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. We've got a bit of a mess here, no doubt. Four relists, a reverted close, changes to the article while discussion was underway that do not seem to have been considered, but in the end very little back-and-forth between the participants over all that time. I see no option but to close this as a keeper. Consider a "weak keep" if that makes you feel better about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Manikfan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently non-notable individual who devised a lunar calendar. Sources to establish notability are all to the individual's page promoting use of the calendar. PROD proposed, but removed by the editor who created the article. TJRC (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Besides it being self-promotional to the point of being offensive (How big does your head have to be to label yourself a "living legend"?), the only claim which I think may give him enough notability for an article is that he designed and built Tim Severin's boat, and that is supported only sketchily. Found this source, but it doesn't say what role he had in the project aside from that he directed a "team of carpenters". Also, it seems a sketchy source, since it claims to be the official website of the Maldives royal family, yet it is based in New Zealand. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 16:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last King of the Maldives died in 1969; I think we have a slight failure of WP:RS here. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and merge to Islamic calendar. I am prepared to accept that this individual might notable, but the present article relies almost entirely on unreliable sources, leading to WP:BLP problems, and other sources in English are very thin. The material on the calendar is certainly notable, but logically belongs in Islamic calendar. -- 202.124.73.162 (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The sad aspect of wikipedia that users who dont know the person/topic, they simply say non-notable. I have cited more than two third party sources , from the hindu daily, maldieves royalfamily website etc. If we didnt get enough online source should we consider the person/topic is not relevent.

The malidivesroyal family website is not run by alimanikfan, thus we cannot consider he is self promoting himself.

He is not only lunar calender expert,but a shipbuilder, ecologist and mulitliguistic .--Vicharam (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Vicharam is the creating editor of, and primary contributor to, the article. TJRC (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The so-called "Maldives Royal Family website" appears to be an elaborate joke. It's certainly not a WP:RS. -- 202.124.72.108 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (do not merge). Non-notable individual with no independent coverage; the minimal coverage his calendar has received does not elevate it to enough significance to put in an article on a calendar that's existed for centuries and that people actually use. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, put some more templete to this article!!!. Dear poor wikipedian users, Thousands of wiki article i can list , which do not relevent than this article. some users simply judge ali manikfan is non-notable .Hidden reason behind this mentality is he is a muslim scholor. --217.165.163.202 (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he is in fact notable, please update the article to indicate that. We do not want to delete articles on notable people; but at the moment, the article does not reliably indicate notability. TJRC (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 17:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but clean up). I found another independent mention in a reliable source, the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of India: "We have great pleasure in naming the new species after Mr. Ali Manikfan of this Institute who collected the above specimen, in appreciation of the extensive collections of fishes he had made from the Laccadives." --Lambiam 19:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ali manikfan is notable person as far as india is concerned. --Apibrahimk (talk) 04:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Apibrahimk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally closed this as delete with the following comment The result was delete. The test for inclusion is the GNG that requires at least two detailed independant reliable sources. I am excluding votes that cite no policy based reasons so arguments to keep based on assertions and mentions do not cut the mustard. The bottom line is that the sourcing has been rubbished and the keep side hasn't refuted this effectively. Spartaz Humbug! 5:40 pm, 29 August 2011, Monday (16 days ago) (UTC+4) Since then, I have been asked on my talkpage permalink to consider the sources again. I don't think this was a completly open and shut close and the request is reasonable so I have undeleted the article and relisted the discussion to garner further opinion on the sourcing. In particular, further comments on the reasons why the sources are reliable and/or detailed enough would be very helpful to the closing admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain in detail why the subject of the article is notable, according to our general notability guideline. It was asserted that all references are to the website of the subject of the article, but actually the article contains several references to independent reliable sources:
- a fairly detailed article in The Indian Express;
- a source in Malayalam, which I can't read, but since it is an encyclopedia entry, it may well be detailed;
- an article in The Hindu, less detailed but more than a passing mention;
- a quite detailed article by Xavier Romero-Frias.

The Maldives Royal Family website where this latter article was found may itself not count as reliable, but the author, Xavier Romero-Frias, is a recognized authority on issues regarding the Maldives, and so this article still counts as a reliable source, according to our reliable-sources guideline. (Additionally, the same article can be found on the Maldives Culture website, perhaps also not strictly a reliable site, but a serious website whose main editor, Michael O'Shea, is also a specialist in Maldives issues and a member of the Dhivehi Observer editorial staff.) Altogether this is enough to establish notability. Several of these references link to copies of the articles on the hijracalendar.com website, but that does not make them dependent. In the meantime, I've found one more non-trivial independent reliable source:

P. K. Abdul Ghafour (November 23, 2005). "OIC Summit Urged to Adopt Unified Islamic Calendar". Arab News.

--Lambiam 19:44, 20 September 2011 (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.