Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Daniel


 * 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. Being mentioned in multiple places is not enough to ensure that someone meets the notability criteria for Wikipedia. The research done persuades me that there is nothing at this time to indicate notability. Also, the fact that several editors indicated that they had found multiple references to his notability but only provided one does not help. something lame from CBW 11:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mohammed Daniel

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lack of notability. The subject was only mentioned in one independent source, al-Watan. Linked-in, youtube and Cardoba Inst. hardly constitute reliable sources. Supertouch (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you checked out the Arabic script name: "محمد دانيال"? I cannot read the results, but there are plenty of pages in a search. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just Googled him in Arabic as you suggested (here are the results: ). A link-by-link translation: the first is to someone with the same name at Friendster, the second to the story of MD's religious conversion, the third is to another person with the same name at Facebook, the first video link to emanway.com is simply video footage of his conversion story, the second video is to youtube dealing with a person named Muhammad accepting Christianity, the next is to the Myspace page of a musician named Muhammad Daniel Farees, after that is a link to yet another recording of MD's conversion story, following bb another link to the Muhammad who became a Chrstian and the remaining links are about the Prophet Daniel. In summary, in Arabic, only three links are about MD's religious conversion which it seems safe to assume are all links to the same lecture—the first works fine, the second is a "dead link" as we say at WP and the third requires registration so I couldn't view it.--Supertouch (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it does sound as if this topic lacks notability! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. As non-notable.  I've been one of the main contributors to this article (#2 in edits, and the nom here is #3), editing it since November 1 in an effort to clean it up from what originally was a great deal of puffery and reflect whatever notability the subject has.  Unfortunately, I agree with the other editors who have opined above that the subject is simply not notable.  BTW, if/when the page is deleted, someone might make sure to delete as well all the lists of notable people that the subject was added to.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. I fully agree with Dlohcierekim when he says ” clearly asserts significance, a lower standard than notability. has references” I have done a quick search on MD using the titles that are common to his name such as Shaikh/Shaykh/Ustadh/Imam and have found no less than 10 credible secondary sources from reputable organisations/Journals. Just two examples are http://www.asmasociety.org/emails/mlt/20100129_jan.html#daniel talking about his invitation to the World Economic Forum as a religious leader and an Arabic Newspaper (translated) interview http://www2.alwatan.com.kw/Default.aspx?MgDid=667319&pageId=163 I think we need to try and give advice on how to improve the notability for inclusion on wiki, as he is clearly notable in my opinion and a big effort has been made to improve the NPOV issues previously raised. BintAmeen (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * — BintAmeen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I second my previous delete as BintAmeen has resolved nothing her above quote. In fact, the desperation by which she is trying to prove notability is in fact confirming the exact opposite.--Supertouch (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Interviews don't count towards notability at all. Nor, for example, do a LinkedIn reference and a Youtube reference -- both of which should be removed, as should the text they "evidence".  I don't see RS coverage of the subject at a level that meets Wiki notability standards.  Furthermore, BintAmeen is an SPA with a total of 10 edits, and AFANOF is an SPA of the same ilk, with only 8 edits before this AfD.  Finally, Dlohcierekim only spoke up suggesting that in his/her opinion it met the lower criteria it had to meet to survive a speedy -- but did not say he/she thought it met the notbility criteria needed to survive an AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Many more references have been added to the article and yet more will be added. The challenge is that most of MD's work is reported in published press and not on websites as the region he resides in are not too internet friendly yet.AFANOF  —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC).
 * — AFANOF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. Lots of sources, but no apparent notability. That's because the sources are either unreliable or do not appear, taken together, to constitute significant coverage. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment--At this point, after 13 days, all editors other than the SPAs suggest delete (Supertouch, Bartlett, Mkativerata, and I). I would suggest a snow delete.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]"
 * Comment I think that lately a big effort has been made to conform to the notability guidelines as can be seen by the many references that are now provided on the main article. The unverifiable information such as mention of Cordoba Initiative has been taken out and replaced by information with sources.  The sources that are not wiki complaint such as Linked In have been removed. I would also like to add that being fluent in Arabic, I have also done a search for Mohammed Daniel with his various titles as mentioned by editor BintAmeen and found numerous links in Arabic that cover the subject.  One such example is by the Qatari newspaper Al Sharq that covers his ideas extensively and can be found at: http://www.al-sharq.com/articles/more.php?id=165786 Not to mention a search in English brings up dozens of results related to the subject.  I feel that a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist has not yet been made as it is clear there is still much that can be said.  I don't see how the sources are unreliable as they meet the criteria set out by Wiki which say:

I also think that some of the editors need to act in good-faith and not bite the wiki newbies by talking about their personal edits and would recommend that everyone remain civil. Thank you and continue the discussion.AFANOF (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm uncomfortable offering more than a comment as I don't feel qualified enough in this subject area to find and judge sources. I do find this discussion acrimonious rather than simply and civilly helping editors understand why a source or subject does or doesn't meet our current guidelines. If a subject truly isn't notable then that should be obvious to all, and things change, they may be notable soon enough, sometimes a media article or two is the only difference. AFANOF, if you are pretty familiar with the subject, I ask you to consider a few options. If you're pretty sure there are multiple reliable sources independent of the subject and they can be easily found then all that needs to happen is finding them. They don't have to be woven into the article immediately but we do have to know they exist. If you're not sure they exist or can easily be found then it may make sense to wp:userfy or wp:incubate the article off "article mainspace" until it's been cleaned up and sourcing added. This can be done instead of continuing this discussion here or fi the article needs to be deleted it can be userfied instead. Any thoughts? -- Banj e  b oi   16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue w/it being userfied. I'm one of the editors who for months tried to improve the article, having made the most edits, all towards improvement.  Supertouch has also spent time trying to improve it.  After personal effort, and giving it months for others to improve it as well, it doesn't have any notability under wiki standards, however.  As far as my esteemed colleague's comment above as to it "should be obvious to all", things don't always work that way when SPAs are involved.  Here, all voters other than the SPAs are in agreement that it lacks in notabiity.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not an SPA and usually I can offer more than an instinctual opinion. I neither agree it's notable or not, I simply can't tell and have to rely on those well versed in this subject area. If there is no way this person is likely to be notable then userfying won't make any difference as the article will never see the light of day. If they are borderline then other options may make sense. If they already meet sourcing and notability guidelines then we want the article but we need assurance that we want it. So encouraging those who are showing a vested interest in improving the article up to standards would seem to make sense. Worse comes to worse this article is lost but we keep those editors who go on to do good work in others areas. -- Banj e  b oi   18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the non-SPA editor in this discussion most versed in Islamic scholarship is Supertouch, who has improved a great number of hadith articles. I've enough knowledge to believe N has not been evidenced, but his review of Arab sources suggests that N does not appear there either.  It may well be that it will never be N.  But I can't crystal ball that.  If I can discern notability I'm always happy to vote for keeping an article, and if I can improve one to save it, I'm happy to do so, and have done so many times.  This article just hasn't had the substance, despite my effort's and Supertouch's.  I've even held off myself removing some of the questionable links, such as linkedin, preferring to point out that they do not belong and letting others do so.  I've done what I can for this article, without acrimony, but don't think that the SPAs opinions under the circumstances ... which are the only ones claiming notability (and have even added the subject to the list of notable Isamic scholars) ... are accurate or should be given deference given that they are SPAs.  I'm happy for the SPAs to do good work in other ares, though to date they seem to have made very few such other edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. let's see if they have an opinion on userfying or anything else pertaining to finding sources. if not the article will likely be deleted and they can later ask for userfication if so desired. thank you for your thoughtful reply which answered my concerns minus the further input from AFANOF who I hope will see the efforts here as a bit harsh but well-meaning at the end of the day. -- Banj e  b oi   19:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AFANOF, I read your above comment and have the following comment. I am fluent in Arabic as well and have translated the results of Google search for MD above and the only ones mentioning the MD that we are concerned with here (believe it or not there are others with this name) are all links to video of his conversion story so your comment that you have found other sources via web searches is less than believable—adding the word shaykh to MD's name is simply not going to result in more search results. The article in al-Sharq does not at all cover his views extensively, it simply mentions his views among others about a particular conference he was participating in the length of which is perhaps 20 lines of text—hardly extensive. Perhaps you could have succeeded here with your misleading statements were it not for the presence of another Arabic speaker. (PS—I re-Googled MD a few minutes ago and got the same results as translated above.)--Supertouch (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Supertouch, Interesting that you mention 'misleading' as I am not the one misleading anyone. I have already dispelled the accuracy of your search previously by providing the reference you are referring to (SHARQ) as well as adding new Arabic sources to the main article.  I sincerely doubt your good-faith effort to find sources in Arabic or your ability to read Arabic.  If you had done a proper search you would have found those sources as they are dated from 2009/2008 so it seems that you either have a bias (as can been seen by your edits to articles on Ibn Taymiyah/Albani) or need to be more meticulous in future.  To further stress my point, I have just done a google search for MD in Arabic and have found half a dozen more links mentioning him; two that appear in verifiable bona fide Kuwaiti newspapers today.  Here is the link to one today http://www.alraimedia.com/Alrai/Article.aspx?id=190500AFANOF (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you a sock-puppet for User:Rob lockett? And if so are you still bitter about me discovering your copy—paste violations in the two article you mentioned above? The article you mentioned in your above post simply mentions MD's name once that is it. I just searched using the above Google news search as opposed to the Google homepage as I did previously, and yes more articles came up, however, the first article simply mentioned his name, this is notability? Perhaps if I get time I will look through the remaining articles. As for doubting my fluency in Arabic, grow up kid and learn some respect.--Supertouch (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest to Super that he ignore AFANOF's baiting. If there may be a sock at work here (AFANOF and/or the other SPA--I've wondered the same myself, given their edits), a sock check may be in order.  Otherwise, I would suggest not letting AFANOF's language get your goat.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Summing up what I have seen in this discussion I have found the following:

