Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m rv blanking |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Ruzwana Bashir]] (listed twice within two weeks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion[[Template:Vfd top|.]] '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Article kept. |
|||
===[[Ruzwana Bashir]]=== |
|||
==== Link to Original VfD Debate ==== |
|||
The entirety of the VfD record accumulated from |
|||
: 00:17, 2004 Oct 11 to |
|||
: 15:53, 2004 Oct 19 |
|||
was deleted from this page by the anon nominator on |
|||
: 06:07, 2004 Oct 23 |
|||
& replaced by their second nomination of it. |
|||
The erased material may be seen at [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir&oldid=6791200 old version.] |
|||
Note: User did not sign this, but for the record it was [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] at 13:41, 26 Oct 2004. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
''''Move to [[Oxford Union]]''''. This is the gimmee, obvious choice. [[User:DG|DG]] 05:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
==== Re-Nomination after 3.5 Days ==== |
|||
I'm going to try again without playing any games. Last time there were 8 deletion votes and 7 keep (2 weak), though the Keeps were from people I believe were uninformed; see the History for the previous discussion. |
|||
* Being President of the Oxford Union is not notable in itself. Three Presidents are elected every year; should 540+ Presidents be included on Wikipedia? No, only those who do something notable after their Presidency. The person in question has not. |
|||
* The first Asian president of the Union was [[Tariq Ali]] and the first female president was [[Benazir Bhutto]]. However, being the (a) first (b) British-born (c) Asian (d) female (e) president has too many conditions and is thus not notable. |
|||
* The main bulk of the text refers to petty, frivolous activities in a student campus election, not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. |
|||
* The second earliest edit of the entry includes hurtful, offensive and slanderous content. Although it was reverted, it remains in the history, and is libellous; if not removed then proceedings for legal action will be undertaken. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 06:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]] |
|||
*** I have attempted repeatedly to follow Wiki's guidelines regarding that, which is why I'm having to waste time going through this VfD process. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**** If you don't like "wasting time", anonymous, you are at liberty to leave WP -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 20:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***** I will leave WP once disgustingly hurtful and slanderous comments are removed from the internet - i.e. the 2nd earliest version of this entry. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 20:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***** Note that since the history actually records that the wiki community deleted the allegedly offending material, the entry itself records that wiki no longer claims that variant to be accurate. A libel proceeding would be a non-starter for failing to meet the publication as fact standard. [[User:Chrisvls|Chrisvls]] 02:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*One more legal threat and you'll be blocked from editing. you have been warned. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|hopefully!]])]] 20:30, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. This article survived VfD about a week ago (odd thing, though -- I can't find the earlier debate; the links in the history all point to ''this'' entry). This is ''far'' too early to revive a VfD for this article. [[User:SWAdair|SWAdair]] | [[User talk:SWAdair|Talk ]] 06:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**That's because this anon nominator just put the new vote on top of the old one. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir&oldid=6791200 See the last vote here]. <s>''Very weak</s> '''Keep'''''. Even though some votes in the last discussion ''might'' have not been well informed, an anon bumping this up again seems too disruptive and potentially abusive to be worth the possible precedent. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand Luke]] [[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|<font size="-2" color="black">(Communicate!)</font>]] 08:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Stronger '''keep'''. Anon's history appears to be aimed at a POV on this article. Also, many in the last vote seemed aware of the president's lowly status, so I believe this listing is frivolous and too soon. [[User:Cool Hand Luke|Cool Hand Luke]] [[User talk:Cool Hand Luke|<font size="-2" color="black">(Communicate!)</font>]] 08:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* It survived a VfD because the people voting Keep were grossly uninformed - for example saying the person deserved entry solely for being Union President, not realising that there have been over 500 Union Presidents. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 06:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. My reasons for voting keep (which were not because she was a Union President) were not "grossly uninformed", thanks. Where did that discussion go? I object to this being relisted so quickly. