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 of the debate wasno consensus reached, defaulting to keep. Tznkai 10:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof that Ali Sina is who he says he is. He might just be an a group of islamophobes with an agenda. There is no way to objectively determine who or what Ali Sina is, all we have is "his" own words and "his" hatefilled website م 11:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE I suspect that the editor who put the page up for deletion is a sockpuppet , only a few edits in Wikipedia.--CltFn 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Just that a section of people finds it offensive doesn't mean we silence the voice. It is 21st century, we are not barbarians and just that I disagree with him doesn't constitute reason enough to delete.
• Strong Delete: Very strong attack on a sixth of the world. One of my best friends is Muslim, and she even wished me a Merry Christmas, so I highly doubt Islam is a religion of hate. Sceptre^(Talk) 12:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very controversial character but he does exist in some form. With the same logic we should delete number of other articles about other religious commentators who use similar rhetoric. Article is relatively NPOV - Skysmith 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep did you even read the page, most of it is criticism of him. Needs a cleanup tag added though, and possible NPOV'ing - FrancisTyers 13:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I feel we need to focus on the importance of the Website here. We may strongly disagree with what it says, but that's not an adequate reason for deletion. Dlyons493 Talk 13:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Alexa rank >40,000, Wikipedia is the top site linking in according to Alexa. Thgere is no practical limit to the number of bigots out there, we are not obliged to cover every one. Existence and content are both verifiable, though the sources generally fall well below reliable. Of course this could just be my wishy-washy liberal side coming to the fore. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Attack page. --Pboyd04 16:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a person who runs his own webpage to attack a religion. Agree with what Just zis Guy, you know? said about every bigot having an article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 17:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting Ali Sina with your generalizations, I wonder why? Here we see the true face of Anonimous editor , not the one he presents at his request for adminship. Ali Sina is a humanist and stands for human rights and freedom of religion , freedom of thought and speech. He has taken a couragous stand against human oppresion of the vilest kind. I wonder why you omit to mention that? --CltFn 13:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . The article , most probably made by himself . Every now & then we have got a person ( may be him , may be his followers ) who wanna turn it into a Sina temple . These IDs are impossible to deal with ( see the talk page ). The article & links are mainly used to increase the search reasults when people google for it . Other than that , a person ( or group ) who's sole existance is based on a single hate site....I dont see a single reason for having this article . The article has always been a big waste of time , & if it exists ,it will remain to be that way . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Revolución (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Good or bad, this guy appears to have drawn a good deal of attention. -- Mwalcoff 01:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you tell us which good deal of attention he has drawn? google news. Szvest 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  this google news search is better. gren グレン 05:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  The External Links section of the article indicates he's made some waves. -- Mwalcoff 05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Apart from Asia Times and [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 WND] (both articles of late 2004), the rest are affiliate websites of hims. Cheers -- Szvest 05:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

