Talk:Ali Sina

As the admin deleting the article suggested, I have now re-create it as a stub, only using sources outside his own website. -- Karl Meier 11:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthspreader: What do you believe the problem with Prometheus Books is? -- Karl Meier 11:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Books is not a scholarly press. Do you read somewhere that it is? TruthSpreader^Talk 11:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question: Why do you believe that it is a problem that the book was published by Prometheus Books? Do you believe that we can't we use other books such as Paul Edwards book about Heidegger (Heidegger’s Confusions) because it was published by Prometheus Books? -- Karl Meier 11:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the least, I would recommend you to read WP:RS and WP:V. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know these policies very well. Now why don't you answer my very simple question: Can we use Paul Edwards book "Heidegger’s Confusions" as a reference on Wikipedia, or is it unacceptable because it has been published by Prometheus Books? -- Karl Meier 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principally speaking no! But you can use that source for the author himself. As I found a scholarly journal article written on his book:[1]. Although, this publication doesn't make this book scholarly but eligible to be presented as a reference for the author himself. In Sina's case, we don't have any scholarly journal that would refer to his work. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I am getting the impression, that you don't know what you are talking about. -- Karl Meier 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which point you didn't understand? TruthSpreader^Talk 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the problem. -- Karl Meier 12:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mate! I can't make you understand unless you tell me where you are having difficulty. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD closing Admin's premature page delete

The results of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Sina (2nd nomination) show that the outcome was a keep per the vote count as no consensus was achieved.

Keep 18
Delete 17
Neutral 1 .

The closing administrator Mackensen has been asked to reverse the delete since the results are contrary to group consenus and I have suggested to him that he deleted the page prematurely. Clearly the vote at the very least demonstrates that there was no consensus reached thus its a keep. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion which states:

An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to KEEP.

Whether the closing admin will acknowledge what the vote count makes glaringly obvious; that is that there was no consensus achieved on the AFD remains to be seen, but we will see how things play out. --CltFn 13:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy also says: Please also note that closing admins are expected and required to exercise their judgment in order to make sure that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal." TruthSpreader^Talk 13:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the vote count and tell me that consensus was achieved.--CltFn 13:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not democracy. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an outrageous decision, and it's now being used by editors such as BhaiSaab to delete and vandalize large amounts of valid information that he disagree with, on a large number of articles. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it's not an Islamic shar'ia state either and important critical opinions about Islam is allowed. -- Karl Meier 13:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]