Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feroze Mithiborwala

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feroze Mithiborwala[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theorist and general purpose Islamist crackpot. Largely promoted by holocaust denial, antisemitic, hate site countercurrents.org and so does not suit WP:RS. Tried to promote an anti-Israel terrorist attack largely seen as a dud by the civilized world [1][2][3]. Supports the false conspiracy theory that Jews were behind the Islam-critical film Innocence of Muslims (from his rather ranty blog here). Media whoremonger largely glorified by low grade Indian media outlets without any proper justification. Does not satisfy WP:BIO or basic common sense. Handyunits (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he is definitely a radical and has a lot of very fringe theories and he has received a lot of media coverage - The Indian Express, Gulf News, The Milli Gazette, Tehelka, etc. - he absolutely deserves have a page. (As of now, there are 34 references.) I am not arguing in favor of his politics or that he isn't a radical. Rather, I am just supporting this information about him being represented. The subject of an article, according to WP:BIO, should be 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'. I know we can all agre that he is certainly interesting and unusual enough. I think the problem you're having is with his theories as well as things that he has said and done. Instead, we can work on the page and help to paint it as an accurate picture of him. Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 04:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bulk of media coverage that Mithiborwala receives are either from conspiracy theory websites or Indian newspapers. Indian newspapers are notorious for poor fact checking, plagiarism (including from wikipedia itself, see User:YellowMonkey/Times of India) and broadcasting of fringe viewpoints (see Zakir Naik, for instance, who receives disproportionate Indian media coverage despite his militancy being repudiated by mainstream Islamic clergy). Thus, Indian newspapers should be taken with a huge sack-o-salt.Handyunits (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course they are not ideal sources, though they are the best we have for the area. . But in any case that they cover him extensively is enough to make him notable. In other respects, your argument seems to be that it is a shame he is notable., which is irrelevant. WP covers the world as it is. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Very Strong Keep'.He is working with many religions and organizations and one of them is Save India Movement. The people of different religions have supported him in his Palestine movement.What makes him radical or moderate depends on the attitude critics.He is claiming to fight the rights of weak and helpless Palestinians against Zionist atrocities,that does not make his page legible to be deleted. Shabiha 12:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs cleanup, a lot of cleanup, but notability seem to be fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to meet WP:GNG. He's in many news sources, but a first mention of him is in Times of India October 10, 2001, Just after the September 11 attacks where Mithiborwala noted, "The Taliban is the creation of the U.S. They used it as long as it was convenient for them. Now, when it turns against them, they launch a global war against terrorism. This is absurd." and that "Afghanistan was situated very advantageously, in terms of geo-politics. 'It will suit the U.S. wonderfully to set up a puppet government there, and then use it as a base to influence the politics of West Asia as well as south-east Asia." 11 years later - no U.S. Afghanistan puppet government (I think) and al-Qaeda was the basis for global war against terrorism. The U.S. Taliban support was a 1980s thing against the USSR. Still, Mithiborwala thinking was close to how things turned out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2012 (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.