Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilly Hussain


 * 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 delete. I'm disregarding the "keep" that accuses the nominator of "Muslim hatred" as undecorous, and the one other "keep" isn't enough to save the article.  Sandstein  19:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Dilly Hussain

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shameless hagiography: G11. And not notable enough to be worth trying to salvage. Richard75 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 03:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  Ascii002  ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  22:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Resume of a nn person. Szzuk (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - From looking at it, it has LOTS of sources?? Am I missing something? Why could this even nominated except for Muslim hatred? I removed an external link in body and Breitbart link as wildly inappropriate. DreamGuy (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed a personal attack.  DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and nobody said anything about sources, which means you didn't even read or understand why this is nominated. Read this: G11 and also this: What Wikipedia is not. Richard75 (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So fix the problems. Trust me, I read them. I just disagree with you. It has reliable sources. It is far worse than many articles that exist, and the personal attack of yours I guess doesn't help or hurt it. I normally delete things left and right, but came to a screeching halt when I saw this. DreamGuy (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Drama and tensions put aside, I'm not as quite convinced this is notable enough although I will say the article may be somewhat notable and acceptable so I'm not entirely sure. My searches mostly found some News links and the Deputy Editor may imply some significance and the last "Career" section suggests also....but, as mentioned, drama and tensions put aside, are you actually convinced this is a notable article and this is why you voted Keep? Oh wait, it actually occurred to me it was DreamGuy's vote above, not yours....I see you haven't voted yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * nor am I going to, after I intervened.  DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick t c s 03:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Lots of sources don't really matter when those sources either mention the article's subject in passing or were written by the subject. It doesn't matter if there are fifty cited sources if the subject doesn't receive WP:SIGCOV in said sources. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. He shows up often in little mentions, but real significant coverage is lacking. Except maybe for this rather defamatory piece from Breitbart, although I'm unsure whether this is a reliable source. - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've expanded the article a little using critical quotes from The Independent article already cited (and added the subject's response, for balance). I agree that the article is very far from perfect - it could certainly use some more critical input, as there is definitely more than one side to the subject than is currently portrayed - but there are very many articles with no references at all that should be deleted ahead of this one. JezGrove (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would sincerely request a third relist to allow better consensus. I'm notifying and  who have asked to be notified of AfDs needing better insight.  SwisterTwister   talk  00:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I also support a third relist to allow for more participation. Hopefully, editors will find enough sources to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Apologies in advance if this was done in good faith but I hope the closing editor considers what appears to be WP:CANVASS. This was raised here by Kudpung but it appears to be continuing. DGG rightly declined to comment after intervening. The AfD has been listed on the relevant projects so should it not be left for editors to find out about the AfD themselves without notification? Tanbircdq (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete without prejudice against recreation once more reliable sources surface per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject has received two paragraphs of coverage in The Independent, which qualify as barely "significant coverage". The rest of the sources either don't provide significant coverage or are not independent reliable sources. The subject has received most of his media coverage in 2015, so it is likely that he will receive enough coverage in the near future to pass Notability. Right now, he does not. One or two more reliable sources in addition to The Independent that provide him significant coverage will him to to pass Notability. An extended analysis follows. Here are the sources in the article:  <li> The article notes: "Last autumn, Khan led a campaign by Muslim women against the “barbarism of Islamic State” promoted by The Sun newspaper’s front page featuring a woman wearing a Union Jack hijab. This provoked a mouthy young Islamist called Dilly Hussain to describe Khan as “the government-friendly desperado”. He is deputy editor of a new website called 5Pillars which refers favourably to the extremist organisation Hizb-ut-Tharir as “working for the re-establishment of the Caliphate”. While Hussain sermonises about “Islam’s true teachings of brotherhood” he also does a particularly venomous line in abuse against the “sisterhood”, describing Khan as an “airhead” who belongs to an “ultra-minority of secular liberal ‘Muslims’ who service nothing and no one but Islamophobes.” He has likewise called another female Muslim critic a “stupid liberal cow”, a “fat cow” and a “p***head” who writes “drunken liberal garbage” and should “do one”." The rest of the article discusses a different person with the surname Hussain: "Dilwar Hussain (no relation to Dilly) runs an organisation seeking to reform Muslim thought and practice. He says that while the non-violent extremists divide the world into Muslims and non-Muslims, the real “Them” and “Us” faultline lies “much more within the different factions of Islam. There are tough times ahead.”" I think this qualifies as "significant coverage", though barely.</li> <li> The article is written by the subject himself so cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> The page has a list of articles authored by Dilly Hussain so cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> The article is written by Dilly Hussain himself so cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> I have not watched the BBC video clip because the page says, "Sorry, this episode is not currently available." But if it contains a clip of Dilly Hussain being interviewed, it cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> I have not watched the BBC video clip because the page says, "Sorry, this episode is not currently available." But if it contains a clip of Dilly Hussain being interviewed, it cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> The article notes: "Muslim journalist Dilly Hussain said many were influenced by television and social media images of Muslims suffering under the regime of President Assad. He said: 'Naturally, it will appeal to some disenfranchised, ignorant or confused young Muslims. 'They were seeing on television Syrians being barrel bombed, starved, killed, raped. They felt charity work wasn't enough and wanted to go out there and physically do something to help the oppressed.'" This article contains very little information about Dilly Hussain, though it includes a three-sentence quote from him, which cannot be used to establish notability.</li> </ol> Here are the sources I found in my searches for sources:<ol> <li> Based on Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 122 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 182, Breitbart News Network is not considered a reliable source so cannot be used to establish notability. </li> <li> The article notes: "The hacking group that calls itself the Islamic State Hacking Division claimed another victim on Sunday night, defacing the biography of a Huffington Post blogger. The hacking group changed the author’s page of Dilly Hussain, the deputy editor of British Muslim news site 5Pillars, replacing it with a propaganda message apparently aimed at Israel, and swapping his headshot with an ISIS flag. This hack comes almost three weeks after the group claimed to have breached a Pentagon database and leaked the names of 100 US service men and women. A member of the hacking collective, which supports the extremist group known as the Islamic State or ISIS, told Motherboard that he had gained access to the accounts of a total of five Huffington Post bloggers. However, he only defaced that of Dilly Hussain because “the other journalist accounts I got into was talking about cakes and cooking and lifestyle,” he said." The article focuses primarily on the hack and doesn't contain enough coverage of Dilly Hussain to quality as "significant coverage".</li> <li> The article notes: "Dilly Hussain, deputy editor of Muslim news site 5Pillars and event organiser, said: “The West Midlands is definitely our next destination and we are looking to put a panel together in Birmingham next month." The rest of the article discusses Hussain's plans and discussion of the event. I don't think this is enough to quality as "significant coverage" of himself.</li> </ol>There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dilly Hussain to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC) </li></ul>


 * 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.