Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid Latif

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. The discussion hinged around whether the subject was notable and the Community decided, by a very clear majority, that he wasn't. It should be noted that six of the delete comments came after the sourcing of the article had been improved. TerriersFan 23:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khalid Latif

This person simply had his name mentioned in 2 separate articles. Furthermore, the categories titled "Impressions" and "Rumors of Being Hip" are obvious jokes. For example, Mohsen Malik is simply a student who has no known celebrity status or merit. Therefore his opinion should not matter. Likewise "black wispy hair" is simply unneccessary. The article was obviously done to praise Khalid Latif, as seen by the quotes in Article in Newsday and Article in Daily News, whereas articles that have merit for wikipedia must be objective. Also "He will continue to serve the more than 1,000 Muslims at NYU but will give up his work at Princeton" calls for predicting the future, something Wikipedia cannot support. The only real knowledge gained from this article is what Khalid is doing career-wise. However, Wikipedia articles should not be done to accomodate the life of every individual that has a job. Khalid Latif has done nothing extraordinary to earn a biography in his honor. This article does not have enough content that makes it worthy enough to remain a Wikipedia page Cookiebeast 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- → AA (talk) — 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Although I found his bio interesting, he doesn't seem particularly notable at this time. Being the first chaplain of a particular faith to a single police department, even in an important city, doesn't seem like it comes close to WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - these two links in the EL section [1][2] - both news reports of which Khalid Latif is the main subject appears to indicate some degree of notability. a quick google search unearths these news mentions, supplementing the case for notability [3] [4][5][6]. the article itself needs substantial cleanup using these sources. ITAQALLAH 00:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep per ItaqAllah, multiple non-trivial reliable sources were found: [7],[8]. Article should be cleaned up and sourced with refs. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleteper WP:OR unless sourced. The issue here is that nothing within the article itself is sourced. Pages where the content is origional reserach should be deleted. Bsides this version is poorly written, and if kept, needs a complete rewrite.--SefringleTalk 03:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No real notablility here. Dman727 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per very narrow scope of notability. I really dont think someone known only in a limited area should warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia Corpx 04:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The Muslim chaplain at two very important universities is notable. Anything further can be dealt with by editing. Sefringle, despite his experience, is simply wrong when he says articles can be deleted if the article is unsourced. The standard is sourceable, and attempts to say otherwise have been repeatedly and soundly defeated by consensus. I don't see the point of asserting that policy here is not what it is, but what you want it to be. DGG (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article in its current shape is poor, but there i sourcing available. -- Whpq 10:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
  • DeleteThe former chaplain of two MSA's is not important enough to merit an individual page. While this gentleman's accomplishments have been noteworthy in a small community, he is not scholarly or notable on a large enough scale.holla_islam 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — holla islam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
No, because none of the sources are within the article, or at least the content of this particular version is origional research.--SefringleTalk 01:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
see DGG's comment above, which is quite correct. by the way, "unsourced" does not always mean "origional [sic] research". ITAQALLAH 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: ITAQALLAH, While I do respect your opinion please: "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability-" Is an article that simply notes what job an individual attains trivial? "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors. " Is attaining a position in which you earned a master's degree for a recognized awards. If Khalid becoming a chaplain is an honor, then shouldn't every teacher or MBA earn a wikipedia article? "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Here's where it gets tricky. I'd say no because he is the second. If he was the first Muslim chaplain, that may mean something. However, if we allow the second person to achieve an article, then why not the third? or the tenth? I'd like to touch base with a few of the 'creative professional' guidelines as well. "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Would you classify several articles as 'widely cited?' "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Khalid did not do that. "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries, museums or internationally significant libraries." Khalid definitely has none of these. Cookiebeast 23:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — Cookiebeast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • WP:BIO offers multiple indicators of notability (see the criteria here); you don't need to meet all of them. for the purposes of an article on this individual, we should be expecting multiple non-trivial reliable