Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aladin

Delete, not notable enough. The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion. He was never on TV, he only worked on projects that never aired. The notability of that title "International Magician of the Year" is heavily questioned: The award organisaton seems to not even have a website, and a search for the title leads to only 123 hits ([1]). So when one removes all that promotional hoopla, his notability has to be rated on this bottom line: Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London. I strongly believe that those elements don't suffice that an individual be included in the wikipedia. Additionaly, the article sounds very much like blunt euphoric advertising, written by the person himself to jumpstart his career and business by taking advantage of the popularity of the wikipedia project. To any admin deciding the vote: I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S. Several edits between 17:12, 1 January 2006 and 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • By puppets, I didn't mean you, Ragib. And yeah, I edit my own talk, the proper way would have been to have multiple signs at the end (since some of my old stuff stayed), but thought that multiple signs only added even more "noise". Peter S. 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not at all normal to do an IP check over an AfD unless there is substantial evidence of sockpuppetry -- more than just votes that favor what some think is a poor article. many of the keep voters have long contribution histories, have made hundreds or thosands of edits, on many different subjects. I don't see any plausibel evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, overall. Of couse legit editoes can have unwise opnions for a time, and IMO User:Peter S's substantive points should be substantively answered, but arging about socks is not the way to prevail in this debate, I think. DES (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment (considering all those "keep" votes): Whoa whoa whoa people.... I think you need to slow down and take a look at this before you vote... The article as written makes it seem like he is notable, but it's written like a brochure for self-promotional purposes. For example, the extensive quote cited to Inside Magic is deceptive, as that quote was printed in Inside Magic, but it was quoting a student newspaper ("The Oxford Student has an incredibly positive piece about a young magician") -- the most important bit from that piece is that the editor of Inside Magic calls aladin "a magician I have never heard about." Furhtermore, he questions the student newspaper's claim that he left some society because it wouldn;t admit women as he knows a number of women in the society. This looks like a majorly deceptive bit of advertising by someone trying to give himself credential he doesn;t have. DON'T JUST VOTE KEEP claiming that he's notable without EVIDENCE that he is notable. He fails the Google test, and quite badly. The writer of this article created deceptive references, and sockpuppets have already been suggested. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well said, DreamGuy, thanks. Other misleading credentials include the link "NBC Today Show featuring aladin's Book of Cool", but "aladin" was never mentioned on the Today Show, just this book with 25+ different people in it. And it's not *his* book, he's just one of those 25 people. Peter S. 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment:The dude was International Magician of The year 1991 [2]/ Yes, the article needs cleaning up and yes it needs to be made neutral but the magician is notable. Englishrose 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Was he? Prove it? That source quotes some school newspaper as having made the claim, but we have no idea whether it's accurate or not. The source you list never heard of the guy, so you can;t take second or third hand information as if it were real. DreamGuy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. However the article is very much POV, so I'm going to tag it as such. -- MisterHand 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's first edit was on 30 december 2005 DES (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Very notable magician. In fact he is a former International Magician of the Year. Englishrose 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. Peter S. 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy keep as above. v notable and verrifiable. shoked to see this up for dele Tiksustoo 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's firat article edit, on 17 Oct 2005 was to this article. DES (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) However, this user has since edited a significant range of articeles. DES (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment After reading the aladin talk page I am very confused. Talk:Aladin Peter S. has been aware of this article since the 3 October 2005. He has disputed the POV of the article but never its notablity and has been trying to organise (and made)improvements to the article. Just seems strange. Englishrose 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but I never edited it, cause the article always looked "fake" to me. I though I stayed on the sideline and view what happens to the article, but it still looks like a huge self-promo-thing to me :-/ Peter S. 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. I echo the comments above. Very noteworthy and VERY well substantiated. In fact the article is possibly one of the most heavily annotated in List of magicians and so interesting that I have been itching to add to it as it needs to include his 'other lives' in greater detail - all of the latter easy to find through search engines and other websites. Might well be a candidate for starred article? And I must agree with EnglishRose - Peter S seems to be pursuing aladin for a reason which one cannot fathom. Very strange.Autumnleaf 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Let's keep it on the level of arguments, ok? I outlined my issues, if something is "strange", then it's "strange" to get personal for no reason, Autumn. Peter S. 