Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rania Khan (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 was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khan

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rania Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an exercise in Self-promotion and publicity by a former politician and it is very likely to have been written by the subject or a person/s editing on the subject's behalf. The article contains large amounts of self-aggrandizing and spurious content that is in such quantities it distorts the article and is therefore not from a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV); this surplus 'promotional' content is well beyond the basis of the articles previous excuse for notability; that she is a politician and, as such, is excessive and irrelevant.

The basis for the subjects notability were that she was a serving local councillor at a local authority in London. Nevertheless, the subject of this autobiographical article is no longer an elected or active politician and has not been for several years and, as such, any feasible grounds of notability (where the consensus last time was a "weak keep") (where half the commentators in the last deletion nomination discussion considered it to be a "weak keep" or "very weak keep") must surely have diminished even further to the point where this article should be reconsidered for deletion. Aetheling1125 19:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep The consensus last time was "keep", not "week keep". I am not connected with this person myself. I realize that local councilors are not inherently notable, however I think this persons achievements do make her just about pass notability. Tower Hamlets council has been the subject of a good deal of controversy recently, which actually increases the notability of all those involved. PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources made the subject pass WP:POLITICIAN in 2012 and they still do today. I see no evidence that this was written by the subject nor that it is in a promotional tone (and this is coming from someone who tends to want to burn undisclosed paid editors at the stake). But the nom's misrepresentation of the previous consensus does concern me. Concerns have been addressed, thank you. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changing !vote in light of new information, see below. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply But should the reason WHY they are notable be the purpose of the article? What is the reason why Rania Khan is notable? Is it because her second husband is a photographer? Is it because her mum was in the army? Is it because she is a science teacher in Newham? Is it because she likes to go shopping on Wednesday? This article in my view is inflated and contains a lot of biographical self indulgence which makes it aggrandizing. If the reasons for her being notable are that she was - briefly - the youngest elected councillor in the UK then that is all the article should be about. If it was that she kept changing political allegiance (is that notable?), then so be it. It should be brief and functional and focus wholly on these things and not be this great eulogy with an info box as if we are looking at the reign of some monarch! The first thing we need to do is decide why Rania is notable. The second thing we should do is reduce this article simply to that. The un-notable surplus should then be deleted. Aetheling1125 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's nonsense, once somebody is notable we include significant information. Her main claim to notability seems to be having been a cabinet member of an important local authority, although being the youngest councilor in the UK is also significant. See WP:POLOUTCOMES. PatGallacher (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would add that the 32 London boroughs are quite important as local authorities go, with substantial powers and populations, Tower Hamlets has a population of a quarter of a million. Maybe individual councilors are not inherently notable, but senior figures like cabinet members could be notable. PatGallacher (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When it comes to politicians, Wikipedia is not a directory solely of current officeholders, such that we delete articles once a person retires from politics or loses re-election or dies — if a person was ever notable enough for a Wikipedia article, then they retain that status forever, without regard to change in their current circumstances. I have no strong opinion on whether she is notable enough or not — under normal circumstances we do not extend notability under WP:NPOL to borough councillors, but as I don't live in the UK I'm not in a position to adequately assess whether she's more notable than the norm for that role or not. But the fact that she isn't still in office today has nothing to do with the question — "was notable at the time but isn't anymore" isn't a thing Wikipedia does, so the only valid grounds for deletion would be a credible case that she was never notable enough for an article in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Thanks for the feedback. PatGallacher you say that once someone is notable you include "significant" information. That seems sensible but it begs the question: what is "significant" information. I maintain that the article in question contains a lot of insignificant information which is aggrandizing the subject. If this was a normal article I would not see any problem but it is a politician... it is in the interests of the subject to have as much aggrandizing information as possible and for that reason I think we should restrict the content to a minimum so that it is truly significant and not surplus promotion. For example, do we need to know what degree grade she got? Clearly this article is promoting the individual, it is virtually a CV...and it also begs the question - unless the subject was involved with the writing of this page how would the editor who created it know what degree grade she got? Aetheling1125 20:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aetheling1125: Not every article needs to be a stub, information such as education and personal background can be informative in articles on public people. I suggest looking through the featured articles on politicians such as Barack Obama for examples of what content to include on these types of articles. If this article is promotional, then Obama's should be G11ed asap! Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, concerned I may be stating the obvious, Barack Obama is the most powerful man in the world. Rania Khan was a borough councillor for five years and is virtually unknown beyond Tower Hamlets.Aetheling1125 14:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep – The article is well sourced, subject is notable as it meets WP:GNG as well as WP:POLITICIAN. As per the consensus on the previous AfD and WP:NTEMP, the subject is no less notable now than she was then. As per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, any specific problems with the article should be addressed through editing not deletion. Also, I fail to see how any of the information within the article is promotional or biased.
