Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Naik (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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, even discounting problematic "votes". That goes for the rewrite and cleanup tags, too, however - those stay. --Coredesat 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Naik

edit
Zakir Naik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prodded by User:72.75.93.131. I think it deserves an AFD. PROD Reason: This article is being used as a soapbox for the views of the subject. Most of the "citations" are links to the subject's website, or their critics, in an attempt to continue debating their agenda. This article has become a magnet for both fans and critics of the subject in revert edit wars. There is no credible, third-party verification of subject's notability ... just references to their website and comments about them on other websites. See also: Ali Sina..

Also: These "articles" are only excuses to have external links to the subjects' wesbsites, some of which (a) point to stale sites ("bandwidth exceeded"), (b) have "sessionid" fields, so they just go to a default page, or (c) force a streaming video download (in Urdu, with English subtitles, no less!) None of the three meet WP:BIO, IMHO, and the articles should be salted after deletion.

Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zakir Naik. Neutral. utcursch | talk 12:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, this article is more of a battleground. Moreover the "His Views" part is no where according to Wikipedia standards, citations are not verifiable, also most of the article is quoted out of context proving a certain POV which is not neutral, good or bad depends upon who you ask, but atleast not neutral. Akeeq 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral right now. Is there any substantial coverage by reliable third-party sources on this person? I could find none on first review. If no such sources are provided, delete. Sandstein 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources found by Mereda indicate notability. Still needs WP:NOR/WP:RS cleanup, of course. Sandstein 20:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Article is very well written leading me to believe that he might be notable. But all the references and external links are from blogs, youtube and secondary sites. Google News just gives me two hits, [4]. If anyone can provide references from newspapers or scholarly publications, I'll change my vote to Keep. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 20:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the three news sources I cited above are in line with WP:RS. What do others think? --Mereda 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It depends which version you read ... it flip-flops every few hours because of the revert war ... some versions are obviously written by an English as a second language editor. —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with a complete re-write and re-format. he is notable enough, but the "article" is just a war zone right now. I can't think of any wikipedia policy that hasn't been ignored in it! --khello 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral-link to outcome on Ali Sina Very similar to Ali Sina above except of the opposite political bent. I would suggest to the admin that the two be considered together since there is clearly strong factions trying to afd and edit each other out of existance in wikispace. This would cancel a large number of teh votes since they are based on politcal bias. This one also needs cleanup tags. These type of articles are a real problem. I think they need more of a heavy handed and quick admin with superpowers to bring them to the quality of an encyclopedia. Both could be dramatically shortened and perhaps protected.--Nick Y. 02:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That protection wouldnt do anything. These controversial topics are forever undergoing revert wars. Its ridiculous to give vandalism powers to anyone new who comes to Wikipedia. Just one example is Mak82kyd, who started to vandalize both of these articles (I will say that because of him, these articles were nominated for deletion, because he reverted the Deletion requester's good edits on Zakir Naik so much so that he nominated them for Deletion - this is the truth behind these two Deletion requests). Mak82hyd also voted twice for the deletion of Ali Sina - his writing style is similiar and his IP is similiar to what he has used before. At one point, he proceeded to delete huge amounts of information on Ali Sina while saying he didnt know he had deleted stuff. Currently, Wikipedia has no policies at all for dealing with vandals who jump into Wikipedia and start destroying articles with their own agendas. There is no mechanism to protect such articles from editors who wont stop taking part in revert wars. The 3RR rule does little. This is equivalent to allowing someone to terrorize Wikipedia. Its stupid to give such powers to vandals. There's a real need for a new kind of protection.--Matt57 03:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. There are, however, mechanisms to get vandals and even counterproductive editors banned for longer periods of time but they take a while. The reason they take so long is to be fair, however it is clear to me that certain spaces in wikipedia need a stronger sheriff that is less concerned with fairness and more concerned with order. Editors would need to tread lightly in these designated areas. I think it may be more productive to bring these articles to the arbiration commitee than to afd, even though it may be a burdensome process. These afds are likely to result in nothing.--Nick Y. 18:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naik says that he does not know Osama and cannot judge his actions. However, Naik adds that if Osama is "terrorizing the terrorist, America", then he supports Osama bin Laden. [2]