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 06:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Under the circumstances, I think this is fair enough. I voted delete only after being made aware of what the position actually entailed - which was not until quite late in the vote. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 06:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' for reasons of WikiPrinciple. It just survived, let's give it some time, people. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 07:34, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** 8 Delete, 7 Keep (2 weak), how did it survive? So much for democracy... [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 14:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***The standard for deletion is not a simple majority. It takes at least a 2/3 vote, maybe more. [[User:Wolfman|Wolfman]] 15:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::*Wolfman has it right. 50 percent plus one is not and hopefully never will be the concensus on VfD, and this is coming from a pseudo-deletionist. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 17:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete:''' studentcruft. — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 13:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''': Campus club position; previous winners in the Wikipedia because of other accomplishments. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Not encyclopedic. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 16:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Should have been deleted before. [[User:NeoJustin|NeoJustin]] 16:58 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. I did not consider Oxford Union Presidents notable when I was an undergrad there. I certainly don't consider them notable now, ten years removed. Buncha self important hacks. Did I say '''Delete''' already? -- [[User:Gareth Owen|GWO]] 16:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' on principle that it simply should not have been relisted that quickly, '''even though''' this article is about an unimportant tempest in an unimportant teapot, '''even though''' it should be deleted, and '''even though''' the nominator has been admirably candid and has stated a good reason for believing that the outcome might be different. To relist this quickly when all the participants in the previous debate are still around, and probably suffering from battle-fatigue, is counterproductive. Also, although I feel this article should be deleted, and that the VfD outcome was probably mistaken, I just do not feel that there is much urgency about correcting that mistake. There is plenty of other cruft to weed out. Wait three months, ''then'' try again. [[User:Dpbsmith|[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] [[User_talk:dpbsmith|(talk)]]]] 18:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. Univerisity students doing university student things are not encyclopedic. We can add an article later if she goes on to do something more notable, but being a leader of a student group is not in and of itself notable (unless one leads that group in doing something notable, but this particular leader hasn't been leading long enough for that to happen). I agree that it shouldn't have been relisted so soon, but the fact is that it should have been deleted the first time around. [[User:Aranel|[[User:Aranel|Aranel]] ("[[User:Aranel/Sarah|Sarah]]")]] 18:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep.''' On principle, and generally agreeing with ''Dpbsmith''. - [[User:Lifefeed|Lifefeed]] 18:52, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. because (1) I object to being called uninformed, and (2) the proposer, having not got his way the first time, is now attempting to negate the first vote; as [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] says, it's "WikiPrinciple" -- [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 20:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** Note that people who have voted Delete have sound and reasoned justifications; those who have voted Keep have done it on meaningless and in some cases spiteful reasons. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 20:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***I'm assuming you're not referring to me when you say 'spiteful', but I don't think that objecting to your (ab)use of the VfD process is 'meaningless'. [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 20:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''', please dont' relist things so quickly, once they have survived VfD. Give them a chance to develop. Come back in a couple months if nothign has changed [[User:Siroxo| ]]—[[User:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>siro</font>]][[User talk:Siroxo|<font color=#627562>''χ''</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Siroxo|<font color=#627562>o</font>]] 22:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. If you let this vote result in a delete, you open the way to flooding vfd whenever someone is unhappy with something failing to be deleted. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 00:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Ah, the blackmail argument. If I'd voted "Keep" before, this right here, by itself, would be enough to make me vote Delete. — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 01:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::The fact that Shane King is upset at the possibility of more, similar VfD entries upsets you more than our good anon's threatening to sue if it doesn't get its way? [[User:Lord Bob|Lord Bob]] 01:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, about equally: that's nasty too. On balance, though, I'm still for deleting. — [[User:Bill Thayer|Bill]] 22:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete'''. [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] 02:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* Ye gods, not again. '''Delete''', as before. I agree that it shouldn't have been relisted so quickly, but I ''don't'' agree with voting keep just to discourage this behaviour. I believe that votes should be made on an article's own merits, not on the basis of what behaviour this might encourage in the future. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]], please comport yourself in a more seemly manner. Litigious threats and accusations of ignorance and spitefulness are more likely to harm your cause than to help it (see Cabalamat and Shane King's votes above). Consider also that the longer you leave it before relisting, the further the whole affair will have sunk into the mists of time, and the less notable it will be. I imagine that if this page were VfD'd in, say, 2104, a delete would be likely (not that I'm suggesting you wait ''that'' long). [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 02:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** "slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia" says the No Legal Threats page. So why does the 2nd version of this entry, which is all of the above, continue to remain in Wikipedia's history of thie page? [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 14:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*** For reference, [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Ruzwana_Bashir&diff=3624852&oldid=3624710 here is the revision] to which [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] objects. It inserts the single word "dwarf" in a reference to Ms Bashir (swiftly reverted, of course). I don't agree that this is "all of the above" (it can't be both slander ''and'' libel, and calling someone a dwarf is hardly "defamation of character"). |
|||
****Not to condone the "dwarf" comment, but out of interest, how does [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] think they are going to sue for libel when it was Ms Bashir who was attacked? Unless they are Ms Bashir, he/she will not be able to sue for libel as the attack was not directed at their person! And I think the court would laugh them out of court on this one. It's just not serious enough - it's just name calling. ''I've'' been called worse, and I'm almost certain Ms Bashir has been called worse at her University. Also, who are they going to sue? People are pretty much anonymous on this board. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** In any case, I'm pretty sure that VfD is not the place to discuss this problem, and possible libel in a reverted revision is '''definitely not''' grounds for deleting the whole article! (What if it was discovered that revision 29 of the [[Mr T]] article called him a dwarf? Would we have to wipe the whole article and start from scratch?) |
|||
** I'm neither a lawyer nor a long-time Wikipedian, so I don't know (a) the legal ramifications of reverted libel in the history or (b) the proper forum in which to discuss this. The article's talk page, perhaps, or [[Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance]]? Please, could someone more knowledgeable point [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] in the right direction? (Incidentally, [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]], discussion would be easier were you to [[Special:Userlogin|create an account]] so that you can sign your edits with a name rather than an IP address!) [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 23:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*** The 'dwarf' comment deeply hurt and upset the person in question, and secondly the entry is not notable and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, as is confirmed by several voters on this page. None of the Keep votes on this page have suggested that the entry is notable enough to be warranted inclusion in Wiki. It's simple - being Union president alone is not worthy enough to merit inclusion (there have been over 500, 3 a year), and the person in question has not done anything notable since, unlike all others listed in Wikipedia. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
****[[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]], if Ms Bashir feels badly enough about this I would welcome her to send an email to Jimbo Wales discussing this issue. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 13:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Agree with ''Dpbsmith''. [[User:Eugene van der Pijll|Eugene van der Pijll]] 11:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* Delete: nonnotable. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 23:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' - non-notable. -- [[User:Francs2000|Graham ☺]] | [[User talk:Francs2000|Talk]] 00:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' -- '''1) The election dispute was, in fact, news -- and is now notable as part of the history of the Oxford Union.''' I would support moving to the OU page, but not deletion. I learned something interesting and important about the institution. 