Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (activist)


 * 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 over reliability of cited sources, default to taking no administrative action, without prejudice against a possible merge proposal outside the AfD process. Deryck C. 17:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ali Sina (activist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article on a pseudonym. Single source (Jerusalem Post) and a passing mention (Asia Times) do not establish notability for a stand alone article. The JP article only repeats the self-published claims of Sina's website. All verifiable info can be located at the website's article, Faith Freedom International. Article has a tendency to either be a WP:SOAPBOX for Sina/FFI's views, or a WP:BATTLEGROUND where the merits of the arguments are debated. Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted.

Previous AfDs: The Interior (Talk) 06:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * first (no consensus)
 * second time (delete)
 * deletion review (deletion endorsed)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with the nominator. Both the individual and his organization, FFI, have only marginal notability at best as can be seen by the meager coverage in secondary sources. Coverage in secondary sources has not improved since the second AfD. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC) — 24.217.97.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. FYI -- The same IP address that left the foregoing message 18 days ago just left an edit summary that said "My IP is dynamic and I have a greater number of edits than just this"--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ali Sina is a founding member and an advisory board member of Stop Islamization of Nations. All members of this human rights organization are reputable personalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) 04:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we see a source for that? The Interior  (Talk) 05:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just noticed your addition. Your source is a press release from the poorly named SION. Doesn't really help with notability, or even verifying who this person is.  He's a doctor?  The Interior  (Talk) 05:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reuters is one of the biggest news agencies in the world. They will not publish any news release. All members of SION are notable personalitie. This is an important international organization. User: OceanSplash 07:48 25 January 2012
 * I don't know their selection criteria for press releases, but they do preface it with "* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." Which makes it self-published (though relayed through Reuters). The Interior  (Talk) 08:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ali Sina is very important person because he is essential member of a small community which explains to the naive Westerners a very important fact: Islam is not a religion of peace, but a supremacist political ideology masquerading as a religion. This means that Muslim immigrants living in the West are not really immigrants, but a fifth column whose main long-term goal is the replacement of Western democracy with sharia law. The mainstream media does not mention Ali Sina (or any other ex-Muslim speaking the truth except Ayaan Hirsi Ali) because any publisher who told the truth received at least a few dozen death threats from the Muslim immigrants.Quinacrine (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So you're conceding that reliable sources don't cover this person, but think Wikipedia should keep the article anyway because you personally agree with him. That's nice, but it's not how we work here. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you define as “reliable sources” are not reliable at all. The mainstream media is politicized and biased. They can't and they will never dare to speak against Islam or they will pay the consequence. It is enough to read flowery articles they publish on Islam and the flood of negative reaction from their readers in the comments section.  The majority of people do no longer believe in the mainstream media.  They are no longer deemed as fair or reliable.  User: OceanSplash 06:48 3 February 2012(UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.249.136 (talk)


 * Redirect to Faith Freedom International. I take the nominator's point that Ali Sina is a pseudonym and little is known of the actual person.  The organization/website is certainly notable, but Ali Sina is not, from what I can tell.   PK  T (alk)  16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In regards to Ali Sina being a pseudonym there is a comment by him on his site and I quote, "Ali Sina is part of my name. I don’t use my full name. But why should this matter? Many people adopt a nom de plume for their literary or artistic work. Marilyn Monroe’s real name was Norma Jeane Mortenson.  Larry King’s real name is Lawrence Harvey Zeiger.  Does it matter?  These are excuses.  In logic they are called red herring." http://alisina.org/sheila-musaji-and-fear-of-freedom/ Ali Sina is known by this name, just as Larry King is known by this name. This is not a valid argument to delete his entry. There are thousands of personalties on Wikipedia whose real name no one knows but they are notable with their pseudonym. If his organization is notable, he is the founder and therefore notable too. According to Alexa.com 3,127 sites link to faithfreedom.org That is enough evidence for notability of the site. OceanSplash 0:58 27 January 2012
 * If you're citing fallacies, then you should also know that stating that Ali Sina is notable because his organization is notable is the fallacy of division. So was your argument about Stop Islamization of Nations. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we say Christianity is notable but its founder is not? Can we say Huffinton Post is notable but Arianna Huffington is not? Can you name one notable organization whose founder is not considered notable? OceanSplash 7:00 3 February 2012
