Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hilal Khashan

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. — CharlotteWebb 21:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hilal Khashan

A prior deletion was overturned at DRV and is now here for reconsideration. Procedural nomination, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 19:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article's a mess, but he seems like a pretty prolific scholar and should be included. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per previous AfD discussion. Beside being professor of political science at the most prestigious/influential university in the Arab world, the guy is a significant example of a Palestinian scholar whose work is cited across the fence. Stammer 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per both arguments above. Heavily published author too. --Oakshade 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. He is frequently cited in the news media as a commentator on Lebanese politics, so he satisfies the proposed guideline for notability of professors. --Metropolitan90 05:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I removed the CV dump, for one it's unencyclopedic and for two reposting whole passages of presumably copyrighted material without context is outside of fair use. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep n seems established per badlydrawn & stammer. oh & errors, i've reverted your blanking most of the article so the books published section can be kept. have a look around, you'll find this's pretty much standard. the possibly contentious nature of field he's working in & your questionable justification for blanking (list of books published is definitely encylopedic, are u serious about an unsubstantiated copyvio claim on a bibliography?) could just be misinterpreted as indicating you have a very definite 'opinion' in the matter.  ⇒ bsnowball  09:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • He might be notable alright, even though the article doesn't really establish it. But fair use can only be invoked if a small fraction of a larger text is embedded in a larger educational or critical context. If you have 90% of the original text with only a smattering of context it is clearly outside of fair use. I have no qualms with the removed material being brought back, as long as it is being put in context. I'll ignore your WP:AGF violation for this time. ~ trialsanderrors 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  09:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• keep obviously notable, obviously documented, what more is there to say? Why anyoneshould want to delete this makes no sense to me. DGG 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

except, about copyright' a list of someone's books is not subject to copyright in the US. It is a mere compilation, without any intellectual labor, and so would be a list of their articles. Even a book full of bibliographies, if one copied the whole book, would still be legal in the US; the case in point was copying a phone book. Before saying copyvio, learn about copyright a little. WP is a place to start. DGG 05:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion continued on user talk page. ~ trialsanderrors 21:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

(discussion from both of us--and comments are welcome) a good choice by trialsanderrors , as it makes little practical difference to the immediate issue. DGG 00:10, 12 December 2006 (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.