2) The conflict within the organization has extended to two election cycles now. 3) Interestingly, electoral controversy has happened before, see [[Benazir Bhutto]] 4) This is one of the interesting things about such august campus organizations -- the group of students involved hold the responsibility to maintain the democratic process of picking its leaders. 5) The insider/outsider clique problem is a recurring trend in the modern history of Oxford, et. al. ''6) This has been re-listed unacceptably soon.'' What happened to the old votes? [[User:Chrisvls|Chris vLS]] 02:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep.''' Same vote as before: I still think it's notable, ''and'' I think this was re-listed ''far'' too soon after the previous vote was closed. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Gwalla|Gwalla]] | [[User talk:Gwalla|Talk]] 05:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. This isn't what you're supposed to use VfD for. Even aside from the relisting issue, the topic seems notable, and is obviously newsworthy at least. I hope this won't be listed here again next week. [[User:Factitious|Factitious]] 08:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* '''''Invalid Nomination'''''. (Delete/archive/end vfd discussion and ''inform'', ''warn'' or ''block'' nominator) (if no consensus, count as '''keep''') [[User:Kim Bruning|Kim Bruning]] 18:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* should be Delete for nonnotablity, but instead it's '''Keep''' due to invalid procedure. Try again later [[User:Key45|Key45]] 22:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''', If you bring this up 3 months from now, my vote would be delete, but for now, it survived a proper VfD process, and should be given a chance to show that it is in fact, notable. -[[User:Vina|Vina]] 23:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Keep bcz this vote should not override the legitimate one of last week''', altho i voted for deletion in the first nomination. And even tho i [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FRuzwana_Bashir&diff=6703988&oldid=6670545 suggested], too late for it to deserve the consideration that i hoped for, that it might be worth re-polling, in light of additional claims, the three specific editors named by the nominator in saying that Keep votes had been based on misinformation. I felt compelled to admit i was suggesting that too late; the nominator has nevertheless resurrected that argument, but |
|||
:# <s>they have</s> '''the nominator has''' omitted a key point, which was that their being misinformed was irrelevant unless their minds could be changed by the additional claims, |
|||
:# <s>they have</s> '''the nominator has''' added nothing (under their IP) to any of the 3's talk pages (nor anything related to this matter under any other identity |
|||
:# two of the 3 have expressed themselves again, indicating their Keep opinions have not changed, |
|||
:# and it follows that even if the additional claims did convince the remaining specific "misinformed" editor, the vote would have changed only to 9-6, an insufficient margin for deletion, |
|||
:# hence the basis for renomination is not their misinformation, but <s>their being</s> '''the nominator's considering them''' [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FRuzwana_Bashir&diff=6791200&oldid=6703988 |
|||
idiots], <s> as proven by</s> '''based on''' their rejection of the nominator's PoV about the significance of the additional claims. |
|||
:# By my count there are now 24 votes in a VfD that was properly completed with only 18 seeing fit to vote, and thus at least 6 voters should IMO be ''ashamed'' for voting here and thereby Monday-morning-quarterbacking the legitimate action of their colleagues. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 03:41, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC) |
|||
:::For those of us that speak Real English, what's "Monday-morning-quarterbacking"? [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 00:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Monday+morning+quarterbacking [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 02:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Erm, yeah. Thanks for pointing straight to completely irrelevant Google results. Really helpful ... [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 12:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: At the top right of the Google page it provides a dictionary definition of the term, and the search results provide examples of its use in context. Idiot. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 00:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] |
|||
:Sorry (tho i prefer the term "the Mother Tongue" over "RE"): I guess [[Quarterback]] ''doesn't'' cast a lot of light. The reference is to usurping the role of the tactical commander of an [[American football]] team (in discussions, with one's mates at work, of the weekend's game) by offering opinions of how the team ''should'' have been led. The analogy is weak, but i was trying to say that someone who didn't participate in the original 5 days of discussion is wrong to try to change a legitimately reached decision. <br> |
|||