 * Jesus and Arianna Huffington are notable because they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources and because reliable sources have described them as influential. This isn't the case with Sina. You're invoking WP:INHERITED, but that's listed as an argument to avoid because relation to a notable thing doesn't demonstrate notability. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Also see WP:NOTINHERITED. Re the pseudonym issue, that is not the reason for deletion.  The reason is lack of reliable, verifiable information on which we can base a biographical article.  With MM, Larry King, etc. that is not a problem.  The Interior  (Talk) 21:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Dr. Ali Sina is a renowned ex-Muslim author and founder of FaithFreedom.org. He is a preeminent human rights activist in the worldwide fight for freedom. He is well known for his work with oppressed and subjugated people yearning to be free. It is unconscionable that his "deletion" would even be considered (the work of pro-sharia forces, no doubt.) The idea that Sina "disappear" (even from Wikipedia) would please those seeking to destroy freedom and man's unalienable rights. Do not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamela geller (talk • contribs)  — Pamela geller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * This post is ridiculous in so many ways I can't count. 24.217.97.248 (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Just redirect this laughably promotional article to his organization, he has no independent notability. I'm adding a notavote template as the number of IPs/SPAs leads me to think this has been advertised off-site. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Is notable and is a founding member and an advisory board member of Stop Islamization of Nations and Faith Freedom International.Does pass WP:GNG and the google Test.He is a authiorPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the google Test if you don't mind me asking? The Interior  (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this google test Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't work like that. It's explained on the page itself why a Google test is not a measure of notability - see GOOGLETEST - and also WP:GOOGLEHITS. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify all I said in addition to being the founder of an organisation ,that he had sufficient hits on the net.Of course hits alone do not mean notability.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If what you are saying is that he had sufficient RS hits on the net, that is a reasonable rationale. If a person has sufficient substantial RS coverage, they meet WP:GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAPBOX and nom ("Unless we can find reliable info on Ali Sina himself, this should be deleted"). Mythpage88 (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or Merge to Faith Freedom International. IMHO, I see no coverage of the subject which isn't part of paid media spin. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox or a megaphone. The edits in this process (possibly) by self-identified and connected person Pamela Geller reinforce my initial impression. Normally I would accept sources like the JP and AT, but in this case, I don't, for the reasons given in nomination. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Jerusalem Post article is exclusively about him and Asia Times and other hits and sources are indeed sufficient for an individual.Now for many biographies we have to look for printed sources as none are available online.Even sources in other languages as none is available in English and there even no hits on the internet and they are notable.Further Please go through this closure of We are not here to determine the truth and it is not relevant whether even a subjects exists As it the case  with Apache (Viet Cong soldier)  or a more popular case Jack the Ripper  it may not even possible to get reliable info  about the subject.Further the article becomes a WP:Battleground  is not reason for deletion by itself.  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 *Merge or else Weak Keep See Articles for deletion/Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Sina is doing about the same thing as Mr. Tzotzis is doing: holding debates with notable people, and telling on his own website his opinion about Islam. The main difference is that Ali Sina is slightly more famous than Tzortzis, as one could see in the number of third-party references (and here, where he is placed at the same level as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Irshad Manji and Taslima Nasrin). This might be weakly in favour of Sina. On the other hand, as there is already an article about his website, I think it is a bit overdone to have TWO articles on Sina's work. I would say that we merge the article with the FFI article, on the condition that nothing substantial will be deleted for the reason that this article is about FFI, and not about Sina. Jeff5102 (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep (based on a quick review)    The three independent references given all cover/ quote him.  From material given, existence of others is likely. North8000 (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:GNG and WP:BIO, it isn't enough to be trivially quoted. Sources must give significant coverage to article subjects. I don't find the "maybe coverage is out there somewhere" argument convincing; this is a modern-day individual whose entire being rests on putting his name in public forums, not, say, an eighteenth-century poem in a foreign language or a sixteenth-century composer whose name is anglicized in various ways (I'm thinking of articles I've in the past !voted to keep in spite of paucity of sources). Everything there is on this guy is going to be online. If we can't find it, it's not there. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you explain what you believe these third-party references to be? The Milli Gazette coverage of him is literally a mention of his name in a list of names. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Off course I could, but why should I? You gave your opinion on the article, and I gave mine. And as I respect and accept your opinion without question, I expect the same respect from you. After all, after everyone interested gave his/her opinion, it is up to the administrators what they do with them. Jeff5102 (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFDs aren't just votes - they're discussions. If you present references I wasn't aware of that demonstrate notability, I might change my view; if I point out that your references are trivial and thus don't satisfy our notability guidelines, you might change your view. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And why should I think that someone, who was blocked for edit warring at the Stop Islamization of America-article, will easily be convinced to change her opinion? And why should I want YOU to change your mind? As the banner aboves says: " consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes". Thus, like I wrote before, the only opinions I need to care about are the ones of the administrators, and not yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I only said that Ali Sina has slightly more notability than Hamza Tzortzis, as Sina had three third-party references, were Tzortzis had one. Nevertheless, in spite of that, I considered that merge was the best option. If that is not enough for you, you can say so (which you did above). But why are you stalking everyone here who is even a little bit thinking to vote for keep?Jeff5102 (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You use words, but I do not think they mean what you think they mean. There's hyperbolic, and then there's wrong enough to qualify as a personal attack; don't fall on the wrong side in your eagerness to complain about people who disagree with you. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You are saying that it is ME who is complaining? I just wanted to give my opinion; as far as I can see on this page it is you who attacked no lesws than five editors whose opinions differed from yours.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Loads of RS coverage of this fellow.  I've just added half a dozen refs (there are more out there; I got bored), including this substantial one.  Coverage was not limited, as some of the delete/redirect/merge !votes suggest, to the Jerusalem Post article devoted to him, the Asia Times piece, and the others in the article.  We have to look for RS sourcing outside the article as well, and base our !vote on that.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "substantial" reference is from a vanity press; check out Academica Press's reputation. One substantial reference and a bunch of trivial (Asia Times) or unreliable (vanity presses, affiliated and fringe sources, etc.) sources won't support an article. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We all agree that the Jerusalem Post article is substantial RS coverage. In my opinion the other RS coverage -- even that shown in the other refs now in the article -- is sufficient to indicate the necessary substantial multiple RS coverage.  There are enough RS refs, from all over the world, to reflect notability here.  Half a dozen editors have noted the same thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, those half dozen editors don't appear to have read our notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They appear to have read it, and to be applying it dispassionately. Ros -- we've just gone through two noms by you where you also attacked the editors for not agreeing with you, in similar fashion.  And those both ended up closing as keeps, with your view not being the consensus one.  Its possible to have different views, but there's no need to belittle everyone whose view differs from yours.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * When you literally have editors arguing that the fact that reliable sources haven't covered the subject is a reason why we should cover him, or that vanity presses or mentions in a list constitute reliable significant coverage, I think we can safely say that at least some of the editors have not read the notability and reliability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several sources have been recently added to demonstrate notability, I've looked at some of these below.
 * LaRed21 - not a reliable source - user submitted content.
 * Why We Left Islam: Former Muslims Speak Out is published by World Net Daily - see RSN discussion here
 * Death of the Grown-up - This is not available in preview, how did the editor view this content? Where is the mention? What is the mention?  Page numbers (and an excerpt) would be nice if I'm to verify this.
 * Infiltration: how Muslim spies and subversives have penetrated Washington By Paul E. Sperry - First, this is just an excerpt with no information on the subject at all. Nelson Current is World Net Daily, see above
 * Beyond jihad: critical voices from inside Islam - Academica is an on demand publisher - not RS.
 * In short, these are very shaky refs. But more importantly, there still is no substantial coverage. It's true, there is quite a few mentions of Ali Sina out there in Googleland, but I haven't been able to find any non-fringe coverage. (i'll take a look at the PDF's when I get back to my home unit) The Interior  (Talk) 06:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Other sources PDF sources added:
 * Arches Quarterly: single, passing mention
 * Leaving Islam: Apostates Speak Out - single, passing mention. You have attached this to Dissent (magazine) magazine, this is not indicated by the publishing information.
 * “Leaving Islam: A Preliminary Study of Conversion out of Islam” Is an unpublished symposium report - see this caveat on the title page: [© Draft Paper. Please do not cite without author's permission]. Not RS.