source coverage. trivial, in this case, means to be mentioned in passing, or weak depth of coverage. these articles ([15][16]) are very lengthy, and focus entirely on Khalid Latif. the other articles linked above, while shorter, still have Latif as the subject of discussion. in my view, that is enough to meet the specification that "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." ITAQALLAH 01:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: ITAQALLAH, you pasted it yourself: "The person has been the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Please note the last part 'independent of the subject' You just posted 2 articles affiliated with Princeton. This is hardly unbiased as it is a place of Khalid Latif's employment. Similarly, the original article has references to NYU articles and the ICNYU (Islamic Center of NYU) It's their job to make Khalid look good. What organization in their right mind would hire someone then on their website write something defaming him. It doesn't matter if they are 'lengthy' because Princeton made them lengthy to make Khalid look good and as a result make Princeton look good. Encyclopedia articles must be objective and not just a cut and paste job of PR and publicity articles. Cookiebeast 01:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
such articles are perfectly acceptable for details about someone's career. The Daily Princetonian is an independent student newspaper, & a RS. But if you doubt them, surely for notability, the NY News and the NY Times are good enough, unless you wish to discount anything published in NYC also as not being independent enough. The sources asked for have been found, and that ought to settle the question.DGG (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments by Itaqallah and DGG. Passes notability criteria and although sources are not cited, it does appear (from reading some of the links given by Itaqallah - which I've added to the article) to be sourced and not OR. → AA (talk) — 08:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please be the volunteer who will move the list of deletion discussions from the active page to the /Old page Cookiebeast 23:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete What is said about him does not add up to notability.--Bedivere 19:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not only is there a serious lack of notability (Muslim chaplain at "two very important universities"? Which, praytell, are the unimportant ones?), but the bottomline is that this article was written soley to be self-serving. Anyone who saw the first version of the page would notice the blatant inclusion of a friend's name in the "Impressions" section and the "Rumors of Being Hip" section that was very tongue-in-cheek. This isn't the first time someone who has deemed himself "something of a big deal" has made (or had a friend make them) a wikipedia page purely for bragging rights. I'm rather surprised to see people jumping forward to defend this particular page, completely ignoring the fact that this person is no more notable than a school nurse who may have been profiled in a community paper (For those insisting the larger NY papers are more than enough, what you might fail to realize is how much those same articles go to show the very limited scope of "importance." What do they mean or how do they influence anyone only a few miles from New York City, or even a few blocks from NYU??). As much as I might like to think that such contributions to communities and people in them are "important" on a small, narrow scale, they simply do not add up to notability, and allowing someone to keep a page written solely for bragging rights among friends is something of a slap in the face to all other people in the same "select community" level of importance who wouldn't stoop to that level. I see this debate was included in the category of "Islam-related articles nominated for deletion", however, this is not an issue of an Islam-related article. This person does not define any part of the faith, and to confuse dismissing this article with the notion that any part of or position related to the Islamic faith is trivial would be a dangerous thing. Faith aside, this person (or any person in his position regardless of beliefs) simply does not meet the criteria for an article, lacks notability, lacks proper sourcing (although this is the point that is most in debate, I would ask everyone to consider what would happen if the people who frequent wikipedia suddenly found out that any mention of them in any non-objective article they could dig up would be enough to get them their own page. ...At least the appeal of "bragging rights" would plummet, I suppose.) and the article should not be kept. --S.Reemas, August 23, 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.41.252 (talk) 21:01, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, the roles taken are no more significant than that of a local priest, rabbi, iman............. I'd expect trivial local coverage for all of these, but notability requires more of those and I believe the same is required here. Nuttah68 10:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and Nuttah68 not notable. Harlowraman 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost every chaplain would have these qualifications and coverage in local media and university newspapers. The article is still trash to boot (which doesn't justify deletion, but certainly alleviates the dirty feeling). Cool Hand Luke 08:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable per WP:BIO. Many people get a mention in local papers, and have important jobs; that does not automatically qualify them for mention in an encyclopedia, otherwise we would have a bio article on every fireman, police officer, priest, teacher, doctor etc... on the planet. The notability bar is set higher than this. EyeSereneTALK 08:48, 25 August 2007 (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.