:(BTW, my calculation of the number of such usurpers is unsound and perhaps unfair: i made no effort to avoid counting those who (would you say ''"that"'', really???) voted recently in order to defend the same principle that i did, when i switched "sides" as the means of supporting reaffirmation of the vote that my former "side" lost.) <br> |
|||
:--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 03:22, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC) |
|||
:: OK. For any Real English '':-)'' speakers around, "armchair punditry" (which I imagine wouldn't come as first-nature to American users), i.e. tearing the game to shreds from the comfort of one's lounge. We need somewhere to list incompatible reference pairs like this, along with what they're supposed to mean. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 12:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. [[m:Inclusionism|Wikipedia is not paper]] If you do not want to know about this topic then do not search for it :). Give it time to grow, it is important. --[[User:ShaunMacPherson|ShaunMacPherson]] 19:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Abuse''' This nomination is almost as out-of-process as the Iraq war. [[User:Chriscf|Chris]] 03:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Also, the previous VfD should ''not'' have been deleted like this, though this is not the reason that I'm voting to keep this. I'm voting because she was the first British born Asian to gain this position. Also note that I am ''very'' unimpressed that legal threats entered into VfD the last time this went through voting. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**No, she wasn't the first British-born Asian to get into this position. That was [http://www.oxfordstudent.com/2002-01-10/news/8 IndraNeil Mahapatra], who will presumably find himself on Wikipedia in short order as a result of my pointing this out... (and what of the first African? British-born African? British-born African woman? American? British-born American woman? Australian?) [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 08:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***All right. I forgot to add "first British born '''female''' Asian". Mr Mahapatra was the first Asian man to hold the position. I would not have a problem with having an entry for him on Wikipedia. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
****Nope, Mr Mahapatra wasn't the first Asian man to hold this position -- I think that was [[Tariq Ali]], back in 1965. (Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) ). [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 21:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' [[User:Mikkalai|Mikkalai]] 23:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / [[User talk:Dmn|Դմն]] ]] 14:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. If it survives Votes for deletion then it should survive for some time. --[[User:Juntung|JuntungWu]] 16:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. What Dbpsmith said. [[User:Smyth|– [[User:Smyth|Smyth]]]] 23:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
====October 18 vote for deletion==== |
|||
[[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 08:51, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC): I am copying and pasting the old vote from the history: |
|||
---- |
|||
Ruzwana was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion[[Template:Vfd top|.]] '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus |
|||
'''Please Note''' While no wording of running text has been changed, i have reformatted several votes to facilitate accurate counting of votes, without adding signed explanatory notes to each of them. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
The subject of this article does not wish to have her name in various online encylopaedias and dictionaries, which are clones of Wikipedia. The history of posts attributed to her name includes some highly offensive and hurtful content, and major factual inaccuracies which unfairly portray her in a negative light. These posts have been maliciously edited by those who are jealous and spiteful of her, also responsible for factually incorrect and misleading content in the media. I urge voters to respect the wishes of the subject, and prevent a history of offensive posts from being permenantly available online. Instead, she could be briefly referred to in the main [[Oxford Union]] page. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 00:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Note anon. nomination does not count as an automatic del vote. ''' --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Delete''' You know, whether this is slander or not, I don't care. This is an article about the internal politics of a campus organization. Granted, it's a famous campus organization, but I don't think that an article about the battle for editorship of ''The Crimson'' would be worth a tinker's damn, either. This is non-notable at this point, so delete. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 01:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Delete''': wrong side of the line. Merits a 1-liner in the main [[Oxford Union]] page. [[Ruzwana Bashir]] was added by the same anonymous editor who added the [[Matthew Richardson]] vanity article (which survived vfd last May, see the page history), presumably since Bashir is/was a minor player in Richardson's world. [[User:Wile E. Heresiarch|Wile E. Heresiarch]] 01:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* <s>'''Delete'''.</s> Petty frivolous student politics. [[User:129.67.16.88|129.67.16.88]] 03:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
