfik^Talk 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge book does not seem to require its own page, merge with James Petras. --Deodar 03:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable Book by Notable Author. Comparable to State of Denial by Bob Woodward. The bad grammar by Malay (?) editor could of have been easily copy-edited. His original contribution is what counts. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 07:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Newer Edit. O.K. Now the article has a little depth. Please contribute and copy edit rather than delete. Collobarate in lieu of revert. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 08:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  How exactly is a book by a barely-notable author that has gotten no press attention and no notable reviews comparable with the latest bestseller from Bob Woodward? GabrielF 17:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  Please don't confuse quality of argument with quantity. Or Numerosity with novelity. The notability comes from the book's unique divergence from conventional wisdom. The notability is shown by the interest it has attracted in this "delete" forum. Of course, it will get deleted. But decency and an accommodation to fellow editors would call for a redirect. Espabila, Favila, que viene el Oso! Will 04:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'm fine with a redirect. But I don't buy your point that something is notable because of its "unique divergence from conventional wisdom". By that criterion, the crankier a thesis is, the more notable it becomes...--Stephan Schulz 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as Will has expanded the article, i guess this article shouldn't be deleted. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Um, why not? Just because a Wikipedia editor describes the contents of a book, it doesn't make it any more notable. Have you read the nomination reasoning? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I don't like it either, but it's got a Sales Rank of 18,361. Pretty good. - crz crztalk 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Never mind that, only Howard and Southern Ill libraries have it... I guess a buncha kooks bought it an Amazon. NN publisher does not inspire confidence either. - crz crztalk 00:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted merge but the lack of libraries stocking the book may have to do with it being released less than 2 months ago (mid-September 2006) more than anything else. Your test would have more validity if you conducted it 5 years or more after the release of the book -- if still no libraries had it, then it clearly fell with a thud. It's sales rank this evening was 6,49 BTW. --Deodar 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the worldcat test may be okay in this case. I'm guessing that most library sales happen pretty soon after a book is released. Note that State of Denial was released four days after this book and its in almost 1000 libraries in worldcat. [11] 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a few different classes of books. Those from established notable authors are bought right away -- Woodward would fit in this category -- the another set are bought based on patron request -- which takes a while longer. I recently was surprised that my library had 6 books by Uri Davis written over the period of 1978-2003 even though they were relatively fringe, especially the earlier ones. --Deodar 16:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to James Petras. Nothing left to merge, really, and redirects are cheap. I doesn't seem to merit an article in its own right, but woudl be useful to redirect to the author to catch folks googling for the book. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 01:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nomination. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Morton Devonshire^Yo 05:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Brimba 09:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Beit Or 21:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Probably a lost cause, but Redirect to James Petras. As Youngamerican said above, redirects are cheap. - Jmabel | Talk 07:42, 13 November 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.

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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilal Khashan

A prior deletion was overturned at DRV and is now here for reconsideration. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article's a mess, but he seems like a pretty prolific scholar and should be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous AfD discussion. Beside being professor of political science at the most prestigious/influential university in the Arab world, the guy is a significant example of a Palestinian scholar whose work is cited across the fence. Stammer 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per both arguments above. Heavily published author too. --Oakshade 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is frequently cited in the news media as a commentator on Lebanese politics, so he satisfies the proposed guideline for notability of professors. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the CV dump, for one it's unencyclopedic and for two reposting whole passages of presumably copyrighted material without context is outside of fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep n seems established per badlydrawn & stammer. oh & errors, i've reverted your blanking most of the article so the books published section can be kept. have a look around, you'll find this's pretty much standard. the possibly contentious nature of field he's working in & your questionable justification for blanking (list of books published is definitely encylopedic, are u serious about an unsubstantiated copyvio claim on a bibliography?) could just be misinterpreted as indicating you have a very definite 'opinion' in the matter.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • He might be notable alright, even though the article doesn't really establish it. But fair use can only be invoked if a small fraction of a larger text is embedded in a larger educational or critical context. If you have 90% of the original text with only a smattering of context it is clearly outside of fair use. I have no qualms with the removed material being brought back, as long as it is being put in context. I'll ignore your WP:AGF violation for this time. ~ trialsanderrors 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep obviously notable, obviously documented, what more is there to say? Why anyoneshould want to delete this makes no sense to me. DGG 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

