Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dilpazier Aslam

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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dilpazier Aslam

Fails to establish notability. He was a trainee journalist for The Guardian until he got fired. Big deal. Normally I would suggest merging into Hizb ut-Tahrir, but the page already mentions him and the incident that resulted in his firing. Few remember his 15 minutes of fame. KazakhPol 22:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KazakhPol has nominated this for deletion because he tried and failed to have Category:Terrorism in Britain added to the page. He is on a mission to call people associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group, "terrorists," although the group has no known links to terrorism. Aslam was fired by The Guardian over his membership of the group because it is regarded as antisemitic, not because it's involved in terrorism. K-Pol has been disrupting Hizb ut-Tahrir for some time, routinely calling editors who disagree with him "liars" and "vandals," and this nom is part of the same pattern of disruption. Aslam's case is a significant one. A major newspaper firing a journalist because of the political party he belongs was an issue that made the news in the UK at the time, and it is still discussed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. This nomination has nothing to do with categories. 2. I removed references to HuT as a terrorist organization earlier today. 3. HuT's ties to terrorism are irrelevant to this discussion. 4. If you read The Guardian's statement you will see they said it incited violence against Jews, not just that it was antisemitic. 5. The accusation that I am disrupting HuT is ludicrous. SV needs to distinguish between editing disagreements and disruption. 6. Your last point is the only genuine one, although you have failed to provide diffs that establish notability. KazakhPol 22:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete KazakhPol may be abusing WP:POINT, if there's stronger proof of this, I may vote for a procedural keep. As for the article itself - a blogstorm in a teacup over a trainee journalist. Wikipedia is not a news report archive or an archive for recording blogosphere story-of-the-weeks. Bwithh 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. -- ⇒ bsnowball 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep effectively losing your job because of your religion, & the type of job & circumstances, will make one notable. just needs one more source to meet 'multiple independent sources'. ⇒ bsnowball 11:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His religion? Are you serious? Do you know how many Muslim Britons work for The Guardian? KazakhPol 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; over and above the controversy surrounding his sacking from The Guardian (which has little press coverage outside that paper), his previous receipt of George Viner award from fellow journalists marked notability per WP:BIO. Eludium-q36 18:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.