Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin (2nd nomination)

Add links
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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin

[edit]
See the previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aladin.

Non notable bio, no references have been substantiated. Not verifiable Ragib 22:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to vote in order to redirect something, and in fact deleting and then redirecting makes no sense, because after it's deleted there's nothing to redirect. Just redirect it to begin with and avoid this whole mess. Deleting also erases all talkpage comments = not good, as the fraudulent claims and edits should be saved and accessible for future reference. DreamGuy 00:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aladin was a cabinet adviser: [1], that’s been verified. He is a magician. I also think that he’s more “well known” by people from Indian/Bangladesh from the people I’ve asked. Some (not all) of the original quotes of the original article claims can be verified by e-mailing the authors of the books/ magazines. He’s also had a FamilyTechShow USA Radio interview, which has been verified at the article. However, there are a lot of the previous claims that were made during the last nomination for deletion that have been difficult to verify and this should taken into consideration when voting. Overall, I feel that all information that is now present in the article is verifiable, whether this is enough for an article is up for interpretation. My overall feeling is that aladin is not overly notable but is more notable than a lot of the inclusions in wikipedia. I urge everybody who votes to look at the facts and make up their own minds, whatever that may be. Englishrose 23:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was a member of "Cultural Strategy Group for London", but thats about it. That group deserves an article, and he should be mentioned there. --Ezeu 00:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but, being a minor cabinet adviser by itself isn't notable. Emailing the authors of books/magazines isn't verifiable, that's original research, and since the books/magazines mentioning him aren't notable to begin with, even if their claims of his existence can be verified, we have no idea if these claims come from mere copying from press releases and no indication that mention there means the person is notable. We would need REAL sources to establish notability, and the only sources so far claimed have been fraudulent (like the Inside Magic claim, which actually said they never heard of the guy and not all the wonderful praise that was there), unreliable and unverifiable. DreamGuy 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete or Redirect, as Ragib suggested. Take a look at the history to see that there are major concerns of sockpuppetry [2]: Every few weeks, somebody switched to a new alias to promote this person: From Magicsucks to Themeat, then Thegirlinwhite, Selfpublicitysucks (indeed!), the list goes on and on. Truly a non-notable entry that tries to misuse the wikipedia project for self-promotion. Peter S. 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting this article at this time makes a complete mess out of it. You do not need to have a vote to delete in order to redirect something, never have. Now we have people voting for total delete, delete but then make a new one to redirect, keep because they like the article, keep but then redirect... It's impossible to sort it all out, as the keep- redirects and delete-redirects have almost the same function but get counted separately. What could have been handled by a simnple concensus of editors is now all over the place due to this relisting. I think that this vote should be ended with a speedy keep with the proviso that the article then be turned into a redirect. Redirecting the article preserves the talk page comments, and really, those need to be saved so that if someone tries to recreate the article or the editors involved go sockpuppeting elsewhere, that we can track them. Deleting the article only to recreate it and redirect erases all that valuable information. I would imagine anyone voting delete here would, if their delete vote doesn't come through or the vote is canceled, much prefer a redirect of the article than a keep, and when the votes are counted I hope the fallback positions are kept in mind instead of anyone falsely interpreting speedy keep + redirect as a regular old keep vote or delete votes as being against a redirect. DreamGuy 00:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nonverifiable. Article's author(s) went lengths to stuff the article (now stripped) with wealth of nonvewrifiable claims, also presented in a misleading way. For example, the main notability argument was that he had a feature artile in The Times, while in fact (and I corrected it) it was a certain The Saturday Times Magazine (if it was at all). Information about his descent is contradictory in different published places. Mukadderat 03:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. We just went through this. And the reference I placed was correct, Aladin was featured in the Times magazine in a profile by Lisa Brinkworth. This can be confirmed at the Times archives [3] or here if the search has expired [4]. Claiming the Times did not print the story and changing the reference to fit the claim is very misleading-- JJay 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing indeed. The article snippet you suggested starts with "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals. Now, as official magician for ...". But according to the london.gov press release, his name is Eenasul Fateh. So, the link you have found there is NOT the person in question here. Thanks. --Ragib 08:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not correct. Unless the article shows, or any other reference proves that Eenasul Fateh uses Alaudin Ahmed as a pseudonym, or vice versa, we can't assume that both persons are the same. It is very much possible that Mr. Alaudin Ahmed uses "Aladin", a shortening of his actual name, as his stage name. Besides, I don't see any reason why Eenasul Fateh, son of Abul Fateh would use the name Alaudin Ahmed, a completely different name. Please provide a reference that shows these two names belong to the same person. Thanks. --Ragib 08:34, 12 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aladin_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1079904619"