Thank you User:Aetheling1125 for your lack of WP:AGF in falsely accusing me of sock puppetry and/or conflict of interest for the third time in as many years. Initially here in May 2012, however, after another editor refuted this you subsequently apologised for this. But then went on to make a similar accusation again for the Rabina Khan article in April 2013.
In response to your assumption of sock puppetry or conflict of interest, as I have already told you for Rabina Khan here, I have never met Rania Khan either and I have attempted to write this article from a WP:NPOV with the sources available. Considering that you have been editing on Wikipedia for nearly 10 years now and judging by your weak WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons for deletion as well as your poor/strawman interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG, it would seem you have a WP:NOTHERE agenda against these particular politicians. In response to your comment here I suggest you AfD that article also, so consensus can finally be established, rather than teasing the issue and letting it linger any longer. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than getting all ad hominem and "policy bombing" why don't you help us answer some of the questions I posed, principally these:
  • What precisely is Rania Khan notable for
  • What is "significant" information which is relevent to the subjects grounds of notability. I maintain that the article in question contains a lot of insignificant information which is aggrandizing the subject.
  • How do you know she has a 2:1 degree? That is not public information. Did she tell you?Aetheling1125 14:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Well as you have been told before "do not accuse someone of sock puppetry or conflict of interest without some evidence". Despite two previous warnings about this you continue to do this therefore I felt the need to get "all ad hominem". Sure, I'll help answer your questions again:
The subject is notable because she meets the WP:POLITICIAN standard of "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". She also meets WP:GNG standard of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. If you do not like policy bombing then you are in the wrong place.
If you took the time to check the sources in the article properly you would also know that the subject has a 2:1 degree according to this source. Tanbircdq (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have failed to answer my question about why she is notable. In addition, regarding the surplus information, is her degree level (just one example) locum to her notability? Is she notable because she has a 2:1 or does he degree level (which is unremarkable) add to her notability? No it doesn't - it is just fawning praise and aggrandizement. It is irrelivent and surplus; it is not "significant". Also you quote policy to say that a local politican is notable if they "have received significant press coverage" - well I would argue that she has NOT received "significant" press coverage. Her press coverage was extremely minor, limited and usually self-generated. By your own admission she is not notable.Aetheling1125 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The attempt to delete her has been tried before and it is clear that it is a political opponent or those who detest her work as a feminist. The page in fact says very little of the hard work and continuous effort she has made to fight injustice not just in London but nationally and internationally. Your wrong and yes people across the country know of her work especially in the Left movements. She has been a prominent figure and notable in Tower Hamlets and Bangladeshi community Judge at Jack Petchey Award. She is regularly asked to participate in TV, radio discussion including BBC alongside MPs and other notable figures. The fact that she was one of the very few female BME politicians who has inspired many and continues to do so should make her notable.Her tireless work to end inequality for women should make her notableUK Feminsta support Fawcett Society and many other notable women's right organisations have valued her hard work. She has also spoken on national and international platforms for climate change Climate change conference fronton 60,000 people. Although not in office she is regularly invited to speak on such issues. -Pinky36 (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I completely reject your accusation. The only reason I support deletion is that clearly doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN guidelines. I note that you only created your account today and have only edited this page, so if any has to answer questions about their motivations - I would suggest it was you. --Cantab12 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyWell do you have the same concern regarding other politicians on here let me start with some local ones, Shiria Khatun and Anwara Ali, thereby it is clear that you have a political agenda and your biased, why haven you opposed those two politicians??? clearly you have an agenda. As this matter was bought to my attention on twitter and real Rania Khan is being unfairly targeted as usual, i felt compelled to comment.. --Pinky36 (talk) (UTC)