Supertouch nominated this article for AFD based on "The subject was only mentioned in one independent source, al-Watan. Linked-in, youtube and Cardoba Inst. hardly constitute reliable sources" However we find numerous other sources to the subject now as extensive improvement has been made to the article.

Secondly, it is obvious to any prudent person that the only 'misleading and less then believable statements' mentioned in this discussion are those of Supertouch, who instead of acknowledging their weakness in the Arabic language or lack of effort in web searching the subject, tries to circumvent the discussion by claiming that AFANOF is deceiving others (SOCKPUPPET), when it is quite apparent where the deception emanates. It has been comprehensively proven that your web searches lack substance and as for your Arabic skills, I would recommend that wikipedia have more stringent guidelines or criteria before awarding language proficiency titles to editors.

Epeefleche, I understand your sentiments towards Supertouch and your sycophantic tendencies towards him; one need only look at your talk pages and side edits to see the strong bonding you have done. But, please don't make sweeping statements such as "At this point, after 13 days, all editors other than the SPAs suggest delete (Supertouch, Bartlett, Mkativerata, and I)" when this is clearly not true.

AFANOF if you are really concerned about this article then just add more sources to it. We could all do with learning more respect, but we respect those whom respect themselves.

I think we need to leave out any emotions and bias that we may have and look at the article impartially, so that we can end the discussion soon.91.140.181.159 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * — 91.140.181.159 (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this topic.


 * Is it just me, or is anyone else troubled by this Kuwaiti SPA arriving out of nowhere to make this comment?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * keep I had better make a definite votes, based on the newspaper references I would have to say that the notability criteria is established. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The truth always troubles one. Wow, you know how to do a IP address check.  Let us remain focused on the subject please.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.181.159 (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2010 (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.