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep: Notable and verifiable. --Ragib 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Autumnleaf asked me to look at the article and the deletion entry -- even as a complete outsider to magic and the entertainment biz, I'm impressed by the guy's vita. However, the article needs to be toned down and put into perspective. Right now it sounds like he's the Second Coming of Houdini. Zora 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable and verifiable, even for an outsider like me. It's high on fancruft & pov, but that could be fixed. --Pamri • Talk 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Notable and verifiable. This is one of the better magic related articles. Grroin 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. What has already been said above, and I think it needs to be cleaned up to fit the standards of Wikipedia. --nihon 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Bonaparte talk 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is my not for now... see my comment above... the credential appear to be forged, Inside MAgic never heard of him, claims of being on National Geographic, etc., unconfirmed. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • A little google reveals [3], a National Geographic website that refers to aladin as a magician and management consultant. They may be taking him at face value. He certainly seems to be devoted to self-puffery. All the same, I should think that that any major falsification would have ruled out that particular TV show. NG has been caught in bad fact-checking in the past (the Chinese fossil that turned out to be faked) but they come clean about it and they aren't generally known for being a dodgy source. Zora 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Zora, that's a program about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Peter S. 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
        • We've got articles about people even less notable. Better to turn your energies to deflating the article. You've alerted enough people to the hype that I'm sure it will be toned down. Zora 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Zora, he's roughly as notable as somebody that works at a bank and plays the harmonica in clubs at weekends. Do you really want to have every human at this level included in an encyclopedia, between Einstein and Churchill, just because he likes to spin such half-thruths? Peter S. 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per my comments at Talk:List of magicians. This is one the many Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic artcles that should never have been written. -- Krash 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would instead vote to delete the Quotations about aladin if we had an Sfd! Neither Einstein nor the Alladin tale itself gets that luxury in an encyclopedia. It's simply called a vanity section! It gives a bad balance to any article mixing jokes w/ facts, peotry and magic. Please get rid of that stuff unless it is really relevent. Cheers -- Szvest 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
    • Hi Szvest, we tried deleting it before, but it's always added back: [4]. Believe me, editing the article won't change anything, and since he really isn't notable, it's of no use anyway. If you'd like to dig deeper and change your mind later, you're of course always allowed and welcomed to do so. Cheers, Peter S. 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the note Peter. I noticed that and I commented above my opinion re the issue but that is never releted to the Afd. I see the vote below as paradoxial; deleting an article because of a section and then rewrite it?!. And yes, I understand that the main reason behind the deletion is that you don't agree about the guy notability. Personally, true, never heard about him and thought that it was about deleting Alladin. I've read the article and the guy is definetly notable. Cheers -- Szvest 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Delete, but at the very least, remove the Quotations about aladin. What is this, the yellow pages? The whole article could be rewritten to three paragraphs once the POV and publicity brochure info is removed. Dyslexic agnostic 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I just rewrote it. Three paragraphs is just about right. I dunno how long that version will stand, but I do hope that other editors won't add anything back unless there's a reliable source for it -- not just claims BY aladin. Zora 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep hey a magician! --Snakes 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. I don't see what the problem is here. The guy is a cultural adviser to Red Ken and got a huge profile in the Times in 1998, which I just read. Obviously deserves an article, but I don't understand why some editors just butchered what was there. -- JJay 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I was the butcher. Link the Times article then, and we'll see what's notable. Look, you can't just say that what was there was FINE when many of the people saying KEEP were also saying that the article was over the top. Zora 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I don't know if the article is online, I get this from pay databases (in this case Newsbank). The reference has been added- It was a 3 page feature profile in the Times magazine. The article mentions all the awards that we had in the Aladin article that have been removed. Moreover, I can say what I want about the article, considering it's my opinion. I don't know how you voted and have no plans to check. -- JJay 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has distinct verifiability problems, not least because most, possibly all, of Aladin's self-publicity seems to be either exaggeration or outright fiction. Last year we had Alkhemi (AfD discussion), which was as far as could be determined a fictional company created by this person, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted, and for which no independent evidence of existence could be found. (It's possible that it is a one-man consultancy company that exists solely on paper, for tax purposes.) But that is far from the only apparent work of fiction in this person's publicity, it transpires.

