Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Gabriel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty 11:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark A. Gabriel

  • Delete. Probably a hoax and all of the information that would help readers to judge the matter keeps getting deleted. --Ian Pitchford 17:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Can I advise editors also to read Talk:Mark A. Gabriel for some germane discussion. -Splash 18:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notably published author with a book ranked 17,677 on Amazon Books. Any non-factual or non-verifiable information should be removed. Hall Monitor 18:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem Monitor is that all info are non-verifiable! Maybe the only information to be kept are his picture (not sure if it belongs to another person) and the mention to his book (if really the guy pictured is the real author and the book is notable enough) -- Svest 00:16, September 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Keep He is a notable author who specializes in his field. Just because you have a crusade against this guy, doesn't mean you can erase all information on him, or deligitimize him with hatchetjob article editing.Guy Montag 20:40, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to see credible evidence of his existence, notability and specialism. You're the one erasing information that would allow all of these to be assessed by readers. --Ian Pitchford 20:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • He has a book, its best selling, it exists. What am I supposed to do, pull his birth certificate? Guy Montag 20:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
        That won't be necessary, but a little actual evidence like his real name would help. --Zero 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • How about maintaining civility, gentlemen? I suggest a nice cup of coffee followed by 5 minutes of thinking about kittens. Fernando Rizo T/C 21:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Grrr... kittens make me ~MAD~!!! -- BD2412 talk 05:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • 17,677 is "best selling"? Zoe 21:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know if 17,677 is necessarily "best selling", but it is a relatively high ranking. Perhaps it is best-selling in a specific genre or category, but not one that I am aware of. Hall Monitor 21:16, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I am sufficiently concerned about the facts I have been able to check to be skeptical about the whole story. He doesn't run his own website - it's run by someone called Bradlee Sargent from an Arabic Evangelical Church in Florida. He doesn't have a PhD from "Florida Christian University" because there's no such university. There's no trace of the organization "Hope for the Nations" that he is said to run. Why does he use genuine quotations from Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an interspersed with new translations? Where's the evidence of his activities in the US? Why does he provide a complete biography plus a photograph but no details that could be verified with his Mosque or Al-Azhar University? Gabriel could be who he says he is, but I'd like to see appropriate evidence. For someone who's published four books since 1997 under two different names he's somewhat elusive. --Ian Pitchford 21:25, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable author as per WP:Bio. Capitalistroadster 23:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Publications are of sufficient popularity to qualify author for notability. -- BD2412 talk 05:48, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- While author is clearly lying (And this should be noted on the page) - the books published warrant his entry.. though, they are not notable enough to warrant their own --Irishpunktom\talk 20:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - If any info is questionable, just state it's so. Even if it's fake, it's notable as a fake. --DanielCD 21:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although I agree that published work can warrant notibility (like Irishpunktom said), the fingers all point towards a large hoax created by the Evangelical community against Muslims. The website of the "author" is even run by evangelicals. Being a former Evangelical myself, I have no doubts at which lengths they will go in order to give Islam a bad name. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 02:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep so that there is a place to list his books (which don't deserve their own articles). It is also essential that the page very clearly states that none of his biographical claims can be verified, and also the Evangelical connection should be presented factually. --Zero 05:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with Zero. Amren (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article should be cleaned up, discuss his notability issue clearly and other issues like the "Florida Christian University". I am not sure if the picture belongs to him and fear the owner of the picture would sue us along w/ Bradlee Sargent for hoax and propaganda. Cheers -- Svest 02:34, September 11, 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  • Keep but mandatory rewrite. This is a strange one. I don't think it's precisely a hoax, but the information is unverifiable, which according to some would make this automatically deletable. The books exist, but I can't verify the claimed biographical facts. So I propose that the article should be rewritten to stress that these are unverified claims.---CH (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This author is very notable, well known and educated. The man is an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity, there is no hoax about it. It's rediculous to even put this page up for VfD! --Gramaic | Talk 04:54, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep authors of books in the top 10,000 at amazon.com are notable by nature. Ian's attempt to purge wikipedia should be condemned. Klonimus 04:47, 14 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.