except, about copyright' a list of someone's books is not subject to copyright in the US. It is a mere compilation, without any intellectual labor, and so would be a list of their articles. Even a book full of bibliographies, if one copied the whole book, would still be legal in the US; the case in point was copying a phone book. Before saying copyvio, learn about copyright a little. WP is a place to start. DGG 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued on user talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(discussion from both of us--and comments are welcome) a good choice by trialsanderrors , as it makes little practical difference to the immediate issue. DGG 00:10, 12 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.

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammed Taib

Muhammed Taib (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:V and WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  11:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, liberalism in Saudi Arabia is to be championed, but the utter lack of ghits makes this fellow's notability tenuous at best. Lankiveil 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
• delete, Can't find sources, none in article. ∴ here…♠ 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - based on gulf news, needs more. ∴ here…♠ 00:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Saudi Arabia isn't a country like the US where you can find anyone on the Internet. Considering how their government regulates Internet usage in country, this man may exist but it is punishable in Saudi Arabia to publish info about him.

You guys gotta remember that not everything is on the internet (yet). I think we should keep this article in. Sharkface217 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The reason why there are no sources is irrelevant. Sources are still needed. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 03:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Source or delete. MER-C 04:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, This article fails W:P and WP:BIO, and per Lankiveli's comment. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Lol at W:P. :) -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nn-bio, V.Keep - I added one source, needs more. Crum375 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep many sources are available, maybe not many in English, but there are many Arabic sources. Islam Today, Arabic Wikipedia, Al-Jazirah Magazine (search "محمد سعيد طيب") should be enough to prove his notability. I think English sources are available, but maybe his name is transliterated differently. Hold on, here is a reliable English source Gulf News. Keep? :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 08:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep does appear to be sourceable, just google-resistant. BCoates 09:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I want sources, but it would appear they exist. Black-Velvet 12:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - (conditional: more sources!) /Blaxthos 15:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per WP:V. Although Saudi Arabia might be a country where not as much information is published on the internet as in a country like the U.S., some form of printed references should still be avaiable and cited accordingly. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 16:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Anas. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep, the man is real but the article poor. If no more sources can be attached it should be nominated for deletion again as soon as possible Alf photoman 13:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep and expand+cite. the gentleman seems notable in his publication, but we need more.--Buridan 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - I really wish I could read the Arabic Wikipedia article. The Gulf News article shows that he's a notable dissident in a country that is famously non-deomcratic. --Oakshade 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps I can translate the page some time tomorrow, and maybe add a few sources to please everybody. :) ← ANAS ^Talk? 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - spelling Tayeb finds a few more online sources in English. --HJMG 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep please it is sourceable and notable too Yuckfoo 04:49, 7 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  14:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afiq

Contested speedy bio. A vanity page with a couple of 'facts' thrown in as an attempt to disguise the article Nuttah68 18:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• delete per nom. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 19:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Being a blogger, even a "popular" one is not a claim of notability. Irongargoyle 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently an autobiography. GregorB 20:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. IceCreamAntisocial 01:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Mecanismo | Talk 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - Blood red sandman 14:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Resolute 03:37, 28 August 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.

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 keep. John254 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emir Isilay

Emir Isilay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The subject of this article has only 832 Google hits, and the article appears to be an autobiography, based on the author's name. Both the author and the anon who de-proded this article have no edits outside of this article. Scobell302 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up links, etc. Seems notable to me. Missvain 05:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, seems to have worked on some notable productions and soundtracks, but, on the other hand, the article needs some heavy cleanup and some links to sources. —Cuiviénen 18:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've done a bit of a tidy up. He's worked with a lot of prominent people. I'd say his notability is sound enough. Mallanox 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep so long as the article improves. --Wizardman 18:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional weak keep, so as to extend Wikipedia's international scope. However, if it turns out that the poster is not who he says he is, then delete for reasons of privacy. 69.140.173.15 20:14, 25 November 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.