    Mentioned above is the fact that Inside Magic is using The Oxford Student as its source for an article on "a magician I have never heard about". However, it seems that the only source for that article is Aladin himself. On Aladin's web site we have a quote from the article, describing it as a "3-page feature", published on 2004-02-19 by Tamara Cohen. However, going to the archives for that issue of The Oxford Student (Volume 37 issue 6) I find no such article.

    True, Aladin was a "subject of a documentary on National Geographic". But that was as a refugee, not as a magician. True, there is a Book of Cool (It's actually a set of DVDs.). But it isn't by Aladin. True, Aladin was a "government adviser". He was the vice-chairman of the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group. And the article in the Times is inaccessible without a subscription fee, but given that it begins "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals." and is an interview with this person I am highly skeptical of its accuracy.

    The key to notability here is being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources (e.g. magazine feature articles, books, and so forth). But upon investigation the whole thing turns out to be either built on sand or unverifiable. The Inside Magic article cites as its source an article in The Oxford Student that doesn't exist. I am unable to verify the purported 1999 coverage in The Hindustan Times, because its archive doesn't go back that far. The only person who appears to have even heard of the "Golden Turban Award from the Magic Academy of Bangalore" (or, indeed, the Magic Academy of Bangalore itself) is Aladin himself. The Daily Star archives don't go back to 1999, either.

    Strip away everything about this person that isn't verifiable, and one is left with someone who only satisfies the WP:BIO criteria because of the National Geographic documentary. Weak Keep. Uncle G 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Strong Keep Aloodum 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep. I note from the edit histories on this page that some contributors are active on 'south asian' pages. As a non-south asian I do wonder whether aladin is trapped in the wrong section; he is arguably a 'very' notable personage of Indian and Bangladeshi origins, partly based in the West, who is notable as an artist, magician, strategist and public official.  freedom Annawright 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The image on this page has no licensing information. I would assume that if this article is kept, then someone should determine whether it is being used properly (e.g., whether duplic domain, GFDL or fair use). I'd contact the person who uploaded the image, but that person only contributed briefly last August & appears to have left Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) (172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users (Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This Article is Misleading and Inaccurate. In order to judge the accuracy of this article, one would need expertise in the subject, right? Well, I may not be able to judge the accuracy of the scientific articles on wikipedia, but I have performed Sleight of Hand for over 30 years and have never heard of this individual. Additionally, the original article listed Sleight of Hand Artists that I not only *know*, but several of them have given me endorsements for promotional material. I've even gone to the trouble of contacting some of the most knowledgable Sleight of Hand people in the world and none of THEM have heard of this fellow. This leads me to believe the article was posted for purely promotional reasons. Keeping the article would lead people to believe that this indiviudal is one of the top Sleight of Hand Artists/Magicians in the world and this is simply not the case. Darwin Ortiz, Jon Racherbaumer, John Bannon, Paul Curry, Ed Marlo, Dai Vernon, John Scarne, Jean Hugard, Fred Braue, Larry Jennings, and about 100 others are the ones you want articles on, not this fellow. Questions? E-Mail me: steven.youell at gmail.com Steven Youell -- (unsigned comment by 68.7.141.95 17:36, 3 January 2006)
  • Comment I have managed to track down two of the articles.
