Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. John254 00:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad
Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad is not notable (by Wikipedia standards) according to WP:BIO. Agha Nader 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete. No assertion of notability, and so tagged. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)- I'd remain neutral until further evidence is given of his own notability, rather than the notability of Grand Ayatollah. As far as I can see, the most of the news articles here are either discussing the group itself or just briefly mention him. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep per The Behnam. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 09:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'd remain neutral until further evidence is given of his own notability, rather than the notability of Grand Ayatollah. As far as I can see, the most of the news articles here are either discussing the group itself or just briefly mention him. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC) 18:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, 50 Google News Archive results for "najaf fayyad". He is one of three grand ayatollahs in Iraq (the rest are almost exclusively in Iran).[1]; he is outranked only by Sistani, and appears to have an independent following. Brief Slate profile. --Dhartung | Talk 16:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep A Grand Ayatollah is generally notable. This one is a key Shia leader in Iraq. I've added a couple of sources to the article. ScottW 16:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response. But being a Grand Ayatollah does not make one notable on its own. Please refer to WP:BIO. Please relate your response to the criteria on notability. Agha Nader 16:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader
- Keep. He appears to satisfy the central criterion of WP:BIO: "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.". He has been the primary subject in features from well-established sources: (1)USA TODAY, and (2)Slate magazine. Thus, he qualifies under the primary criterion. In addition to this, he has received numerous mentions elsewhere regarding major issues in Iraq, and apparently has outstanding scholarly credentials as a Grand Ayatollah. This might be expected, considering that he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam. This nomination has done much good in encouraging expansion of the article, and I think that it should continue to be expanded. The Behnam 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I am happy to read your response. This is because you always provide an unbiased view when addressing Article for Deletion nominations. I can elaborate on this latter. I also wish to thank you for your acknowledgment of the good that has come from this nomination. You are incorrect in saying he has been the "primary subject in features from well-established sources". Has he been the "primary subject"? Or has he been mentioned in passing? I believe it is the latter. Do you have any evidence that he has been the "primary subject" of these publications? Otherwise this is just your opinion and will be regarded as such. You state, "he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam". I completely agree that the rank of Grand Ayatollah is a "notable rank in Shia Islam". It is imperatave that you, or any other editor, do not confuse this with qualifying as notable in Wikipedia. I mention this because his notability with regards to Wikipedia is in question, not his notability in Shia Islam. You state "This might be expected, considering that he managed to become a Grand Ayatollah, which is in itself a notable rank in Shia Islam". Your expectations or analysis as to why he has been mentioned in some publications is irrelevant, and thus unnecessary. Agha Nader 21:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader
-
- Again, try reading the sources I provided. The USA TODAY article is about him, and he is also heavily discussed in the Slate article. If you really need me to paste passages from these sources because you cannot see this yourself, I am able to do so, though it seems absurd. After all, if you cannot see his significance by reading the articles, I don't know why me pasting here will work any better. None of these are simply trivial mentions of him in passing; rather, they discuss him and his views specifically. The note about "expected" was simply a transition to one of the supplementary points(as scholarly discourse is an important to becoming higher rank), the point about his position in the highest rank of a major religion. In any case, the main point is that he satisfies the central criterion of WP:BIO. The Behnam 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- For your information, I have read the USA TODAY article. How is he heavily discussed? He is only mentioned as an introduction to the main point of the article. The subject that is "heavily discussed " is clearly voting in Iraqi election, not Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad. Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad was not mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Please provide sourced that have Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad as the "primary subject". It is clear to me he has been only addressed in passing. What is your definition of "heavily discussed"? As you know, the criteria for notability that you site, requires him to be the "primary subject". All the article says about Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad is that he doesn't believe in the separation of religion and state. USA TODAY says of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, "A high-ranking Shiite cleric who helped a coalition of religious parties to apparent victory in Iraq's elections eight days ago said Sunday that the new constitution must embody Islamic law. 'We will accept no compromise,' said a statement by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, one of the three top Shiite clerics who serve beneath the most senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Fayad said separation of religion and state must be 'completely rejected.'" How is the "primary subject" of the article? Please provide elaboration. Agha Nader 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- He is the primary subject because the article is about his statement. The title focuses on him and his expressed opinion, the opening paragraphs introducing the "news" focus on him. The rest of article is about reactions to his statement, and also some background information for context. The article is about al-Fayadh because it is reporting specifically about his demands regarding the constitution of Iraq. The Behnam 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this right. You think he is the primary subject of the article? And that the upcoming Iraqi election is not? Why isn't he mentioned in mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Agha Nader 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- The article's purpose was to cover his comments; hence, the title they used. The opening paragraphs. Of course it relates to the Iraq elections, but the actual news item being reported was his statement. It was the "news" part of the report. By the way, I find it "cute" that you consider each of the bulleted wire reports as separate paragraphs. They begin with "Also Sunday:", and are small recaps of other events that also occurred during that day. It is similar to a Ahmadinejad Israel comment; a few other things are usually recapped or mentioned for context, but the main idea was him and his statement. Such is the case for this article as well. Glad to help! The Behnam 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agha, whether he's mentioned in the paragraphs or not isn't even relevant. His title and the mere mention of him combine to pass WP:BIO even in just that state. His position in the article is much like the position of any famous person if the article were on a famous event. Again, the 3/4 of the article that doesn't talk about him doesn't matter, the fact is those first couple do talk about hi and aknowledge his notability.--Wizardman 06:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- The article's purpose was to cover his comments; hence, the title they used. The opening paragraphs. Of course it relates to the Iraq elections, but the actual news item being reported was his statement. It was the "news" part of the report. By the way, I find it "cute" that you consider each of the bulleted wire reports as separate paragraphs. They begin with "Also Sunday:", and are small recaps of other events that also occurred during that day. It is similar to a Ahmadinejad Israel comment; a few other things are usually recapped or mentioned for context, but the main idea was him and his statement. Such is the case for this article as well. Glad to help! The Behnam 04:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this right. You think he is the primary subject of the article? And that the upcoming Iraqi election is not? Why isn't he mentioned in mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Agha Nader 04:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- He is the primary subject because the article is about his statement. The title focuses on him and his expressed opinion, the opening paragraphs introducing the "news" focus on him. The rest of article is about reactions to his statement, and also some background information for context. The article is about al-Fayadh because it is reporting specifically about his demands regarding the constitution of Iraq. The Behnam 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- For your information, I have read the USA TODAY article. How is he heavily discussed? He is only mentioned as an introduction to the main point of the article. The subject that is "heavily discussed " is clearly voting in Iraqi election, not Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad. Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad was not mentioned in 13 of the 15 paragraphs in the USA TODAY article. He wasn't even named in 14 of the 15 paragraphs. How is he the primary subject if he isn't mentioned in the body paragraphs? Please provide sourced that have Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad as the "primary subject". It is clear to me he has been only addressed in passing. What is your definition of "heavily discussed"? As you know, the criteria for notability that you site, requires him to be the "primary subject". All the article says about Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad is that he doesn't believe in the separation of religion and state. USA TODAY says of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, "A high-ranking Shiite cleric who helped a coalition of religious parties to apparent victory in Iraq's elections eight days ago said Sunday that the new constitution must embody Islamic law. 'We will accept no compromise,' said a statement by Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad, one of the three top Shiite clerics who serve beneath the most senior religious leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Al-Fayad said separation of religion and state must be 'completely rejected.'" How is the "primary subject" of the article? Please provide elaboration. Agha Nader 00:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I appreciate that someone finally accepts that 3/4 of the article doesn't mention him. But I must disagree that "the fact is those first couple do talk about him and acknowledge his notability". WP:BIO says that the person must be the primary subject of media attention. I have read through the USA TODAY article, and each time I come to the same conclusion: he is used as an introduction to the Iraqi election. Do you agree that someone has to be the primary subject of media attention? Agha Nader 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. This is taken directly from WP:BIO. Even if he is not the primary subject in the USA Today article oes not mean he should be deleted.--Wizardman 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Besides, his comments(hence, him) are the primary reason for the news report. Just because Agha Nader is distracted by the recapping and contextualizing common to news reports doesn't mean that al-Fayadh is not the primary subject. It seems Agha has a tendency to ignore statements from opposing viewpoints unless he thinks that he can misconstrue them to fit his point. At this point, it might be best for all parties to simply ignore his continuing obstructionist approach, and wait for this Afd to close. It does not make sense that we all have to repeat arguments just because Agha Nader chooses not to acknowledge evidence. I hope Agha Nader learns how to act more appropriately on Wikipedia from these experiences. The Behnam 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I will concede this point. Agha Nader 07:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Besides, his comments(hence, him) are the primary reason for the news report. Just because Agha Nader is distracted by the recapping and contextualizing common to news reports doesn't mean that al-Fayadh is not the primary subject. It seems Agha has a tendency to ignore statements from opposing viewpoints unless he thinks that he can misconstrue them to fit his point. At this point, it might be best for all parties to simply ignore his continuing obstructionist approach, and wait for this Afd to close. It does not make sense that we all have to repeat arguments just because Agha Nader chooses not to acknowledge evidence. I hope Agha Nader learns how to act more appropriately on Wikipedia from these experiences. The Behnam 23:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted. This is taken directly from WP:BIO. Even if he is not the primary subject in the USA Today article oes not mean he should be deleted.--Wizardman 22:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate that someone finally accepts that 3/4 of the article doesn't mention him. But I must disagree that "the fact is those first couple do talk about him and acknowledge his notability". WP:BIO says that the person must be the primary subject of media attention. I have read through the USA TODAY article, and each time I come to the same conclusion: he is used as an introduction to the Iraqi election. Do you agree that someone has to be the primary subject of media attention? Agha Nader 17:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Keep, most bishops listed in Wikipedia are less notable (in catholic terms this would be a Cardinal) ... sometimes I wonder about the deletion nominators Alf photoman 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I would like to remind everyone of WP:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette. It says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." So when making comments make an argument and respond to mine. I also wish to tell you that a person needs to be notable in order to have a Wikipedia article about them. Please see WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective. It says, "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations". Although you may think being a Grand Ayatollah on its own is notable, you must prove it with arguments relating to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also do not just assume someone is notable because of their rank. I would also like to inform the editors that there is no criteria on WP:BIO that says a high ranking cleric, bishop, or rabbi is notable just because of their rank. Please be objective when defending Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability. Also please read WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective it says, "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly". Your job is not to judge Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability, but rather to consider the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia on notability. Also, I am able to answer any questions you have about deletion nominators! Agha Nader 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Well, I think you should now explain, in detail, why he doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO. You mention that "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations." Until you thoroughly explain your reasons for saying that he is not WP:BIO, we are only seeing your personal considerations, so it is high time for you to explain. Also, remember to consider the conversation about the central criterion from above, since it is, well, central. If you give this elaboration, I think it will at least be easier to know where you are coming from. It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information, but your nomination has spurred improvement to the article, and it seems that just a little investigation about the man has shown that, indeed, he is rather significant. The Behnam 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Behnam, remember, you should assume good faith, instead of making this kind of comment. Saying that "It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information" isn't assuming good faith. Furthermore, you are making the affirmative statement by saying he should remain, and thus the burden of evidence is on your shoulders. But it should be clear by now the reason as to why I don't think it should remain. The reason is that he hasn't done anything notable and does not meet the criteria on WP:BIO. In fact, the only thing he has done is become an Ayatollah. And that, by itself does not make him notable. Unless you wish to keep avoiding this, please post a response that relates to my comment. Agha Nader 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Apparently, you misunderstand my statement. Do you know what I was saying was "fairly obvious"? I was saying that it is plain to see why you might nominate the article for deletion because, at the time, there was nothing notable mentioned n his article. If anything, this is assuming good faith. By stating that all he has done is "become an Ayatollah", you seem to be overlooking the improvements to the article that indicate that there is more to him than what you believe. I have provided the burden of evidence; try reading the conversation above if you have forgotten. I said he satisfies the central criterion of WP:BIO, and I provided the sources that support this claim. You just claimed the sources mentioned him in passing, despite the fact that they are reporting about him. If you are going to just ignore evidence, you may be able to justify to yourself that all he did was "become an Ayatollah"; however, you probably will not convince others here. So please, assume good faith before accusing others of not assuming good faith. The Behnam 04:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Behnam, remember, you should assume good faith, instead of making this kind of comment. Saying that "It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information" isn't assuming good faith. Furthermore, you are making the affirmative statement by saying he should remain, and thus the burden of evidence is on your shoulders. But it should be clear by now the reason as to why I don't think it should remain. The reason is that he hasn't done anything notable and does not meet the criteria on WP:BIO. In fact, the only thing he has done is become an Ayatollah. And that, by itself does not make him notable. Unless you wish to keep avoiding this, please post a response that relates to my comment. Agha Nader 04:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
-
- Well, I think you should now explain, in detail, why he doesn't meet the criteria of WP:BIO. You mention that "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations." Until you thoroughly explain your reasons for saying that he is not WP:BIO, we are only seeing your personal considerations, so it is high time for you to explain. Also, remember to consider the conversation about the central criterion from above, since it is, well, central. If you give this elaboration, I think it will at least be easier to know where you are coming from. It was fairly obvious when you nominated, since the article was just a stub lacking much information, but your nomination has spurred improvement to the article, and it seems that just a little investigation about the man has shown that, indeed, he is rather significant. The Behnam 00:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to remind everyone of WP:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD.2FWikietiquette. It says, "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." So when making comments make an argument and respond to mine. I also wish to tell you that a person needs to be notable in order to have a Wikipedia article about them. Please see WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective. It says, "Subjective evaluations are not relevant for determining whether a topic warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Notability criteria do not equate to personal or biased considerations". Although you may think being a Grand Ayatollah on its own is notable, you must prove it with arguments relating to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Also do not just assume someone is notable because of their rank. I would also like to inform the editors that there is no criteria on WP:BIO that says a high ranking cleric, bishop, or rabbi is notable just because of their rank. Please be objective when defending Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability. Also please read WP:Notability#Notability_is_not_subjective it says, "Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly". Your job is not to judge Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Ishaq al-Fayad's notability, but rather to consider the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia on notability. Also, I am able to answer any questions you have about deletion nominators! Agha Nader 23:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
-
-
-
-
- Do you have any basis for this recommendation? Is there any policy of Wikipedia that says I am not able to contribute to Wikipedia since I am relatively new. Dhartung, let me remind you this is not a gaming forum, and I am not a "noob". I regret your primitive attempt to discredit me. This is not appreciated by the Wikipedians, and is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Namely, that everyone can contribute. Also, I have been involved in a previous AfD, and The Behnam can attest to this. I hope that all editors of this AfD see Dhartung's comment for what it is. For now, I will assume good faith and not take further action. Agha Nader 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Comment You will not take further action against what? Against general advice? My, you are touchy. I recommend you not be so touchy, especially if you plan to frequent AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I recommend taking this to our talk pages as recommended by Wikipedia guidelines. But to bring order to this AfD I will address your questions. There are many action I could take. Refer to WP:No_personal_attacks. I will contact the Arbitration Committee if this continues. You again are being uncivil by calling me "touchy". Rudeness is an example of incivility according to WP:Civility. According to the guideline of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism." Please add any new personal comments to my talk page (of course only civil comments will be tolerated). I will only continue to respond to you on this matter on your talk page. Agha Nader 00:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Comment You will not take further action against what? Against general advice? My, you are touchy. I recommend you not be so touchy, especially if you plan to frequent AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agha Nader, remember, you should assume good faith, instead of making a this kind of comment. Saying that no one else here(except one user) is unbiased is not assuming good faith; you are aware that such comments are not hidden, aren't you? The Behnam 03:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- At the time the comment was posted, it was clear to me that people were biased on this AfD. I can especially elaborate on your bias, as I have had many conversations with you on this subject. Please see, [WP:AGF] , "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Good try though! In fact, I will agree with you and choose to keep if you can present an argument as to why the article should be kept. Agha Nader 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader
- Are you going to provide evidence to the contrary? Evidence that everyone else participating at the time was biased except for that one user? I would really like to see that! Without any evidence to the contrary, your statement isn't AGF. Also, I doubt you have anything that reveals that I have a "bias" here; we haven't talked even talked about this guy before. I also doubt that you have evidence that everyone else involved at the time is biased. What preposterous accusations! The Behnam 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please look at The Behnam's talk page to continue this personal comment. Agha Nader 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- You have proven to be unable to provide real evidence against me; what about the others you accused of bias? There isn't even a story that you can make up for their cases. The Behnam 04:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Are you going to provide evidence to the contrary? Evidence that everyone else participating at the time was biased except for that one user? I would really like to see that! Without any evidence to the contrary, your statement isn't AGF. Also, I doubt you have anything that reveals that I have a "bias" here; we haven't talked even talked about this guy before. I also doubt that you have evidence that everyone else involved at the time is biased. What preposterous accusations! The Behnam 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- At the time the comment was posted, it was clear to me that people were biased on this AfD. I can especially elaborate on your bias, as I have had many conversations with you on this subject. Please see, [WP:AGF] , "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Good try though! In fact, I will agree with you and choose to keep if you can present an argument as to why the article should be kept. Agha Nader 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC) Agha Nader
- Do you have any basis for this recommendation? Is there any policy of Wikipedia that says I am not able to contribute to Wikipedia since I am relatively new. Dhartung, let me remind you this is not a gaming forum, and I am not a "noob". I regret your primitive attempt to discredit me. This is not appreciated by the Wikipedians, and is against the ideals of Wikipedia. Namely, that everyone can contribute. Also, I have been involved in a previous AfD, and The Behnam can attest to this. I hope that all editors of this AfD see Dhartung's comment for what it is. For now, I will assume good faith and not take further action. Agha Nader 23:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
-
-
- Obvious keep Savidan 03:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Let me remind you that this is not a poll. This is part of Wikipedia guidelines, and I can provide specific ones if you contest this. Also, you must provide a debate as to why it is obvious that the article should be kept. Otherwise your comment is a mere opinion. Agha Nader 04:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader
- Keep, visible leadership position in major religion easily comparable to far lesser Catholic Bishops who have their own articles.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 10:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Verified as significant religious figure. Strange nomination Bwithh 11:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep all Grand Ayatollahs are notable per definition, the point of being a GA is that people can follow your fatwa, thus, you have a "cult like following" per Wikipedia:Notability (people), if nothing else. --Striver - talk 11:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - notable per WP:BIO which stats, "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person". At the bottom of the page, there are at least 7 citations of which several are very reliable source. This no doubt passes WP:BIO. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks like notability is now established after some de-stubbing. highlunder 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:BIO, I almost want to assume bad faith on the nominator's art, but I'm refraining from that.--Wizardman 05:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:BIO. Also, a reminder to all editors to do your best to stay cool. --Scott Wilson 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:BIO as illustrated above, not much more to add. RFerreira 19:42, 14 January 2007 (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.