 * I also note that you have formatted the Reuter's press release as a news report. This (if used at all) needs to be clearly labelled as a press release.  There's a template here: WP:CITET.  The Interior  (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is beyond cavil that the article in The Jerusalem Post is substantial RS coverage. As to the number of other articles in addition to that one, at times we have a situation where articles are only local in nature.  That's not the case here -- quite the opposite; the subject has attracted international coverage.  Indeed, even coverage in different languages.  WP:GNG states that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  Here, we have a large number of RS sources covering the subject, in addition to the significant substantive treatment by The Jerusalem Post, and their "nature" is, helpfully, an international one.  Furthermore, WP:BASIC tells us that a person "is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".  This subject clearly meets that standard.  It in fact does have substantial coverage, by The Jerusalem Post.  And in addition, it has coverage by a number of RS sources -- per the guideline, those may be combined to further demonstrate the "multiple" part of the RS coverage requirement.  Some of the dozen and a half sources are longer than other, but the books and articles and paper as a whole certainly meet the above standard, when couple with the full-fledged, devoted-to-the subject, article in The Jerusalem Post.  It is not surprise therefore that -- even in the face of one or two editors constantly getting in the face of each keep !voter -- half a dozen editors here have !voted keep, more than have indicated support for either other option.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, AfDs are discussions, not votes. In regards to your above argument, it hinges on multiple mentions in reliable sources.  I still feel that hasn't been demonstrated.  You haven't replied to any of the specific challenges to the refs you have added, which do not meet the RS threshold.  The Interior  (Talk) 20:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we can take the words of a hostile critic of Ali Sina to determine whether he is notable or not. The site Loonwatch.com writes: “For those of you who don’t know, Sina is one of the oldest and most nefarious Islamophobes to troll the internet–if Spencer is the King, Ali Sina is the Last Emperor of Islamophobia.  It makes sense then that Sina, Spencer, and Geller would find themselves in bed together.  They are truly a hateful trio.” As a Muslim the author expresses his hatred of the critics of Islam and disparages them as “Islamophobe.”  What is of interest to us is however, the fact that he recognizes his notability and importance.  User: OceanSplash 07:20 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, the author of that piece on Loonwatch.com (Danios) is not a Muslim. Wiqi( 55 ) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you consider LoonWatch an acceptable source for claims about Sina in the article? Ie. would you support including in the article the claim that Sina is a nefarious, hateful Islamophobic troll? If it's not a reliable source for the article, it's not a reliable source for notability. Unreliable sources are unreliable whatever their political affiliations. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The positive remarks of person A about person B cannot be nulled by his negative remarks of him and vice versa. Likewise, a criminal may extol himself to the roof.  That doesn’t count.  What counts are his little confessions.  We don’t have to believe the vitriol of Loomwatch.com. All that matter to this discussion is that a person who is not too friendly with our personage, acknowledges that he is “the last emperor of Islamophobia.” Islamophobia itself is a fallacy, but that is not the point to disucuss here. The point is that Sina is accepted as notable even by his worst enemies. User: OceanSplash 04:36 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's as much of an "even" as you seem to think it is. Very often one finds discussion of a subject in a blog when it isn't discussed in reliable sources, but this can't be used to support notability because the blog is not a reliable source. This is true when the blog is reviewing a niche film or album, and it's also true when the blog is commenting on a niche individual. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Sakshitimes, an apologetic network in India, describes Ali Sina as "one of the foremost and outspoken critics of Islam." The same site says, "He is now one of the most popular atheist critics of Islam." User: OceanSplash 05:42 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources are unreliable. I know it sounds like a tautology, but I'm not sure how else to get it across to you when you keep producing unreliable sources as though they're supposed to affect the notability of this individual. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many articles in Wikipedia about people that are notable but the media will not mention them becuse it is politically incorrect to do so - a good example are the porn stars. Talking about Ali Sina is politically incorrect. The Jerusalem Post received several complaints from Muslims for writing about him. JP is does not care about Muslims' opinion, but others do. When a person's name appears in hundreds of thousands of sites, he is notable. We heard your passionate views too. It is clear that they are set on stone. I think we have enough votes to close this talk and move on. User: OceanSplash 08:00 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it is clear we have sufficient RS support. And from what I can see on this page, at least half the !voters agree.  No need to badger Ocean (and others).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with Faith Freedom International. The article as it stands provides very little information about Ali Sina himself, namely that he is an "Iranian Islamic apostate who lives in Canada" and that's it. The rest is about debates/opinions/claims found on the Faith Freedom website (which already has it's own article). Given the lack of information about the person of Ali Sina, I see no point in having two separate articles. Wiqi( 55 ) 22:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep; there are new references added. Some are better than others, but on the whole it has improved a lot. Thus, I will change my proposal from merging to keeping. Jeff5102 (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Of all the new sources added, have you found one that gives substantial coverage and meets our RS benchmark? I'm concerned that all that citing did was give an appearance of a well sourced article.  Please take another look at those sources.  The Interior  (Talk) 17:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Our RS policy isn't suspended during AFDs, as much as users sometimes like to stack articles with bad references to make them look more notable. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry guys, but I do see now that whatever I write here, you people will never stop arguing me. I have better things to do.Jeff5102 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per Wiqi SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 16:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Wiqi Xavexgoem (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (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.