Deletion of Rafed.net (2nd nomination)

Comment: A reminder of |CIVIL is in order here, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28links%29#Foreign-language_sites Manual of Style - Foreign language sites would be useful too
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Civility (WP:CIVIL)

Comment: Having carefully read through this AfD, the previous AfD and  I don't think it passes , because this website has ''not'' been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The examples by Striver only mention the website in a single paragraph, and the website is definitely not the subject. But I am going to ignore  here and vote weak keep on the basis that this website actually seems quite notable in the Arabic world, as demonstrated by the sources Striver provided. Alexa also confirms the popularity of this website. I am of course open to debate, and willing to change my vote if any good arguments are made
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: Faith Freedom International has http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/saudiarabia/SA-F.html a better citation (from  law.harvard.edu) for being banned in Saudi Arabia than Rafed.net, which, BTW, appears in the 2002 list of http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/saudiarabia/SA-R.html URLs Blocked in Saudi Arabia - "R" from Harvard, but that's beside the point, which is that faithfreedom.org has |reliable sources ... and for the record, Ali Sina and faithfreedom.org are now just redirects to that article because they both failed  ... '''Rafed.net should redirect to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani''', just as Al-islam.org ''should'' be a redirect to Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project (which in turn should be a {{tl|mergeto}} with The Aalulbayt (a.s.) Global Information Center, but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ahlul_Bayt_Digital_Islamic_Library_Project&diff=98161615&oldid=98150564 Striver removed the tag
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: The core issue is  ... if Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is the source behind Rafed.net, Al-islam.org, al-shia.org, and sistani.com, then how can ''any'' citations from one of his websites be viewed as "independent" coverage to satisfy   or  for ''another'' of his websites? Yes, Sistani is |notable, but his websites are ''not'' notable '''just because he is''', and although they are worthy of mention in ''his'' article, this one certainly does not have enough verifiable notability to justify its own article in Wikipedia ... as for using popularity based on Alexa and Google PageRanks as a substitute for  guidelines, see
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:N||WP:N||WP:N)

Comment: I don't think you can argue that the quotes in books are "non-trivial"; they give a passing mention to one of a number of sites they are describing. The Alexa and Google rankings are immaterial - as I've said before, popularity is not equal to notability. It's harder for me to judge the seestani.com review, but I'm worried by both its independence and reliability. You say that "close relations and being allies" isn't the same as dependence and that might be true, but it certainly does not encourage ''in''dependence. You also say that reliability is not an issue (interestingly the primary notability criterion on  recently had reliability added to it) but I can't agree with that. By that logic, if ''I'' reviewed a website and posted it to my personal blog or homepage, that would qualify as a source - clearly absurd. So I'm still going to support deletion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)