• Keep-people who are voting to delete seem to dislike the person, and have fixable concerns with the article, but no reason why there shouldnt be an article on this. The external links show how notable this guy is. How pissed of you guys are proves how notable this is. Wikipedia is not censored. There is no reason why this article couldnt be improved to discuss this notable and verifiable topic in a NPOV. Masterdebater 07:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Why should every critic of Islam have a seperate article in Wikipedia ? If this is because of "his" site then it does not meet any three guidelines mentioned at WP:WEB. This site even site do not have a valid whois record. --Soft coder^Talk 09:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Not notable, being controversial and insulting is not enough to have own article. --A.Garnet 15:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 01:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This clown exists and seems to have a strong following. What better way to disabuse him of his disgusting notions than to hold his feet to the flame of public exposure? Denni ☯ 03:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'll definetely vote Keep but only if the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! The second point is that refrain from quoting him in all relegious articles as his notability is contested. He's no different than Israel Shamir (though Shamir is not a pseudonym but a real person) and the treatment should be no different! Only then I would vote Keep. Therefore, I'd appreciate to know if the Keep votes above agree about this. Cheers -- Szvest 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]
• keep Nickbee 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)nickbee[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Yuber^(talk) 07:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't know whether he's one man or half a dozen schoolgirls, because there don't seem to be any credible third-party sources either about the website or about Ali Sina. The article is a violation of WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't push that analogy too far. Deap throat was known only to woodward but he still deserved an article. Although, Ali Sina is no Felt. I think this is more of an issue of non notable... while verifiability is making sure you write the article letting users know that the only source about him is him. Not that I really need to tell you that... gren グレン 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Deepthroat was written about by journalists in reputable newspapers. Ali Sina has no credible third-party sources that have written about him, so far as I know. If he really is the only source of information about himself or the website, the article shouldn't exist, because the lack of third-party sources speaks to lack of notability as well as verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And even then deep throat was IMO questionable as a separate subject outside Watergate until his identity was known, at which point it turns out he was a notable person anyway. Or did you mean the movie? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his wikipedia account would often make comments such as "We are all Sina". Yuber^(talk) 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Could use some chopping of quotes, but I fail to see how the contents of the article are unverifiable. Further, the original move to delete seems to have been by someone with no name. I smell an intent to suppress and censor. rudra 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this guy is allowed to express his point of view even if many find them offensive, and there are plenty of anti (put you favorite religion here) hate site out there. On the other side we just can't pretend he doesn't exist and burry our head in the sand. We better have a strong NPOV entry about this guy which can balance his radical and personal views.--Khalid hassani 20:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's a published writer and is notable enough. It also seems that the article has recieved a fair amount of interest from Wikipedias readers, and it has been edited maybe around 6 or 700 times since it was created around a year ago. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be because every week he(or the people he trains for publicitizing his views on WP) add a lot of praise to him . The article is a continuous battle field b/w him/his followers & people who want to keep it NPOV (see talk page). F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable --Snakes 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable, or move to faithfreedom.org. Palmiro | Talk 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete --Khalid! 11:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (pls check my new vote below if you can find a way out of this jungle) - Excesive trolling defending the article. Trolling (played by remote control from a few online forums) for an article about a non-notable person/alien. I was thinking of voting keep, then thinking of not voting in a scandalous rfa like this one, but I believe now that this operations is clearly manipulative. -- Szvest 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Addendum - I've just noted this new addition in the article by an anon [1]. Please read it carefully! The additions is a quote from the subject's website stating that "My site is not hate-filled and this is clear to any unbiased person." This is what the article serves for! A forum for an alien, a pseudonym!!! Also it states " "With all due respect, as long as you are a Muslim you are a potential terrorist and this is the message that I want to communicate to the world." " W/o Wikipedia, the subject is everything but notable! The new additions are directed to wikipedia and not to the Washington Post! ^{Wiki me up™}

• Strong Keep. As Ali Sina says himself, his credentials are not relevant to the truthfulness of his claims. And these claims are true. And truth should be voiced. When Muslim countries will start to treat religious minorities as it should be, there could be a talk about "Islamophobia". For now, it is only the "Kafirophobia" that is strongly present. If there is an article about Islamophobia here, there should be one about Kafirophobia as well. Also, Mr. Sceptre should know that "best friends" cannot change Quran and Ahadith. And one person does not represent "one fifth" of the world. So this vote is not based at all.--Aleverde 15:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins plz see the history . Anon IPs are deleting delete votes . Thanks . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 09:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strong Keep He is a published author and the leader of the ex muslim apostate movement. If the article was not notable then why all the interest, why all the edit wars. And I wonder why a particular group of editors has been toiling incessantly to denigrate Ali Sina and his work.--CltFn 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable --Kefalonia 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC

• Keep It does not matter whether he is or is not a "real person." Fictional characters also have a place in Wikipedia. It does not also matter whether it is a pseudonym of just one or of several individuals. All that matters is that some author who calls himself Ali Sina and claims to be whatever he claims to be maintains a popular website devoted to everybody knows what despite repeated opinions that he is not notable.--Pecher 20:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding verifiability, it is still possible to include self-published information in biographies of living persons. I do not see any problems in this case if his biographical information, clearly attributed to his website, is included in the article. It is certainly not ideal, but still possible.--Pecher 20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see the article any less ignorant than the other anti-Islam articles found on Wikipedia. For example, check out Category:Books critical of Islam. --JuanMuslim ^1m 16:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ali Sina is notable enough at least for thousands of sites that mention his name and quote him. He has also been interviewed in radios. In no place he has said Ali Sina is a pseudonym. This is something Wikipedians have written about him and he has neither confirmed it nor denied it. [2]. Despite that encyclopaedias cover totally imaginary personages including mythological figures. The fact that a personage is imaginary is not reason for him not to be reported. There is more evidence that Ali Sina exists as a real person than there is for Anaxagoras, Heraclitus, Anaximander, Anaximenes and Democritus. These ancient philosophers are only mentioned by Plato and there is not even a book left from them. All it takes to dismiss their existence is to doubt Plato and yet no sane person would do such thing.