:Anonymous votes don't count.[[User:Alberuni|Alberuni]] 03:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- & struck thru by [[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Merge''' into [[Oxford Union]]; does not deserve its own article. Note that the "libel" and "wishes of the subject" issues are frivolous and invalid reasons to delete. See [[Talk:Ruzwana Bashir]] and [[User talk:163.1.141.7]]. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 03:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Comment 1: we have '''43''' articles in [[:Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union]]. Some of these should probably be merged into [[Oxford Union]], too. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 04:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Comment 2: if the consensus is to merge, it should contain everything that's already been written, not just a one-liner. Why would we ever want to lose information when merging? Encyclopedic == comprehensive. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 04:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**Comment 3: Disagree with the above. The only content worthy of inclusion is the first line. The rest is campus-based student politics, irrelevant outside the campus, and indeed irrelevant to most within the university. [[User:129.67.16.83|129.67.16.83]] 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
***Question: Do all these presidents of the Oxford Union get articles ''because'' they were presidents of the Oxford Union, or because of the various notable things they did after graduating. Taking my ''Crimson'' example, above, I'll bet that most of its chief editors of the past 100 years went on to be important folks. That's not the question. The question is whether a political struggle within a campus organization is something of sufficient international import to be a separate article. Does it serve our users to have these breakouts? If the information is present at [[Oxford Union]], then separate articles are duplication. If the information isn't at [[Oxford Union]], then it is isolated and starved for people who search these people solely due to their Oxford Union context. It is only when they are notable ''as separate entities'' that they should be treated as separate articles. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 04:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
****Answer: most, but not all, of those 43 people have done other notable things. I fully agree with you that simply being the president of a campus organization does not make you notable, which is why I voted merge, not keep. Some of their personal info can be removed, but the whole Bashir controversy seems like a big thing within the context of [[Oxford Union]], so I think it deserves a section. [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 04:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Abstain'''. I don't know if she's famous or not, but wish to comment that it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be mentioned in here or not. If she's notable, and a good article could be written, then one should be created. If not, then not. Her thoughts don't matter on this issue. --[[User:Pgunn|Improv]] 03:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' I've changed my mind based on info provided by [[User:Benc]] above. If 43 other presidents of Oxford Union get wikipages then so should [[Ruzwana Bashir]]. [[User:Alberuni|Alberuni]] 04:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** Please base your decision on whether ''this'' president is notable. If there are other non-notable Union presidents on Wikipedia, then the correct solution is to remove them, rather than using them as an excuse to add more non-notable content. [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** 43 other former Presidents of The Oxford Union are listed because they have done something notable afterwards - for example [[Tariq Ali]] and [[Benazir Bhutto]]. This subject has not done anything notable. When she does she can be included. [[User:129.67.16.83|129.67.16.83]] 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Merge''' and redirect to [[Oxford Union]], or failing that '''delete'''. Nobody becomes notable by being president of the Oxford Union. Even ''within'' Oxford University, very few people care about the political machinations of the Oxford Union. If any other Union presidents are on Wikipedia ''solely'' for having been Union presidents, they should also be VfD'd. In short, I agree with [[User:Geogre]]'s comments above. [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. It's a well-known organization, so I don't see why we shouldn't have its presidents here solely by virtue of being its presidents. --[[User:Delirium|Delirium]] 13:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** The Union was founded in 1823 and elections are held termly, giving us potentially around 540 presidents. Please let's not have articles on all of them. If you're saying that Bashir needs an article ''solely'' because she's a Union president, what's the argument against an article on, say, whoever was president in Michaelmas Term, 1834? If Bashir's notable within the context of the Union, she goes on the Union page. Were