    The Asian Age of 9 January 1999: aladin has the top right quarter of the 'People' page on page 21 in a four column article entitled 'Man with the magic lamp' which also has a photograph of him across two and a half of the columns; written by Abhik Sen:
    To mobilise support for the homeless, to walk some of London's roughest neighbourhoods in the middle of the night and charm street gangs off their crimes, to help the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser on youth and community projects, to coordinate and synthesise the work of South Asian musicians and artistes in Britain, and to do all of it at the same time, one would have to be a magician. That's precisely what aladin is, among, it has to be added, many other things.
    Indiaweekly of Friday September 10 - Thursday September 16 1999: aladin has practically the whole of page 25 in the 'Entertainment' section in an article entitled 'Master of Magic'; 3 of 4 columns to be exact, including a photograph stretching the width of the article, which is written by George Simpson. aladin was interviewed at the Institute for Contemporary Arts where he was appearing:
    aladin, amongst many other things, is a magician, live artist and producer/director. Born in Washington DC to Indian and Bangladeshi parents, aladin (his real name) was brought up everywhere, speaks English, French and Bengali, has worked with street gangs and been an academic, journal editor and government advisor. And this is just a small sample of the man’s achievements.
    Both articles cast him as a Renaissance Man and so have some fascinating background which I am going to include in the Wiki page. The quotations on aladin’s own website match up to the sources incidentally Autumnleaf 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Autumn, after those accusations, I cannot trust you. Please state a link instead of just entering text here. You could very well just have invented that story. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Peter, I understand that you're suspicious. Since I too believe that aladin has been editing his page with sockpuppets, I can understand that you'd look askance at any editor you didn't know. Well, Autumnleaf has been editing Indian cinema articles for a while now and she seems quite level-headed. I don't agree with her on this issue -- I think she has too much faith in journalists! -- but I don't think she'd lie. I'm not the best judge of people in the world, but I've certainly had no reason to distrust Autumnleaf. Zora 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    I do not take your comments personally Peter. You are clearly in favour of an order of 'proof' none of us may ever be able to provide and I have better things to do - just ask Zora. I suggest you yourself email/call the key publications [PRINT newspapers] in question or get a friend to look them up. I would be particularly delighted if you would call up Asian Age and India Weekly - all the details are above. Of course, you WILL come back to this page after, won't you? Autumnleaf 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I already added the reference from the Times, which was a three page feature. Aladin was also written up in The Express on March 15, 2001. I have both of those articles of course. -- JJay 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The photograph used for the Asian Age piece above is by Nicholas Sinclair who is a notable(!) British portraitist as I just discovered via Google. Autumnleaf 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Again, a link here would have been worth a lot more than just stating something that you might just have invented on the spot. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Try a library. Or maybe you should have tried that before making statements about Aladin's notability such as: The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets. It took me one minute to disprove that and I did not make up the Times feature on Aladin-- JJay 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
              • Oh, you always have the all the Times from November 1998 handy at your place? Because that's what the reference says! What kind of a paper archive do you have at home? I highly doubt your sources, Jay. Peter S. 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
                • Newsbank (electronic archives for 1,400 world newspapers). I also have access to Proquest, Ebsco and numerous other pay databases. You can doubt my sources, but I would suggest you refrain from making bold statements regarding news sources that you have not consulted. -- JJay 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • An article that states that Aladin helped "the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser" is almost certainly repeating Aladin's own exaggerated and fabricated self-publicity, and thus wholly suspect in all respects. Aladin was the chairmain of an advisory committee to the Mayor of London, which is nowhere near Cabinet-level. Uncle G 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's say he had 2 Dozen Articles about him in magazines and newspapers. That's enough to make him worthy of an article in a reference source? If so, there are at least 10,000 more amateur magicians waiting to use wikipedia as their personal promotional tool. Anyone with a modicum of talent and enough money to hire a press agent could easily get more press than that. Has he published any work in any of the trade journals? What are his contributions to the art? Has he lectured for the International Brotherhood of Magicians? How about the Society of American Magicians? How about for The Magic Circle? Has he even played the Magic Castle? WHAT?!? Tell me something he's done besides generate a few articles!!! And then tell me why those achievements make him high enough on the ladder to earn his own article in what is supposed to be a serious and accurate reference source.