Let us face the truth. All these vilifications and belittling of Ali Sina are motivated by religious hatred. It is basically the same editors who constantly censored anything I wrote on Islam who are now claiming this Article should be deleted. This is another attempt to censorship and silencing the views contrary to Islam.

Wikipedia has articles about less notable persons than Ali Sina. There is no pandemonium about deleting them because those people do not criticize Islam. This commotion is about Islam and not about Ali Sina. It just shows the intolerance of Muslims to even acknowledge the existence of apostates and critics of Islam. Sadly these people come here with a religious agenda and not to promote knowledge and impartiality. Denying this fact, because it may offend these people is like hiding our heads in the sand and not willing to see the obvious. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:16

Firstly, mythical figures are noted as mythical. I really don't think you want us saying Ali Sina is mythical. There is also tons of literature written about Zeus — this is not true about Ali Sina. Also, it's not because he is an ex-Muslim. The Ibn Warraq article is not up for deletion because just about no one thinks he is not notable. So, we shouldn't exactly oversimplify this to being Muslims against non-Muslims. My personal opinion is that a lot of people are voting delete because this article has attracted loads of anons and unfortunately there have been calls on the FFI forums to come here and edit... well, when people come to get into edit wars on an article that is most definitely not necessarily encyclopedic then people will want to delete it. gren グレン 05:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with OceanSplash. Why else would someone delete my "Keep" comments only 18 minutes after I had posted them here on January 4th? (please see History) Anonymous 5 January, 2005 8:38 PM Eastern Time

The reason is likely because your vote won't be counted anyways. User with little or no edits votes don't really count. Although, I did not see the particular circumstances. gren グレン 05:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gren Your contribution in this page goes beyond just giving your opinion. You are responding to every “Keep” post and are being militant. This is indication of strong bias, a kind of bias that can only be inspired by religious zeal. Your views can hardly be taken as impartial in this matter. OceanSplash Jan 5, 2006 23:36

He asked a question. I answered. One would almost thing that if I felt so strongly I'd vote delete... no? Or you know, delete it myself with my special little button. ~_~ If you look at AfD policies admins don't taken into account votes of users who have incredibly few contributions or seem to have come only for an AfD. Find me any user who voted delete with so few edits and I'll tell them too. However, if you look at it, mostly users who voted "keep" have so few edits. Geez, man.  :)gren グレン 10:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Ali Sina is not nearly notable enough to be a necessary entity for this encyclopedia. However, this is wikipedia and we are not paper. We have pages for minor porn stars, really non-notable albums and I'm sure I could dig out other articles. Ali Sina is about on that level. The only thing that makes him different is that he has an internet following and that makes his article prone to edit wars. So, I'm not going to delete it... and last time I voted keep... it really causes too many problems for its worth so this time I won't taken any initiative to save it. gren グレン 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think Fayssal's Israel Shamir comparison is a good one, and we have a long and reasonably sympathetic article on Shamir. If this one needs to be cleaned up and improved, let's do so, but that is not grounds for deletion of the topic. Babajobu 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment per Fayssal ... the article is cleaned up from too much detail from his website and his opponents' sites. We should summarize both his views and his opponents w/o quoting large chunks of comments or writings from both sites! I agree, and if the article doesn't improve in a while and it is brought up for deletion again I may consider revising my vote. But for now it stays as Keep, this seems like a content dispute that has spilled over into AfD. - FrancisTyers 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article provides one person's view and there is no attempt to pass it off as fact or endorse it. Like Babajobu said, it's the same issue as Israel Shamir article. Do we silence someone because we find their views offensive or different from ours? I hope not. Aiden 20:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep while keeping my comments on my previous delete vote - My first comment before voting delete was a thought for a keep on the grounds that this article should be cleaned up and abide by the rules of Wikipedia. After the confirmation of Babajobu and Francis, I change my vote to keep with ease, somehow getting an insurance. I'll be up observing that happening and don't mind if I'd sometimes get bold applying the rules. The trolling is not acceptable there. Trolls, be aware! Cheers -- Szvest 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™}[reply]

