Talk:El-Farouk Khaki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on March 21, 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Peacock terms

  1. "In 2003, he organized the first female-led, mixed-gender Muslim congregational prayers in Canada"
  2. "he has been involved in every such public event in Canada since."
  3. "In spring 2007, Khaki received the prestigious Steinert and Ferreiro Award from the Lesbian and Gay Community Appeal Foundation"
  4. "In 1994, Khaki represented a landmark refugee claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada"
  5. "The CMU emphasizes that it operates on democratic principles and intends to constructively engage the wider Muslim community." GreenJoe 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Much of this can easily be rewritten and I believe the precedents set by the refugee cases he's taken on can be sourced (though the word "landmark" may have to either be replaced with something else or attributed to someone). I don't really see how this, if true and verified, can be described as using "peacock terms": "In 2003, he organized the first female-led, mixed-gender Muslim congregational prayers in Canada". He either did or he didn't but if verified the wording looks neutral enough to me. Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting will solve the problem of peacock terms and the very pro POV the article has. GreenJoe 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
You haven't answered my specific question about "In 2003, he organized the first female-led, mixed-gender Muslim congregational prayers in Canada". How is that "peacock-y" or POV? Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, his notability has been established as far as I can see. How are organizing the first female-led Muslim prayer service in Canada or setting precedents in refugee cases in regards to LGBT right not notable? Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I had missed the question. It's probably not POV or peacock terms. That probably doesn't need fixing, though I'm sure there's other stuff in the article that I did miss. As for notability, I don't see how that's notable at all. GreenJoe 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you seriously don't think he's notable then put the article up for AFD. If you do think he's notable then let's remove the tag but I don't see the point of tagging a bio as Non-notable without doing an AFD. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job with the re-write. GreenJoe 23:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

I've rewritten the article to deal with the peacock terms and have also checked sources. Let's move the notability. Can you be more specific about why you don't think he's notable? He is cited in quite a number of articles long before his involvement in electoral politics and has won several awards for his refugee work and activism in the gay community, for instance this award from the Canadian Bar Association. If you're not willing to test your assertion on non-notability by putting the article up for AFD then I'd just assume remove the non-notability tag. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

He only gets 4,000 GHits. GreenJoe 00:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
He has a number of non-trivial references in mainstream news items that have nothing to do with the election. He's notable in the legal field having received an award from the Canadian Bar Association and having a number of writeups in newspapers. I haven't put this in the article yet but he's also a panelist on CTV Newsnet's legal show The Verdict. Google hits are interesting but they don't determine notability. If you think he's not notable why are you not willing to put the article up for AFD? Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Now that the "peacock terms" have been removed can you be specific on what in the article is POV? Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC: Is El-Farouk Khaki notable

Is El-Farouk Khaki notable enough to merit a wikipedia article? Is this article NPOV? Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

  • As an inclusionist, I'd say that he's notable, but only barely. He seems to have been the subject of considerable coverage by the Toronto Star - and it's that coverage that convinces me that he clears my interpretation of WP:N - but I can see how somebody more deletionist than I am would feel that this was "merely local" coverage. I don't see any POV problems in the article as currently written (though I agree with the problems that GreenJoe identified and Reggie Perrin resolved in the first section of this talk page), but I've parsed the sources much more carefully than the article itself. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no real question in my eyes that the subject is notable, although I have a fairly broad definition of notability. I could definitely see how more information regarding the subject's personal life, if he has any (wife/s.o., children, parents, siblings, whatever) could be included, if it's available, and inclusion of such reliably sourced information would give a broader perspective on the subject, but if it isn't there, it isn't there. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He is clearly notable in my opinion. The introduction might be better worded with the by-election result put later in the article. --Brian R Hunter (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)