Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamad Jebara


 * 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. Also noting the GFDL is not revocable.  MBisanz  talk 21:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mohamad Jebara

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted along with Cordova Academy. Board55 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator - neither he nor the Cordova Academy are notable, and the sources for the references are weak. pablo hablo. 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No Basis for Deletion Request All material in this article is verifiable and well cited. Please feel free to check the citation.  The request for deletion does not conform to the deletion guidelines. Thank You. An-Nadeem  —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
 * note An-Nadeem & anon IP 74.13.69.170 each removed AfD notice from Article once, similar actions at Cordova Academy Afd, including blanking the AfD page. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Zero citations on Google Scholar, no books in WorldCat, no entries in Google Books.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User Board55 Has not contributed anything to Wikipedia: Please, note that user Board55 has made no contributions to Wikipedia, their first and sole acts have been trying to have my articles deleted under false and unfounded allegations. User Board55 has not specified under which article of Wikipedia's deletion policy their false allegations stand.  Their first so called 'contribution' to Wikipedia was made at 19:31 on March 1, 2009, and that action was the unfounded act of wanting my articles deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by An-Nadeem (talk • contribs) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is certainly interesting, odd for a new user to be able to raise an Afd. However the issue for discussion here is whether this article fulfils the criteria of notability, and it doesn't seem to. pablo hablo. 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that an IP editors cannot complete an AFD nomination. Although unusual, it may be a case where the editor registered in order to do the nomination but otherwise edits anonymously. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hafsah02: The consideration of having this article deleted is completely unfounded. The user ``board55`` has based his allegations on absolutely no policy broken under the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. Moreover, the articles `Mohamad Jebara`and `Cordova Academy` are general articles that promote no hate, discrimination, or any other controversial issue for that matter. Thus, there would be no need to have them removed. Due to these reasons, I feel the request of deletion should be disregarded based on the fact that there is no proof or reason to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

User Board55 has no basis for requesting this article to be deleted, rather he has failed to concur with the general policies of the Wikipedia Encyclopaedia which is to “be civil and neutral and to respect all points of views”. All information on this article and all others relating to it are factual and verifiable. We hope all those who oppose these articles will bring proof and do so with consideration and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * More brand new users jumping into deletion discussions! The "policy" in question is notability supported by independent, reliable sources. pablo hablo. 17:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please visit www.cordovaacademy.com. His books and publications are also clearly mentioned in the article. Please be more clear as to the specific proof you (the judge) are looking for. As a member of the Ottawa community I can attest to all of Imam Mohamad Jebara's contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's no reliable sources covering this person in depth. Fails to meet WP:NOTABILITY. -- Whpq (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The notability issue you have brought up is not valid for the reasons that Imaam Mohamad Jebara is well known to the community, he has taught a great number of people, he is being nominated for the Order of Ontario award, he has given lectures in so many schools in Ottawa, he has been in the newspaper several times. I can go on and on with this. Additionally, the `lack of reliable sources` you mentioned is also unfounded for the reason that the articles are fully referenced. If there is something written in them that is untrue, then you must provide proof. If not, then please be respectful and do not make claims of `notability`.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hafsah02 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the guideline on reliable sources. Most of the references provided are not reliable sources.  In particular, all the point to the Cordova Academy are not independent of the subject.  The Metro News article is simply a single quote from the subject.  This leaves only a couple of articles in a community Muslim paper.  That's very narrow coverage.  Taking all of these references in their totality, they do not meet the threshold of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete (ec x 2) per Whpq, Eric Yurken & pablo, I don't see the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Take for example the Metro News source, it's a tangential quote from the subject.  In order to support notability this would have to be a story about Mohamad Jebara, it is not, it is about World Religion Day.  Two sentences at the bottom of the piece mentioning Jebara in a local give-away commuter paper just don't come close to the extensive coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that is required to meet WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the article creator could produce some independent sources, I would probably support its survival. As it stands, it's interesting but non-notable because of the lack of independent sources. Peridon (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Do Not Delete  - The subject of this article has made historical contributions to Classical fields relating to the Elocution and Grammar of the Classical Arabic language. You may have missed the point of the Metro Newspaper, the subject of my article was present at the event representing the Muslim faith; the official delegate of the Muslim faith from the cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, during the word religion day celebrations.  Also, please see the citations to the Muslimlink Newspaper, a Muslim newspaper distributed in major cities in Ontario and Quebec.  I would like to know, why these articles are being attached so vigorously?  There are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that are bare of citations, and people with no notability still up with no objection.  Why is it that when a user (User Board55) who contributed nothing to wikipedia aside from trying to get my articles deleted, and their first supporter is a user who accuses themselves of vandalism, make false allegations, their allegations are taken seriously?  I think this is truly a sad waste of time.  Instead of improving my articles and getting them to a standard you 'deem' acceptable, you are wasting time slandering the person of a very notable member of the Ottawa community, without knowing anything about him.  Thank you for your understanding -- An-Nadeem(UTC)
 * Comment You should read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, there's a lot out there that is not good enough and actually should be deleted. If you have seen articles like that, please bring them to AfD. In the meantime, their existence cannot be used to justify maintaining other articles with equal lack of notability. --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Question Jebara is supposed to have been born in 1981 and in 1994, presumably at the age of 13, founded Cordova Academy. That, frankly, seems rather improbable to me. Any comments on this anybody? --Crusio (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx for his detailed biography.