  • Delete Being a local politician doesn't make them notable enough under WP:NPOLITICIAN, and there is no evidence of significant, independant coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is a local, not provincial politician. The WP:NPOLITICIAN rule for a local politician is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". I live in Tower Hamlets, and promise you that being a cabinet minister under an executive mayor does not make you a major political figure. The onus must surely be on those advocating 'keep' to demonstrate that she has received significant press coverage. Because I've not noticed any press coverage at all, I do not believe she satisfies that criterion. But I'll change my mind in the face of evidence. (Pinky36 may wish to substantiate their claim about being "regularly asked to participate" in media discussions.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drianmcdonald (talk • contribs) 11:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Being a local politician is not sufficient for automatic inclusion. However, the subject's media coverage such as BBC, East London Advertiser, Telegraph for her views and achievements as well as being a cabinet member of an important large local authority makes her pass notability. Also, it is not for AfD to determine if she should have received all this press coverage or not. Tanbircdq (talk) 11:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC):[reply]
  • She was mentioned, briefly, ONCE in the Daily Telegraph and this is hardly "significant press coverage". She wrote one thing which was published once in the Guardian. The East London Advertiser was, I think, merely reporting the local election results and it is not a major or national newspaper. You refer of her "achievements" as if you are a political supporter of hers. What precisely are her achievements and are they "notable". She is not notable just because you say she is notable. She is not notable now and never was according to the guidelines.Aetheling1125 19:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Aetheling1125 you are misinformed, she has been continuously on national and international media whilst a politician, as far as I know from her twitter feeds she is on maternity leave hence not that involved as usual. I live in TowerHamlets and can confirm that she is regular guest speaker on Channel S, Bangla TV, Islam Channel and has appeared several times on BBC news, she was regularly commentator on Vanessa Stealth show on BBC, LBC, Channel 4 News, appeared on the first page of Evening Standard Evening Standard she went head to head with BNP's Nick Griffin on 5 Live, regualary speaks on Stop the War, People's Assembly platform alongside notable speakers Peoples Assembly. A treasurer for Kinglsely Hall. I think those on here are unfairly targeting Rania. Giving birth and taking a break from politics shouldn't be a reason why she should be taken off. Her records speak for herself. Aetheling1125 is one person who clearly doesn't know TowerHamlets as a woman and from the BME community. She has fought long and hard for over 10 years. Wiki page recognises unsung heroes and not those who only fit the stauts quo. Yes she not suited and booted but she has faught hard for our community, and is very notable in my eyes. Before leaving office she worked on the Thomas Rainsborough plaque and there are countless examples of her work in the Borough. :53, 20 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinky36 (talk • contribs)
  • East London Advertiser is about being nominated for Young Councillor of the Year which provides in-depth coverage about her. There is further elaboration on British Bangladeshi Who's Who about campaigning and speaking on various platforms, specifically a live debate with Nick Griffin on Radio 4. The Daily Telegraph article about her, on the back of being speaker Fem 11 conference and also in reference to her position as cabinet member for culture. Tanbircdq (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm changing my mind on this one in light of new information. As an American who has no stake in this person's politics, upon my further examination of the sources she lacks the significant coverage expected of a major politician or to even pass WP:BIO. All of the coverage is either routine coverage by local media or trivial mentions. Wikipedia does not need articles on every councilor and selectman in the world as they lack the coverage expected of them in WP:NPOLITICIAN. In regards to the subject, tweeting stuff like this is how you lose support, not gain it. In general, you should try to avoid calling well respected Wikipedian's "misogynist" for upholding Wikipedia's standards. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm casting my vote on the matter. I have never once made a reference to Rania being a woman and I object to being labelled a "mysoginist" by the ex-Councillor. I maintain that she has never reached the criteria for being notable. She is not a "major" political figure and has never enjoyed "significant" press coverage. The article is inflated and is, I maintain, a promotional tool and not an objective or worthy entry on Wikipedia. Aetheling1125 07:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rania_Khan_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1078103040"