    Steven Youell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs)

    • I'd vote keep for some of those 10,000 amateurs, even Steven Youell when he gets a 3-page spread in the Times Magazine. -- JJay 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • JJay-- if you believe that someone who gets a 3-page spread in ANY magazine automatically deserves an article in an encyclopedia, then you really don't have the respect for the Art of Magic OR Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment: I'm not sure how much credit to apply to your opinion given that you have not contributed to this project. You claim to be Steven Youell. The claim is of course unverifiable, although I have been able to determine that there is an aspiring magician by that name. Details are sketchy, though, because Mr. Youell, unlike Aladin, has apparently not been mentioned in any of the 1400+ newspapers included in the Newsbank and Proquest databases. -- JJay 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment: I am more than willing to assist you in verifying my qualifications. You may e-mail me at steven.youell at gmail.com Allow me to repeat once more-- I don't think "notable" should be defined by how much press you get, but by what you've contributed to the particular subject. Go search your 1400 newpapers and find out how much press Karl Fulves has, yet he is a prolific author on card magic. How about Charlie Miller? If you don't know those names, then you're not qualified to form an opinion on who is "notable" in magic and who is not. Again, I am more than willing to verify my credentials to anyone posting here. steven.youell At gmail.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The only credential that interests me is your lack of participation in this project. That is why I can not give much credence to your opinion. Regarding your query, Charles Miller has been discussed in articles in Newsday, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Times of London. Karl Fulves has had his book reviewed in the Washington Post and the Times of London. Please submit articles on these men when you find the time. -- JJay 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I understand your position now. Expertise in a subject is defined by how much you've participated in Wikipedia and how well you can use google. Brilliant. Now THAT'S how you build a reliable reference source. By the way, Karl Fulves has written more than a dozen books on magic and produced three of the most influential periodicals in magic-- The Pallbearers Review, Epilogue and The Chronicles. But you didn't find that from searching newspapers online, did you? Probably because the only people that care about that would be people who are knowledable about the subject at hand. See my point? SEY
        • We are not building a reliable reference source with your input since you have made no material contribution to the project besides this AfD. For all I know you are Aladin or David Blaine, rather than aspiring magician Youell. Again, instead of wasting our time with your opinions regarding notable magicians such as Fulves and Miller, who are not the subject of this AfD, please submit articles so we can improve our coverage of the field. -- JJay 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • "Comment'**** JJay-- you've made it pretty clear that you determine who is "notable" in a field based on press clippings and from what you can find out from behind your keyboard. You have repeatedly questioned my credentials yet you have not taken me up on my offer to substantiate them. I therefore question your journalistic integrity and consider the matter closed. My offer to substantiate my credentials, however, stands: steven.youell at gmail.com -- SEY
      • It's not useful for anyone doing serious research on historical/professional magicians to come across articles about amateur magicians because they have been linkfarmed into valid magic articles. That "aladin" would appear on a list among the likes of Houdini, Copperfield or even David Blane is utterly ridiculous. I know we're not here to debate "what links here", but I think this whole thing is capable of setting a really bad precedent for those 10000 awaiting articles. -- Krash 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable; the notability itself may not be just because he is a magician. It can also be because he is influential in the community etc. Linus Pauling is notable not just for research in chemistry but also for work in fostering peace. Vilayat Khan is considered a better Sitar player by connoisseurs of Hindustani music in comparison to Ravi Shankar. However, the latter is more notable and was awarded the Bharat Ratna as he worked on several international projects and built bridges between India and "the West." It may be that Aladin may not be as great a magician as others; yet, he is notable, precisely because he leveraged his seemingly low notability in magic to effect community service positively. Hence, keep. --Gurubrahma 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- on all of the above.
    I've managed a look at the Times article (being coy, lest the copyright police swoop) and it does state as fact a number of the items that we can't substantiate with google. But I *still don't believe it*. Sorry. The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker. All the rest of it seems to be repeating claims that aladin made to the writer. But if he had put on a magic show in India that had a cast of 800 magicians and was watched by a billion people (one sixth of the population of the planet, right?), surely there would be some record of it in google? Is there any TV show on record with a demonstrated viewership of one billion? Is there any Magic Academy of Bangalore?