Dear moderator, it is for reasons like these that Imam Jebara has gained standing at such a young age.

Additionally, I was looking up the Q and A’s on the issue of reliability, and I quote one of the moderators, “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliable_source.3F

The source in question, namely the Muslimlink Newspaper, is neither very politicized, nor does the source not mention enough detail about the subject’s biography, nor is it self published.

please see: http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07dec.pdf page 26 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/08jun.pdf pg. 2 And Also http://www.muslimlink.ca/downloads/07oct.pdf pg. 15

The Muslimlink is a widely known newspaper in the Province of Ontario not affiliated with any group or people. The content of this article has been mainstream news and events both locally and internationally.

As the policy states “Significant coverage" means that sources addresses the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.

All of the articles mentioned in the Muslimlink meet these criteria. What then, dear moderator, is the problem? In addition, all of his books contain his biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Academy was not fully established in 1994. Rather it was FOUNDED in 1994. There are students (many of them) who have studied with him during this time. Please see his website: http://cordovaacademy.com/biography_imam_mohamad_jebara_arabic_tajwid.aspx, and you will find that it is written:

''' While at their home, the family inquired about Mohamad's religious education. Impressed by his knowledge at such a youthful age, they asked him to begin teaching them and their extended family and friends. Soon, Mohamad, just twelve years old, would be teaching many in his neighborhood, he had a class of 60 ladies, with their children. They had weekly classes crammed in a small townhouse. This was the dawn of Mohamad's teaching career.'''--Hafsah02 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 *  Comment Delete Muslimlink is "not affiliated with any group or people"? Come on... I quote: "The Muslim Link’s aims to bring Canadian Muslims together under the banner of Islam and to open a dialogue with non-Muslims.". If that isn't affiliation with a 'group or people' then I don't know what the word means. User Board 55 is quite entitled to nominate for AfD - as are you. If you consider any article is not suitable for Wikipedia, bring it here and we'll look at it too. We'll discuss it, analyse it, research it, and then reach a consensus. Not following any holy writ, not following slavishly any carved in stone commandments, but rather assessing each case individually. Some are total junk. Some are more border-line, and their fate depends on our opinions. Others are poor quality but capable of improvement and may be kept for this. Still others are decidedly not candidates for deletion and they get speedily kept. I notice that only one of the supporters of this article has edited outside this topic, and that one has spent much effort on this article and the Cordova Academy one, with little other except related subjects. Possibly inserting links - I haven't checked. This is no reason to disregard their views, but does tend to make criticism of Board55 look like pot and kettle. Above, I said I might be inclined to support if reliable outside sources were forthcoming. So far they haven't been. I can understand this, as I can't find any either - and believe me, I do try. The histrionics of the support side haven't done much for me, either. I prefer facts - supported facts - to "you can't do this!" and "he is notable, we say he is!" statements. Peridon (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

“Muslim Link invites MUSLIMS and NON-MUSLIMS to send in their contributions on issues which affect the Muslim Community AS WELL AS the GREATER CANADIAN COMMUNITY.”

“Muslim Link is NOT affiliated with any particular group or sect. Muslim Link DOES NOT directly or indirectly favour any organizations or groups.”

We’ve brought the facts. The issue at stake here was that of notability, whether there were any sources that MEET the reliability standards.

