Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamil Hussein controversy

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 was Keep per WP:SNOW – PeaceNT 07:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamil Hussein controversy

Jamil Hussein controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

"Controversy" consists of bloggers blogging about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep: The blogger's controversy was cited in many traditional media sources. 71.39.78.68 04:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Weakish Keep - per anon, mentioned in main-stream media, not just an avergae blogger conversation. Also not just picked up by bloggers: I actually watched a long episode of this on Glenn Beck's daily CNN program: [1]. A google search will show it seems to be notable. Also, the bloggers seem to be not just average bloggers, but working for non-trivial media outlets: [2]. Part Deux 05:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Changed to keep per Haemo. Part Deux 07:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: this story was all over the media, both alternative and mainstream. NPR's "On the Media" specifically talked about this story a few weeks ago. --Haemo 07:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, pet "controversy" of Michelle Malkin, which was flogged at her blog, her videoblog Hot Air, and in her newspaper column, ad nauseam. Dutiful right-wing sources propagated it at the WSJ among other places. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, well-sourced; I can't see any reason to delete. Kla'quot 09:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment none of the sources that are not "some guys blog" discuss the controversy at all. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It is sourced, e.g. the NY Times source isn't just a blog but an actual article about this guy, which is then followed by a blog. --Urbanshakedown 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Comment, does anybody has a subscription to nytimes.com and can read these articles? I'm not going to vote delete simply because I can't read them myself right now, but I'm also not going to vote keep until I've finished reading through all the other links. Mathmo Talk 13:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, looked through them and these four sources [3][4][5][6] deal directly with this article. This combined with comments by the other users and the what would now seem like a reasonable assumption the NY Times source is likely to be similarly favourable to this AfD means I support keeping this article. Mathmo Talk 13:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I look forward to your help in making sure that the article reflects what was written in reliable sources. It currently does not. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment specifically, the lede - "The Jamil Hussein controversy refers to allegations started by three conservative bloggers." Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Story made it well beyond just blogs and into the mainstream media. Jinxmchue 14:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Bad faith nom. Article has plenty of sources and is a valid political topic. SynergeticMaggot 19:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Sources seem decent and appears to meet notability criteria. RJASE1 01:57, 2 February 2007 (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.