she notable in her own right, she'd deserve her own article. I agree that in many cases the presidents of well-known organizations are well-known, but that's because, generally, you have to be prominent in your field to become president of a prominent organization -- they're presidents because they're notable, rather than being notable because they're presidents. The Oxford Union is an exception: as young students, its presidents are generally ''not'' notable at the time when they are presidents; many of them achieve notability later in life, but many others do not. [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 21:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*Weak '''keep'''. First asian woman to hold the post, therefore notable. Article seems NPOV. I don't think all Oxford Union presidents are necessarily notable, but she seems to be. [[User:Gwalla|<nowiki></nowiki>]] — [[User:Gwalla|Gwalla]] | [[User talk:Gwalla|Talk]] 03:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
**No, she's the first ''British-born'' asian woman to hold the post -- [[Benazir Bhutto]] was (I believe) the first asian woman to hold it back in 1977 (but that's not why she's in Wikipedia; the article doesn't even mention the fact). I think this is a little too specialized to count as a notable first. Well, maybe it's notable solely within the context of the Oxford Union, but in that case it belongs in the Oxford Union article. [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 05:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* (half-hearted) '''Keep''' President of the Oxford Union is an important post -- several British prime ministers have held it. [[User:Cabalamat|Cabalamat]] 21:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** Untrue. Several people who held it have (much) later ''gone on'' to become British prime ministers, which is a very different thing. I fail to see how this confers notability everyone else who has ever held the post. Are you really saying you want articles on (potentially) 540 former Union presidents? [[User:Pnot|Pnot]] 04:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*<s> '''Delete'''</s> - Note that the people saying Keep are uninformed. Delirium and Cabalamat: 3 Presidents are elected every year, should all 500+ of them have a page? No, only if they do something notable after being president. Gwalla: First Asian woman to be President was [[Benazir Bhutto]], first Asian to be President was [[Tariq Ali]], and first British-born Asian to be President was IndraNeil Mahapatra. But is first (a) British-born (b) Asian (c) female (d) to be President notable? No. |
|||
** Invalid vote: unsigned & cast by anon IP who nominated the article. |
|||
*'''Del'''. With that in mind, delete. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 07:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Del'''. Many people who have held the position of Student at Oxford University have gone on to greater things. We should therefore have articles on all of Oxford students. Maybe not. <s>'''</s> Delete''' [[User:Dsmdgold|Dsmdgold]] 14:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Del'''. No compelling evidence of notability is offered. Probably others among the 43 should be deleted, but that is not a prerequisite for deleting her; we should handle them one by one, and neither side's advocates are under special obligation to hunt them down. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 00:10, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC) |
|||
** Absolutely. I first mentioned the other 42 because it's a relevant fact. I never meant to imply that we should let that get in the way of deciding what to do about [[Ruzwana Bashir]]. (My vote to merge stands, by the way.) [[User:Benc|• Benc]][[User_talk:Benc| •]] 00:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Since the Oxford Union is quite notable, the fact that it has had a protracted period of disputed leadership is notable as well -- especially since 1) the problem has persisted for two election cycles, 2) this is an interesting facet of any notable organization that is run by students, and 3) this is an interesting facet of the maturation and increasing openness of organizations affliated with ancient, formerly non-coed universities. Would support moving it into a section of leadership disputes on the Oxford Union page. [[User:Chrisvls|Chrisvls]] 22:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Del'''ete and create a redirect. [[User:Poccil|[[User:Poccil|Peter O.]] ([[User Talk:Poccil|Talk]])]] 01:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Del'''ete, and I don't see a need for a redirect. Holding a post which some other famous people have also held does not constitute notability. [[User:Radicalsubversiv|'''R'''adical'''S'''ubversiv]] [[User talk:Radicalsubversiv|'''E''']] 02:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep.''' I agree with the arguments above that simply holding the post does not make a person sufficently notable. However, apparently the controversy surrounding this particular election has garnered a bit of media coverage. I think that the media coverage makes this person notable, just like [[Laci Peterson]] is more notable than random murder victim 734, so I'm going to vote keep on that basis alone. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]] 06:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Delete''' - all the articles on Oxford Union Presidents are articles on people who did notable things (like become Prime Minister) after they were at Oxford. There are no other articles I can find on individuals whose only notable accomplishment is being Oxford Union President. A number of notable people went to my university and have wikipedia articles on them, that doesn't mean anyone who attended my school merits an article. Further, the article is almost entirely about a rather petty incident in a campus political campaign. If she had done anything else of merit in her life it might be an interesting footnote (like the way [[Conrad Black]] sold copies of stolen upcoming exams when he was at [[Upper Canada College]]) but it does not merit an article in and of itself and doesn't merit having an article because she might end up becoming a notable person. Right now most former Oxford Union Presidents do not have articles and probably will not have articles so there' s no reason to have one on her[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 20:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep'''. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|hopefully!]])]] 21:10, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>''Delete''.</s> [[User:Bob|[[User:Bob|Bob]] ([[User Talk:Bob|Talk]])]] 02:28, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC) |
|||
** The above contrib by [[User:163.1.141.7]] ([[User talk:163.1.141.7]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=163.1.141.7 contribs]), the nominator or someone sharing that IP, is forged to appear to belong to a registered user; that user either has no contribs, or is in fact nonexistent by virtue of never having registered. Struck thru. (Amusingly, the contribution was made after the passage of the day-of-nomination and the 5 additional calendar days normally allowed, 1 minute before i removed the nomination from VfD to VfD/Old!) --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
===== Valid votes ===== |
|||
** Del: 8 |
|||
** Kp: 7 (2 of them weak) |
|||
** Abst: 1 |
|||
** Other: 1 Merge, 1 Merge-&-Redir,-or-Del |
|||
---- |
|||
===== Possible special circumstances ===== |
|||
The behavior of the nominator has been horrible: on this page, their IP was used |
|||
* for casting an anon vote after it had been pointed out that anon votes could not be counted, and the fact that that vote was the only unsigned contrib in the debate suggests intentional concealment, and |
|||
* on a separate occasion, for forging a sig that created the appearance of a registered user's vote. |
|||
'''However,''' the arguments put forward by horribly behaving people are not necessarily horrible but may even be sound; the circumstance stated below may deserve some consideration. |
|||
The nominator claimed that some Keep votes were based on misinformation, and presented plausible and testable information about firsts, and about the number of presidents, that strengthened at least ''my'' pro-Del opinion. IMO the arguments are nowhere near so compelling as to be ''<s>[[prima facie|prima-facie]]</s> [[Res ipsa loquitur|res-ipsa-loquitur]]'' evidence for discounting even one keep vote, but i am taking the liberty of inviting each of the three editors specifically named to explicitly confirm, or to reconsider, their Keep votes. If any one of them should state they now felt Del was the better action, |
|||
* we'd be one more reversed opinion from a 10-5 straw-poll for deletion, and |
|||
* therefore perhaps someone (not i) should then consider re-polling those who cast the other 4 Keeps. <br> |
|||
--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
While i was preparing the above (already belated) edit, the process reached a normal conclusion. (And i have not followed up with the [[User talk:SimonP#Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir|messages to 3 editors]] that i had intended.) While i hope that edit and this one will be tolerated in the permanent record, my interest is not so great as to engage in the troublesome practice of reviving the VfD in question.--[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]][[User talk:Jerzy|(t)]] 18:42, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) |
|||
**I do not consider my behaviour to have been "horrible" - I was protecting the interests of my friend, and other voters have been utterly horrid and spiteful. This is not Martha Stewart, Jeffery Archer or someone from Enron, this is a 20 year old student who does not want frivolous student politics stuck to her name for the rest of her life. Secondly, the second edit had something disgustingly offensive and slanderous, which should not remain online, and if this is not deleted I will consider taking legal action against Wikipedia. Thirdly I was outraged to see that the "deletes" were being counterbalanced by "keeps" from misinformed idiots, who seemed to think that being Union President warranted an entry, not realising another 540 people (3 a year) have been Union president. Being the first Asian president is notable. Being the first female president is notable. Being the first British-born Asian president isn't really. And being the first British-born Asian female president certainly is not! If the entry is not deleted, legal action will be taken. [[User:163.1.141.7|163.1.141.7]] 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|||
---- |
|||
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '''Please do not edit this page'''[[Template:Vfd bottom|.]] |
|||