Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:44, 23 March 2016

Umar Khalid

Umar Khalid (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)

Classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Unnecessary article created through 2016 JNU sedition controversy. --Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - I think it is unfair to label the subject as a WP:SINGLEEVENT. He is a symbol of the Indian youth's resistance against the rising nationalism and intolerance in India, an event billed as the "Indian Spring" of 2016 by BBC News and various commentators. It concerns Kashmir, arguably the single biggest problem facing the Indian subcontinent. His profile indicates that he is a leader and a rebel, and he is here to stay. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving away your POV with this comment. --Greek Legend (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Symbol of the Indian youth's resistance against the rising nationalism and intolerance in India"? Sorry, but Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy. Please find strong reliable sources suggesting that the article subject was notable before this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. I find no significant coverage of this person before this single event. He could be mentioned in the main article of the event, but there is no need to have a separate article for him. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I knew Kaultilya3 will comment keep, but I didn't expect such a ridiculous argument that he represents India's youth. Majority don't like this guy. Lets watch what Joshua Jonathan comments here. Greek Legend (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

  The presence of a Wiki page is based on notability, not popularity. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - It has significant coverage in national and international media. InspireTheWorld (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• There is a lot of coverage but this is due to it being a recent event (see WP:RECENTISM). I cannot find any significant coverage of this person before this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You can find continuous significant coverage after that event. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, WP:RECENTISM. Media coverage is continuing because it is a recent event (less than 3 months). The person's main claim to fame is that one single event. When building an encyclopedia, we think of how relevant this will be after 10 years. And as I repeated before, I haven't been able to find any significant coverage of this person before this event. If this person's role is important in this event, it can be mentioned in the main article of the event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This person and the event will be relevant in the future. Already movement to remove the sedition law from the statute started and this person will be hailed as the one who ignited the debate on the issue. We should not wait for 10 years to include in Wiki. InspireTheWorld (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"This person and the event will be relevant in the future." is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. It may or may not happen. If it does, we can have an article on him at that time. But right now it is not needed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Delete- WP:SINGLEEVENT and fails notability.. He is a "symbol" of something but only within JNU walls..Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Not only within JNU walls. Significance International coverage is there. InspireTheWorld (talk) 19:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

this "significant coverage" is all due to WP:RECENTISM ---Adamstraw99 (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You actively edit articles related to Aligarh Muslim University as Cricket Club, Aligarh Muslim University and Muslim University Riding Club. The IP below came right after editing Jamat E Islami page. Both of you have your POV in your keep votes.Greek Legend (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that Umar Khalid being a Muslim and as I edited and some related to Aligarh Muslim University which seems to be a Muslim university by name is not a co incidence. I think you are trying to give it a communal color. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Keep It has had significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.148.95.16 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BLP1E. This person is a low-profile student notable for only one event. Vipinhari || talk 05:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Keep Has been a subject of constant media coverage ALONG with JNU controversy and Kanhaiya Kumar for over a month now. WP:SINGLEEVENT suggests : "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". There have been various media coverage items profiling specifically Umar Khalid, both in positive and negative light, apart from his role in JNU sedition controversy. e.g. Media reports linked specifically Umar Khalid with Jaish-e-Mohammad and then Govt denied the report. Umar Khalid was reported to have visited Pakistan twice by the media. Hence WP:SINGLEEVENT may not apply here. May I also add that apart from Kanhaiya Kumar, other 6 students who are charged under sedition were not covered like Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar. WP:SINGLEEVENT would apply on those 6 students but not Umar and Kanhaiya. I would urge people opining Keep as well as Delete, to purely judge this on the basis of coverage in the media, and not their own subjective views. ChunnuBhai (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your first edits are related to Aam Aadmi Party and the politicians linked to it. Thanks, I understand everything. Greek Legend (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to point out any COI, please be direct. Sly comments may not be very useful in an AFD. ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And secondly this AFD is not for Kanhaiya Kumar. So, don't bring him in this discussion. Greek Legend (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

If you disagree with my opinion and the reasoning behind it, please say it as is. If you wish so ignore references to Kanhaiya Kumar, still WP:SINGLEEVENT would not apply here as there is enough media coverage for both the incident as well as the individual.ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I will request User:Greek_Legend please not make sly comments in the discussion. a COI / POV may be pointed out in a plain language, and thereafter debated like mature good men :) IMO Previous edits , unless pointed out to be biased must not be used to discard opinions in an AFD Regards ChunnuBhai (talk) 08:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT there's no need for an separate article for a low-profile person notable for only one event. He could be mentioned in the main article. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 13:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It cannot be a classic case of WP:SINGLEEVENT because the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered in such circumstances. We have seen that after the event which was held on 9th February after which controversy erupted which led to his arrest under Sedition Law and subsequent bail by Court, he is still being covered by national and international media. So, it is not a single event. It has surpassed single event criteria. Now with the passage of every day it is becoming multiple event. InspireTheWorld (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Snow Keep The rationale of WP:SINGLEEVENT went out the window when this guy got coverage again and again and again. I think single event is one of the weakest rationales to be mentioned here. Notnews is the same. I mean how does one call something "just news" which is covered by reliable sources for a long period of time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Keep What's the difference between Kim Davis (county clerk) and Umar Khalid. One is an American. One is an Indian. WP:GEOBIAS. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The misuse of WP:NOTNEWS is extremely tiring. NOTNEWS says this "As Misplaced Pages is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". WP:NOTNEWS actually is not a blatant prohibition on coverage of recent topics. AusLondonder (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

For you first comment about a WP:GEOBIAS, if you look at the decision Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Kentucky_same-sex_marriage_license_controversy, the articles were merged into 1 article at Kim Davis (county clerk). That is exactly what should be done here as well; keep a single article for the event. As for your second comment, an article already exists about the event. The debate is whether we need separate articles for the people involved considering that they are notable only because of their connection to this event. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

You are right that AfD removed one of three articles. Two currently exist. The BLP and Miller v. Davis. AusLondonder (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep The event, and Umar Khalid's role in it specifically, has received a volume of coverage such that the "Recentism" argument is a dodgy one. I'm hardly a person to default to "keep" in every such situation; but a google search for news stories with the phrases "umar khalid" and JNU brings up half a million results. Yes, most of these will not be detailed, but the volume still says a lot. What's more, he has a central role in the whole event, not a peripheral one, and has received enough detailed coverage to pass GNG to boot; more than enough reasons to keep, in my book. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates