Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 06:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi

Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

PRODed and contested. Asserted to have published multiple books, but most of these seem to be online. Zero google hits for the name off Wikipedia (may be a latinisation issue). Majopr source for the article seems to be al-islam.org. Not a lot of coverage outside of that. Guy (Help!) 09:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if nom had made a simple google search he would have found this:

But maybe he did a search and concluded that they are all in a grand conspiracy and are in reality a walled garden?

Maybe he figured that translating Tafsir al-Mizan by Allameh Tabatabaei and having it published by World Federation of KSI Muslim Communities is just a marketing trick by KSI in order to enhance the credibility of the wall garden?

Maybe he figured victorynewsmagazine.com was exaggerating when they said "The sudden and sad demise of Allamah Sayyid Saeed Akhtar Rizvi in Dar es Salaam on Thursday 20th June 2002 (8th Rabi-ul-Aakhar 1423) came as a shock to the community and Muslims at large, around the world. Marhum Maulana Rizvi was more like an institution rather than an individual considering his intense involvement in propagating the Shia faith around the world."?

Or maybe he just didn't care and wanted to see a afd, without any real interest in the subject of the afd. --Striver - talk 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I get so very frustrated over this kind of things, specially when it's me that needs spend hours fixing this kind of non-sense, specially considering that the nom did not even bother do make a single amazon search, but rather decided it was better for wikipedia to just drain some afd resources. Nom, can you withdraw so we can speedy close this and not waste any more of my time? --Striver - talk 22:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
biography --Striver - talk 01:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
And another --Striver - talk 14:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (negative): At the risk of feeding the troll, are you stupid? ... the problem is that "references" which are just links to anonymous pages on non-notable websites do not even come close to satisfying WP:Verifiability for WP:Notability in any category. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Is Amazon.com a non-notable website? Is al-Shia.org a non-notable website? You think that his translation of Tafsir al-Mizan is just a hoax? Did Google Books co-conspire and brought two non-notable books [1] [2] online for view just to boost the credibility of some non-notable websites? Hey, maybe i work in the CIA and have a finger in it? But that would not explain why he is quoted in other Google books, for exmpale one by Robert Spencer, but you never know how far this non-notability wall garden conspiracy truly is! Better to delete when in doubt! --Striver - talk 10:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, al-shia.org is a non-notable website, because it redirects to The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, another one of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani organizations. --72.75.85.159 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
lol, that is a good one, "Al-Shi'a is non notable since it's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani site". --Striver - talk 13:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Stop mis-quoting me, Striver ... what I said was "it redirects to" ... what I meant was that Al-Shia.org is not notable as a website because it does not have it's own Wikipedia article as you seem to be keep trying to imply by using a wikilink that is actually a redirect to the article for the website's parent (as per WP:WEB and the AfD that deleted its article) ... my comment has nothing to do with to what (or whom) it redirects, just that it is a redirect because it is not notable enough to have its own article ... period. —72.75.85.159 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Froogle [3] is also hacked in order to boost the credibility of this non-notable author... man, the guys promoting this guys non-notability must be in some huge cabal... but maybe that would make him notable? --Striver - talk 10:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Nearly every book published is listed on some website ... show us some verifiable, non-trivial, reliable source articles where Sa'id Akhtar Rizvi was the primary subject of the article and not just mentioned in passing as "one of the people who agrees with (or denies)" something said by someone else ... that is how notability is established in Wikipedia, and it's a moving target, so be sure that you are familiar with the current policy.
As another editor has already reminded you in another AfD, "Having an ISBN is not an indication of notability in itslef, but lack of ISBN is an indication of lack of notability." Right now, the article makes the impression that his books are only available for on-line reading at al-islam.org and al-shia.com ... if you can change that impression, then you should.
You have the resources to locate, copy, and upload pictures of his funeral, and copy& paste sections from his obituaries on other websites, but you can't create a proper Wikipedia entry according the MOS for biographies that has his birth date after his name? If he's so notable, it should be trivial to find and add! (Yes, I found it on one of the web pages you referenced, but I'm not going to add it for you, mostly because I don't know how reliable it is, since there's only the one citation for it ... I've found other conflicting birth dates while checking refrences and citations for living people.) --72.75.85.159 02:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The article does state his birth and death day, and i don't get what an ISBN has anything to do with an author article. So what if the articles gives the impression that his books are only available online on al-Islam and al-Shi'a, you seem to be under the impression that this somehow demands the works to be published on line for the author to be notable. --Striver - talk 13:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per striver. --- ALM 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Keep If we don't think publishing on line is worthwhile why are we here? This may be an unfamiliar type of scholarship to some of us, and it should be evaluated on its own terms. Article needs to be wikified, not deleted. The ones that need to be deleted are the ones that cannot possibly be wikified.DGG 02:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep KazakhPol 23:23, 10 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.