Edits by anons and first-time editors as well as related comments are placed here

keep! - why are people worried whether he is ex-muslim or not? does his charges aginst islam become void in that case? it is not right to censor thoughts, everyone has a right to express his ideas. so keep this article and try to improve it!

Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for people to express their ideas, it is an encyclopedia--a collection of knowledge. Logophile 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both Ali Sina and Faithfreedom.org are notable. Faithfreedom was quoted in a report by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment on the murder of Theo van Gogh. -- Kwnl 0:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Rudra, I'm just not very computer-literate, I thought I did sign my comment if not my user name is (م). My intention is not to censor anyone. My objection to this racist's entry are basic. First, I don't know how popular this "guy" is, but the first time I heard about him was on wikipedia. His name was constantly thrown around by someone on the Islam discussion board. That user has since been blocked for his racist/hatefilled/islamphobic comments (Gren I think you know who I am reffering to ;). Hence, I do not want wikipedia to be used as a platform for "his" hatred. The second reason has to do with "his" identity. I know that bios are done on everone, good or evil. But no one knows who this "man" is. He could be one person, he could be an entire hate group. Wikipedia can not rely on this idiot's words for its main source. By the way Kwnl I wonder if the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment realizes that this bigot(s) main, and stated, purpose is to eliminate all muslims from off the face of the Earth.م 06:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling Ali Sina a "racist", a bigot" and whatever else without substantiation only reveals your motivation more clearly. This is not the place to debate his views, nor the place to enforce your personal opinion of them. rudra 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a bigot, but I think that it is important that bigots be exposed. 129.234.4.10 17:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
• Keep There is enough interest on this subject to be included. There is no reason why the content cannot be improved to be impartial. However, there's evidence of 'conflict of interest' by certain editors.
• Keep Ali Sina has debted with very notable Islamic scholars, and has quite a large fanbase. He has also attracted a lot of attention from many well-known Islamic representitves, including Zakir Naik. He's certainly influential enough to have his own page, no doubt about that.
• "Strong Keep" Everybody is entitled to have their own views, we might agree or disagree, but disagreement is not the basis for deletion. It is censorship.

• Red herring. The issue here is not whether this anonymous bigot has a right to say what it says, but whether this particular anonymous bigot is sufficiently important or notable to merit inclusion in a general encyclopaedia, per (for example) the guidelines on biographies of living people. Since we don't even have a name, that's kind of hard to defend in this case. Other guidelines indicate what qualifies as encyclopaedic in websites, and here, too, there is an apparent shortfall. Painting this as a freedom of speech issue is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is - or rather what it is not, namely a soapbox. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion that this person is a "bigot" does not make him any more or less notable.--Pecher 09:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just my personal opinion, but let that pass. If this was a known, credible person, or if the column were sindicated in reliable sources I'd have no problemwith it. But we don't know who "Ali Sina" is; all we know is that there is a website (which appears to me to fail WP:WEB, but that is debatable since there is some evidence of external coverage). Since "Ali Sina" is not known to be a real person, this is really covering the website (really more of a blog) not the person. I don't think either the website or the fake "Ali Sina" persona is notable. There is precious little which can be verified from reliable sources. There is, after all, no world shortage of bigots opinionated cowards (if you prefer), we don't need to cover them all just for fear of offending some islamophobes. Many of the arguments here (not yours) seem to be based on "X has no right to say this" or "we may not prevent X from saying this" - that's a diversion. This is not about the opinions or their merit, it's about the article and its subject. In my opinion this bigot is no different from all the other bigots pouring out hate speech on the Internet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• strongly delete

• Keep. Clearly a notable person.--Pecher 20:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) User's second vote[reply]

• Really? What's the notable person's name then? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to the issue of notability.--Pecher 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.