Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faith Freedom International (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 October 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom International

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

Website does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB. The most significant coverage it's received is from a WorldNetDaily article, a highly partisan source, and even that is arguably trivial since it only summarizes some content from the website. The other sources in the article are either passing mentions, indexes of website rankings, lists of banned websites, or merely self-references. A request for additional reliable sources covering the website has been in the article since 2007. Oore (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB The website does not satisfy the criteria given in the guidelines --NotedGrant Talk 21:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, keep and figure out what wiki troll keeps getting pissed off by this wikipedia entry and nominating it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.210.123 (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With 21 references and dozens of crosslinks it's actually hard to take this nomination seriously. Doc Tropics 23:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's even more difficult to take this comment seriously when all it does count the number of references without taking into account what those references actually are. For example, the book references are misleading at best, as the website is mentioned in footnotes at the end of the two books cited. The only arguably substantial coverage this organization has received is contained entirely in one WorldNetDaily article. Oore (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The nominator of this Afd says that the article "does not seem to satisfy WP:WEB." But WP:WEB also says these guidelines are best treated with "common sense and occasional exceptions may apply." Why should this article be an exception? On one hand it certainly has the markings of a notable website- healthy amount of traffic and 8 Google sitelinks (and WP:WEB does say sitelinks are evidence of credibility and site importance). On the other hand, there does seem to be a dearth of google hits one would expect from a site which has so much traffic. So what gives? Simply this: while it may not have much notability among non-Muslims in the West(aside from some hard-core Neo-cons or Zionists), it is extremely notable among a sizable number of Muslims with Internet access. Sure, there are plenty of websites out there that Muslims loathe, but faithfreedom.org is the one website Muslims who are active online despise more than any other. It's despised so much that it has received a "shunning" of sorts. See this page which lists 6 "anti-Muslim" websites and then says there's one more which they won't mention by name: "The most anti-Islamic site will die if it faces a frozen counter..." This site quotes the page above and then the last poster mentions faithfreedom by name. There are a few Muslim websites who do mention Ali Sina by name- and spend a lot of bandwidth on rebuttals to his essays such as this one which calls him the Dajjal(Muslim Antichrist), but most avoid links to faithfreedom.org. So we should delete this article, be part of the shunning and help the "freeze the counter" campaign? The pieces to this puzzle are all there, although it is much harder establishing this website's notability (or notoriety if you will): common sense dictates that this website is notable. VictorianMutant (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:WEB states about Google site links was only recently added and by a banned editor at that. I don't really think it's a strong indicator for inclusion. The other sites you've mentioned here are forum threads and minor polemic websites, none of which are notable in themselves or have anything to do with the criteria at WP:WEB. That a website has been discussed in some circles or groups of people does not make the website notable. If we were to use criteria as you've laid out, the scope and amount of websites able to be included on Wikipedia would be significantly expanded, so I doubt this merits an "occasional exception." Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oore, why are you changing the rules here to get this article deleted? And why are you deleting content from the article, to make it look worse than it was?? and why cannot you just make your point, and let others comment on it, without discussing their arguments over and over again?

Actually, I did not want to get involved in this discussion. However, Oore's methods to get this article deleted draw me to the Keep-side of the discussion.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my edit summaries and talk page post more than sufficiently answer this question. Did you bother to look? Oore (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. You deleted the complete debates-section, as well as the section concerning the questionable political views of the webmaster. Thus, we are deprived of the knowledge, that the site contains debates with prominent people like Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, Edip Yuksel and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. How could people have a fair judgement to this article if you delete complete sections of it?Jeff5102 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair judgment of the content does not entail assessment of material that is contrary to policies. Oore (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources are given to establish notability by WP:GNG. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...what? That's the whole issue here, and it would be helpful if you could point out those sources. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." Simply put, there has been no significant coverage of the website by independent reliable sources. Oore (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2010 (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.