Your policy states that Materials from news organizations are welcome, and as the moderator stated “Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)”

I also noted that the subject’s biography is mentioned in his books, those are all available in hard copy text. You are more than welcome to purchase them for fact checking.

Kindly explain how this case is different. Is the problem that Muslimlink is a Muslim MADE newspaper? Is that the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. pablo hablo. 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete none of the "keep" !votes seems to be able to provide compelling evidence of notability. If they, who seem to have detailed knowledeg of the subject, cannot do this, that probably means there is none. And I agree with Peridon, the yelling and implicit accusations of anti-Muslim bias aren't very helpful either. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What accusations?

You have a policy. Our article meets those guidelines, yet you say that this case is different, and you still have not explained how so? I really am dumbfounded at the allegations here.

What does it mean to have compelling evidence? We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "We're really trying our best to bring forth online material that meet these guidelines."
 * I know that this is difficult, I too tried - and failed - to bring forth any online material that attests to the notability of Mohamad Jebara. What he writes on his own website is not independent. Biographies of him in books that he has written are not independent. That leaves the "Muslim Link" newsletter: I have found no information on its circulation or its editorial standards. pablo hablo. 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please contact them. Editor-in-Chief chief@muslimlink.ca. It is a well known Newspaper in Ontario and Quebec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Please provide links to reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy Don't put them here, put them in the article. pablo hablo. 11:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We brought our proof, and as per your policy we expect you too, to prove that this Newpaper is not legitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Sorry, I don't want to bite a newby, but you have NOT shown any proof. An email to the editor-in-chief of a journal will not do anything to establish its notability. What is he going to say? "No, my journal is completely forgettable"? Of course not, even if it is, he'll maintain that his journal is important. And an email that I or anyone else gets, is not something I can put in an article as a reference. Not every newspaper is automatically a reliable source. If you have something from one of Canada's major newspapers, that would be great. If all you have is Muslim Link, then you will have to show first that this journal is notable and independent, before you can use it as an independent verifiable source. It is not up to anybody here to show that Muslim Link is not notable, it is up to you to show that it is. --Crusio (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally newspapers and newswires are reliable sources on almost all subjects; it almost goes without asking. Most of what gets debated here are either very politicized sources where there's a question on citing them as fact or opinion, primary sources when there's a question of excessive detail, or self-published sources where there's a question on whether the author is an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs)
 * Note - Please do not add the signatures of another user onto your posts. I've stricken the signature. -- Whpq (talk) 12:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The quotation above is taken from an answer to a question here, and does nothing to indicate that Muslim Link is a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy pablo hablo. 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I quoted it above if you remember. I'd just like to understand how the paper in question also proves that it is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the moderator was refering to general guidelines —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muslimah77 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed my contribution to wikipedia since you people seem to be so vigorously against my articles, I have removed their entire content. Please, use your time to contribute to the betterment of this world instead of wasting your time indulging in and slandering something you have no knowledge about. I am truly sorry that wikipedia is like this, I actually though it had some academic weight to it.  I have lost all respect for its so called credibility. A person who contributed nothing to it sparked all this, due to some envy they may harbor for this great institution and its honorable founder. Dear Moderator, please delete all my contributions to Wikipedia immediately and let everyone get on with their lives. an-Nadeem  —Preceding undated comment added 17:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Comment I would like to stress that I have Islamic friends, and have worked for years with Islamic people. As to 'slandering' and 'envy' - we are not slandering or libelling. We are trying to establish a true picture from independent sources. I have more than once added references to an article in order to save it. I can't do that here because I can't find anything that meets my definition of reliable, or Wikipedia's definition either. If you could produce the references, ones that are considered independent and reliable (no blogs, myspaces, and such, and no self-published stuff with a few rare exceptions), we'd look at them. And a consensus would be reached. We cannot just accept your statement that the subject is well-known. Maybe to you, he is. He isn't to us. And we have looked. As to 'envy', I find nothing there to envy and certainly don't. I come from a faith that does not regard any books as 'holy'. On the other hand, I do know that memorising the Islamic holy book is regarded in Islam as an achievement. It is not all that rare an achievement, I believe, and by itself not notable enough for an article. It is also difficult to establish by independent means. I am sorry you are deciding to withdraw your article. I would rather it stayed - subject to verifiable references. When you can produce these, bring it back for a second try. Peridon (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I second Peridon's statement, well said! --Crusio (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2009 (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.