Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamza Tzortzis


 * 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. MelanieN (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Tzortzis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination. After a quick Google search, I believe this person to be notable. It may seem strange nominating this for deletion and then give a reason for keeping it, but my legitimately removed A7 tag has already been illegitimately restored once, and this could descend into an edit war if I don't nominate this regardless. Adam9007 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Previous AfD: Jeff5102 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * first (delete)


 * Delete It looks to me like he is remarkable for being hate monger and nothing more, which to me demonstrates a lack of notability. That being said, it may simply be a case of WP:TOOSOON. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Tzortzis craves publicity and calls himself such things as an "international public speaker" but he is actually not notable at all. He is neither a theologian -- something else he likes to call himself (unless just being religious and talking about it qualifies one as a theologian) -- nor a sheikh or a cleric. He is certainly not a scholar, let alone a notable one. He is just a speaker on Islam. That might make him notable, of course, if there is a lot of reliable, third-party media coverage (see for example Zakir Naik). But there is not. Okay I'm convinced by the sources mentioned by Mr rnddude. Regards, George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep He is a self-publicist who overstates his own importance, however, he clearly meets the GNG. In addition to the sources in the article there are these:
 * http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/52973/islam-extremists-new-generation-british-universities-hamza-tzortzis
 * http://www.news.com.au/national/socalled-radical-aiming-to-speak-at-australian-muslim-conference-declares-im-a-peaceful-hippy/news-story/01a8f4e1e7f42653618ebdb512d9c5b1
 * http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3449979/Islamic-speaker-Hamza-Tzortzis-defended-child-marriage-speak-United-Muslims-Australia-conference.html
 * http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/26/cleric-who-linked-being-gay-with-cannibalism-due-at-goldsmiths-islamic-society/
 * http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ashley-madison-hack-islamic-preacher-hamza-tzortzis-found-leaked-list-1516688
 * That makes nine different RSs with articles about him. I am not adding them to the article at present as it is a battleground. All that matters is whether reliable sources are talking about him. They are. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they are not all RS. The Daily Mail is a tabloid and can't be used on Wikipedia. Pinknews is also unacceptable. IBT's story is salacious personal gossip. George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assessment of the Daily Mail. Pinknews is a reliable source, please see our article on them. IBT is also a RS and it doesn't matter for the purposes of the GNG that coverage is salacious. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail is a tabloid (as its own Wikipedia article confirms) and the WP:BLP rules state: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." So any particular claim about Tzortzis made only in the DM (ie that Tzortzis advocated child marriage or wife beating) can't be added. Please show me evidence that Pinknews is a RS. Maybe other editors will offer a view, please. And personal gossip about him being on the Ashley Madison cheating site can't be included even from a reliable source. The BLP guidelines state: "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." George Custer&#39;s Sabre (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on Reference Reliability (reply to George Custer&#39;s Sabre) Huh, I just learned something today. The Daily Mail is apparently definitionally a "tabloid" because it uses smaller paper size than "broadsheets".  However, the article on the daily mail is far less clear as to whether or not it engages in tabloid journalism... the tabloid journalism article itself references the daily mail as being different from "supermarket tabloids" and clarifies that in British English, "tabloids" tends to mean being more politically charged rather than necessarily having lower journalistic integrity.  All this said, I'm not sure the Daily Mail ought to be excluded from our list of reliable sources for notability establishment.
 * The point is moot in this particular case, however, as Pinknews definitely looks reliable to me... single purpose focused, but still with high editorial standards and a wide reach. Aside from Pinknews, I think there's little question to the reliability of The Week and News.com.au... those are obviously reliable.  But it's definitely an interesting point about the Daily Mail regardless... I wonder if we should do an RFC about it? Fieari (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I inserted a link to the previous AfD of 2011. The last five years, Tzortzis gained some fame, but I'll leave it to others if that is enough.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Arguably borderline. I am aware of Hamza Tzortis due to his debate with Lawrence Krauss. He's also mentioned in several books, here, here and here  among others, although some of these appear at a glance to be dubious sources. I don't like the man, nor the ideas he represents, but, he appears to meet WP:GNG. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG for being the focused topic of multiple bylined secondary sources. Ironically, I could possibly accept the argument that some of these sources are not eligible for inclusion in the article themselves per WP:BLP, HOWEVER, inclusion in the article is not a requirement to survive AfD, merely existence.  Note that I'm not actually accepting the argument that these sources are not eligible, merely arguing that even in the case of successfully arguing their exclusion from the article, that they still firmly establish notability, due to their pervasiveness (there are a large number of RS's reporting on him) and extensiveness (each of the RS's are devoting quite a few words to him). Fieari (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2016 (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.