Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilal Philips

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. W.marsh 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bilal Philips

Bilal Philips (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Fails WP:BIO. Author of various self-published online works. I removed the long list of articles on his personal website. His organization is also up for afd. Arbusto 23:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. I fail to see how this individual is notable. Xdenizen 05:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete Well, he has quite a few google hits. That said I think he still falls short of being notable of being mentioned here on WP. Signature^brendelNow under review! 07:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- BhaiSaab ^talk 12:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of multiple non-trivial published works about this person - crz crztalk 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• DELETE (see below... waaaaay below) Yikes and goodness gracious!! My google search comes up with several sites identifying this man as being linked to terrorist groups and a "list of unindicted co-conspirators" of the 1993 WTC bombing. And here we have a Wikipedia article making him look so shiny and clean and →respectable?? Yikes! and again I strongly say... YIKES! There's no good faith effort to write a balanced, truthful article here. Wikipedia is not a propagnada machine for terrorist organizations. We must delete this until someone can verify all the hubub about his terrorist leanings or at least where all that talk is coming from. We cant ignore it. I won't buy an excuse that "it's just a smear campaign from prejudiced people who are his enemies." Where there's smoke... It would be good for people to see that these are where the man's sympathies and associations lie in a well researched article on Wikipedia, but this by no means is the beginnings of such an article. There is no excuse for this article. Wipe it completely clean until someone can write a responsible article. OfficeGirl 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD is not the place to deal with accuracy disputes. Seano1 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suspicions of accuracy problems are an appropriate thing to bring up in AfD. Some users seem to think that the only thing to discuss in AfD is "notability." Instead of just going along with what the nom and others concluded from the text of the article, I added information that I found. I think this man may well prove to have a degree of notability if indeed he is associated with the 1993 WTC bombing conspiracy in reliable news sources but there are other considerations. My objections fall under the catergory of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. If these problems cannot be cleared up in a responsible way before the end of the discussion period for this AfD then the article is due to be deleted. But as to notability in the article as written there was not a sufficient assertion made. OfficeGirl 22:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Then go in there and Edit Boldly.while observing WP:BLP policies. Edison 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• User:141.158.234.96 wrote the following in the articles talk page.: Dear Wikipedia: It would be ridiculous to delete this article. Bilal Philips is a major figure of English-language Salafi Islam, which has a worldwide reach. While his name may not be known outside of the Muslim community, he is quite well-known within that community. The existing article neither mentions his several influential publications, nor his political views and role in Salafi Islam. He is controversial especially among Salafis because he belongs to one of the splintered Salafi groupings so that others attack him as a "deviant." In fact, it appears that sometime between 1991 and 1994, he was either expelled from Saudi Arabia or had his visa not renewed, so that he had to migrate to the UAE. When I am able, I will try to fix his article here, but I want to write this right now so no one deletes him. I also want to add that in general Wikipedia is poor on Islamic topics and personages. Hardly any of the famous shaykhs of the past are noticed, and many modern personages are overlooked. This is quite apart from the poor quality of many articles that omit salient facts in the subjects lives or are too one sided. Thus, to go around looking for Muslim personages to delete is not the way to go if one wants to claim universal coverage for Wikipedia.

Keep Being a good person is not a qualification for getting an article on Wikipedia; the fact that he is associated with the 1993 bombing so strongly seems to indicate notability. The article needs an NPOV rewrite, removal of all unsourced and POV statements. But the fact that he is a noted terrorist is NOT a reason for deletion. If he were a non-notable terrorist that would be one thing; to claim in the same breath that he is notable and then deletable is contradictory. This is a content dispute and should be carried on on the articles talk page. Be bold, fix the article to be NPOV. It doesn't need to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