The introductory screen for the video linked to the citation for that quote has the text http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakir_Naik at the bottom of the screen (circled in red) ... does anyone else see that as a WP:COI problem? I mean, isn't the subject advertising that they have a Wikipedia article in order to gain verisimilitude (if not notability and/or notoriety)? —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
... and when did a long-winded video soundbyte of the subject pontificating that's been posted on YouTube or Google Video become a credible 3rd part source? (Besides which, not everyone has a high-speed connection to be able to view them ... see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided if you are unclear on the concept.) —72.75.93.131 (talk · contribs) 04:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep query motive of nomminator: series of cut'n'paste afds with little specificity (is used as soapbox? which guideline says that makes for afd? if anything it's grounds for lock article). even if this is not some sort of pov campaign, this pro-forma approach to afd noms doesn't deserve to be taken seriously  ⇒ bsnowball  13:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^ DUPLICATE VOTE: This is yet another duplicate vote by user Mak82hyd. I assume the administrators will discard votes coming from new anonymous IP's for this vote, except for user:72.75.93.131 which is a known IP as that user uses that IP for all his edits including his initial nomination for deletion of this article. --Matt57 15:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would question though what the heck this nonsense edit by user:72.75.93.131 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ibn_Warraq&diff=91182779&oldid=90180972 actually means. I'm very suspicious of anything user:72.75.93.131 says now. Check their talk page history. 00:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we either take all (even obscure) religious scholars or none, if our credibility is attacked everywhere we should not expose us to attack about our neutrality Alf photoman 20:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously Strong Keep, No, I mean it, I love this guy. Geologically speaking he's about as relevant to planet earth as my belly button fluff but I leave my idealogy at the door when I log-on so he feels notable and notability is simply a feeling with guidelines. I'd also like to say that it would be amazing to see his MP3 Playlists; he must go down like a ton of bricks at parties, boom, boom. (revised as someone mentioned bacon and wifeswapping) Ttiotsw 21:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If an article is being used as a soapbox it should be fixed and protected from abuse, rather than deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of Pakistanies are real fan of him, inside Pakistan and outside it. Notable enough for me. As oppose to Ali Sina he exist and we know him as a real person. He speaks live many time and meet people. Not some imaginary person with imaginary name like Ali Sina. --- ALM 17:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - not again. There was resounding consensus from previous AFD, Dr Naik is very notable and his biography an important addition to wiki. Wikipidian 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I dont understand how stupid Wikipedia can be, letting someone nominate this article for the 2nd time when just 20 days ago, it had been nominated and the result was a definite keep: "The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)" . This just shows there's something wrong with the policies here. Requesting a needless AFD is disruptive. What now, do you all want me to nominate this for a 3rd time after 20 days now, huh? What do you think, everyone?? Lets do another nomination and keep doing this every 20 days - right? What should have been done is the AFD should have been removed and the nominator being WARNED for disrupting Wikipedia. Thats the policy that should be here. Instead we are here, discussing it again like people with short term memory loss. What is this, a display of our egos? Our power to nominate something for Deletion and then voting (or opinions) for this as well? Thats what it is. Wikipedia's policies regarding this are immature and undeveloped and its sad that no one can see this. If the policies are wrong and no one can see that, then there's something very wrong in Wikipedia and not with just this but some other things as well.--Matt57 13:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; Yes, he is quiet famous scholar, he talks of universal brotherhood, he is peace loving, he deserves to be here.Will it be nice if a well known scholar in this present world and Wikipedia does not have his page ?

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zakir_Naik_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138709257"