    Googling furiously, I found the following curious note in ExpressIndia:
    Muthukad, who is popularly known as India’s Houdini, also runs the Gopinath Muthukad Magic Academy in Thiruvananthapuram, the first of its kind in Asia. "Magic with a mission" is the slogan of his institution. [5]
    If the Magic Academy of Bangalore is so famous that a billion people watched the show it sponsored, how is it that ExpressIndia doesn't know that there is another magic academy in India?
    Plus, I can't replicate much of anything in the article on aladin's supposed father, Abul Fateh. Certainly nothing that proves that he is aladin's father, or that various details given in the Abul Fateh article are true. There are details that could have only been supplied by a fabulist -- or possibly a family member who edits from sockpuppet accounts, and may be prone to exaggeration.
    I was originally trusting, but the more research I do, the more alarm bells go off. I know that it's upsetting for people to admit that they've been conned, but aladin seems like a con. A con who edits vanity articles from sockpuppet accounts. Possibly a notable con, but con nonetheless. I don't think it makes any sense to trust a conman just because he's South Asian, or argue that it's prejudice to distrust him. We're all human, and human includes grandiosity. Zora 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The fact that you do not believe the article is one thing. That is your right. However, statements like: The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker are completely out of line without factual evidence to back up the claim. Have you spoken to the reporter who wrote the story? Have you contacted the Times? If you had done any research, you would know that the Aladin feature was written by a well known investigative reporter in the UK. Please have the decency not to slander Ms. Brinkworth or Times journalism without real evidence. -- JJay 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • JJay, the only thing in that article that the reporter said that she personally witnessed was aladin interacting with some youths in a slum. I believe that she witnessed that. It's possible, and I have no reason to think that she would lie about what she had SEEN. (Of course, journos have done that -- does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? -- but I see no motive here.) However, given that she reports as fact extremely dubious material that she can only have gotten from her interviewee, I think she's too darn trusting. Gullible. Journos can be. A friend of mine who was a magazine reporter wrote a long crusading article about a man who had a land claim against the state of Hawai'i, a claim based on supposed Hawaiian historical facts. I trusted the friend until I spent hours in the archives trying to chase down the "facts". I found that my friend had believed the claimant without checking anything, and that the claimant had been b!llsh!tting him. JJay, your faith in journos is misplaced. Zora 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks Zora, for your search into the matter. I just want to comment on the Abul Fateh article, that his role in Bangladesh Liberation War is verifiable and he was the first foreign secretary of Bangladesh. Other than that, I can't find references for anything else. It may be possible that someone who personally know him added the details, including his relation with aladin. Thanks. --Ragib 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable enough and notable enough for me. David | Talk 14:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Dubious references. Only ones I can find are adverts or say they've never heard of him. josh (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the last few months, the credibility of Wikipedia has been questioned and I had no basis on which to form an opinion either way, since I really don't have any specific academic credentials. However, if this article is kept then I will sadly conclude that Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source. I could make that conclusion based on the fact that *I DO* have the expertise to judge whether or not someone is a "notable magician"-- and people who *DO NOT* have those qualifications are making editorial decisions based on magazine articles rather than extensive knowledge of the subject at hand. Wikipedia may be accurate in the Scientific realm, but if this aricle is kept, I will have no doubt that it's usless in every other sense. --Steven Youell—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete when mirror and smoke was cleared, there is nothing verifiable left. It was a mistake to start a vote and then to remove garbage. The magicial already did his rabbit-from-hat thing. Mukadderat 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Verifiable and notable. I haven't been able to contribute much to the Wikipedia project these days. However tomorrow morning I will take a cue from what has been left on my Talk Pages and drop in with some verifiable and verified material for discussion. Thanks thegirlinwhite 15:51, 5 January 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.