QueryJayron, has anyone gotten hold of a single good reference source about this man? I am not sure we are in a position to say that its been established as a fact that he was connected with the 1993 WTC bombing. I absolutely agree with you that if we have that as a fact then notability has been established. But if all we get is some kind of fansite content then the article would be due to be deleted. I am very much in favor of expanding the information available on Wikipedia concerning Muslim personages and topics related to Islam, as long as the articles are done responsibly. Since there's a real possibility that Bilal Philips has been involved in such serious matters I think his topic should be handled with special care. I also don't want the article to say he is a terrorist without at least one reliable news source to back it up, since we are dealing with a very damning statement about a living person. OfficeGirl 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Independently of any judgement of a person's goodness or badness, there must be documented notability to have an article. No independent verifiable mainstream press coverage is presented in the article, and I could find no mention of "Bilal Philips"" in a 4000 publication database. Blogs and websites are not good sources to establish notability. Edison 19:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable convert, scholar and controversy, specialy all in one. --Striver 02:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - Is this a joke? Bilal Philips is a widely recognised and leading Islamic and comparative religion author in the English language and has appeared on regularly on at least one TV channel that I know of in the UK. He has fourteen books available on Amazon [1] and thirty-six overall according to one website [2] and not forgetting the multiple articles available on his website and others. His book The Fundamentals of Tawheed is one of the best on the subject and features in the University of South California Compendium of Muslim Texts [3]. A google search for "bilal philips" brings up over 48000 results. He appears in this list of famous muslim scholars [4] and was interviewed by the Saudi Gazette in the article. Admittedly, the article is a bit bare but deletion would be the loss of an important or potentially important biography to wiki. Wikipidian 03:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipidian, maybe you can solve this whole discussion for us with your knowledge of sources and where to find them. Do you think that you could locate some articles about this man from good reliable sources? I am inclined to believe that they are out there, but I wouldn't know where to look. Surely he has been reported about in the news somewhere. Maybe there's something in an Arab newspaper from the time he was allegedly turned away from Saudi Arabia and emigrated to UAE in the early nineties, as was suggested on the article's talk page. Maybe there's an article about his alleged connection to the people who did the 1993 WTC attack. Maybe there's an article profiling his regular television appearances and public reaction to his statements in the BBC. If he's "widely recognised", then all we need is to present the evidence that he is indeed being recognised. I'll need to see something a bit stronger and more lasting than famousmuslims.com, but truly, I can be persuaded. I've changed my position on AfD's several times when an editor has come up with some good evidence. I'm open minded. Show me. OfficeGirl 19:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think you have set the bar a bit too high for notability - at least according to wiki guidelines (please refer here [5]). His 36-odd books (14 on amazon), multiple articles, website content and his notable book The Fundamentals of Tawheed in my opinion easily pass him on "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field" criteria. He also passes Wikipedia:Search engine test.

  But in answer to your specific questions:

  (1) I know of NO CONNECTION with Bilal Philips and terrorism and would be literally astonished of any proven link. The co-conspirators WTC thing, would be slander against a living person as more than likely the claim wouldn't be verfiable.

  (2)He appears regularly on Peace TV (available in 125 countries) [6], regularly on Itihad TV UK (no source but you gonna have to trust me that I've seen him on here) and only occasionally on Islam channel (which again has global availability) but is due to appear in the Global Peace and Unity Event organised by the channel and broadcast worldwide [7][8]. Also apparently has been on Sharjah TV [9]

  (3)I don't know if he's been seen on BBC/CNN etc but here's something from a Qatar-based paper [10] and interview with IslamOnline (the web's most popular Islamic website) [11] in addition to the Saudi Gazette interview from famousmuslims.

  Basically, he's widely known for his contribution to english language Islamic literature and his television appearances and the most likely reason why he hasn't appeared in the secular media so often is because he's not the hook-for-a-hand controversial imam the media like to splash on our screens. Wikipidian 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Okay, you got my vote with the Qatar paper and the IslamOnline profile. He's definitely a scholar, and he's notable enough with good evidence. I'm terribly curious where the other talk (WTC conspiracy) is coming from, and if can be tracked down, hoax or no, it would be a good thing to explain in the article what that's all about. After all, Cat Stevens has trouble getting into some countries for running his mouth and not controlling his anger, but he's not likely to bomb anything (is he?). Anyway, Keep, but clean up. OfficeGirl 02:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Wikipidian. BhaiSaab ^talk 03:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per user Wikipedian. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keeep per Wikipidian. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 08:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As per Wikipedian. --Marwatt 19:15, 12 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.