Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ruzwana Bashir (listed twice within two weeks was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no consensus. Article kept.

Ruzwana Bashir[edit]

Link to Original VfD Debate[edit]

The entirety of the VfD record accumulated from

00:17, 2004 Oct 11 to
15:53, 2004 Oct 19

was deleted from this page by the anon nominator on

06:07, 2004 Oct 23

& replaced by their second nomination of it.

The erased material may be seen at old version.

Note: User did not sign this, but for the record it was Jerzy at 13:41, 26 Oct 2004. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:28, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Move to Oxford Union'. This is the gimmee, obvious choice. DG 05:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re-Nomination after 3.5 Days[edit]

I'm going to try again without playing any games. Last time there were 8 deletion votes and 7 keep (2 weak), though the Keeps were from people I believe were uninformed; see the History for the previous discussion.

  • Being President of the Oxford Union is not notable in itself. Three Presidents are elected every year; should 540+ Presidents be included on Wikipedia? No, only those who do something notable after their Presidency. The person in question has not.
  • The first Asian president of the Union was Tariq Ali and the first female president was Benazir Bhutto. However, being the (a) first (b) British-born (c) Asian (d) female (e) president has too many conditions and is thus not notable.
  • The main bulk of the text refers to petty, frivolous activities in a student campus election, not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.
  • The second earliest edit of the entry includes hurtful, offensive and slanderous content. Although it was reverted, it remains in the history, and is libellous; if not removed then proceedings for legal action will be undertaken. 163.1.141.7 06:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:No legal threats
      • I have attempted repeatedly to follow Wiki's guidelines regarding that, which is why I'm having to waste time going through this VfD process. 163.1.141.7 10:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • If you don't like "wasting time", anonymous, you are at liberty to leave WP -- Cabalamat 20:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • I will leave WP once disgustingly hurtful and slanderous comments are removed from the internet - i.e. the 2nd earliest version of this entry. 163.1.141.7 20:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
          • Note that since the history actually records that the wiki community deleted the allegedly offending material, the entry itself records that wiki no longer claims that variant to be accurate. A libel proceeding would be a non-starter for failing to meet the publication as fact standard. Chrisvls 02:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • One more legal threat and you'll be blocked from editing. you have been warned. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 20:30, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article survived VfD about a week ago (odd thing, though -- I can't find the earlier debate; the links in the history all point to this entry). This is far too early to revive a VfD for this article. SWAdair | Talk 06:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • That's because this anon nominator just put the new vote on top of the old one. See the last vote here. Very weak Keep. Even though some votes in the last discussion might have not been well informed, an anon bumping this up again seems too disruptive and potentially abusive to be worth the possible precedent. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 08:43, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Stronger keep. Anon's history appears to be aimed at a POV on this article. Also, many in the last vote seemed aware of the president's lowly status, so I believe this listing is frivolous and too soon. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 08:58, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • It survived a VfD because the people voting Keep were grossly uninformed - for example saying the person deserved entry solely for being Union President, not realising that there have been over 500 Union Presidents. 163.1.141.7 06:35, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. My reasons for voting keep (which were not because she was a Union President) were not "grossly uninformed", thanks. Where did that discussion go? I object to this being relisted so quickly. Gamaliel 06:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Under the circumstances, I think this is fair enough. I voted delete only after being made aware of what the position actually entailed - which was not until quite late in the vote. Ambi 06:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons of WikiPrinciple. It just survived, let's give it some time, people. Lord Bob 07:34, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
    • 8 Delete, 7 Keep (2 weak), how did it survive? So much for democracy... 163.1.141.7 14:36, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The standard for deletion is not a simple majority. It takes at least a 2/3 vote, maybe more. Wolfman 15:38, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Wolfman has it right. 50 percent plus one is not and hopefully never will be the concensus on VfD, and this is coming from a pseudo-deletionist. Lord Bob 17:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: studentcruft. — Bill 13:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: Campus club position; previous winners in the Wikipedia because of other accomplishments. Geogre 14:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Improv 16:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have been deleted before. NeoJustin 16:58 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I did not consider Oxford Union Presidents notable when I was an undergrad there. I certainly don't consider them notable now, ten years removed. Buncha self important hacks. Did I say Delete already? -- GWO 16:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep on principle that it simply should not have been relisted that quickly, even though this article is about an unimportant tempest in an unimportant teapot, even though it should be deleted, and even though the nominator has been admirably candid and has stated a good reason for believing that the outcome might be different. To relist this quickly when all the participants in the previous debate are still around, and probably suffering from battle-fatigue, is counterproductive. Also, although I feel this article should be deleted, and that the VfD outcome was probably mistaken, I just do not feel that there is much urgency about correcting that mistake. There is plenty of other cruft to weed out. Wait three months, then try again. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Univerisity students doing university student things are not encyclopedic. We can add an article later if she goes on to do something more notable, but being a leader of a student group is not in and of itself notable (unless one leads that group in doing something notable, but this particular leader hasn't been leading long enough for that to happen). I agree that it shouldn't have been relisted so soon, but the fact is that it should have been deleted the first time around. [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 18:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. On principle, and generally agreeing with Dpbsmith. - Lifefeed 18:52, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. because (1) I object to being called uninformed, and (2) the proposer, having not got his way the first time, is now attempting to negate the first vote; as Lord Bob says, it's "WikiPrinciple" -- Cabalamat 20:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Note that people who have voted Delete have sound and reasoned justifications; those who have voted Keep have done it on meaningless and in some cases spiteful reasons. 163.1.141.7 20:47, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm assuming you're not referring to me when you say 'spiteful', but I don't think that objecting to your (ab)use of the VfD process is 'meaningless'. Lord Bob 20:51, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, please dont' relist things so quickly, once they have survived VfD. Give them a chance to develop. Come back in a couple months if nothign has changed —siroχo 22:46, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you let this vote result in a delete, you open the way to flooding vfd whenever someone is unhappy with something failing to be deleted. Shane King 00:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
Ah, the blackmail argument. If I'd voted "Keep" before, this right here, by itself, would be enough to make me vote Delete. — Bill 01:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The fact that Shane King is upset at the possibility of more, similar VfD entries upsets you more than our good anon's threatening to sue if it doesn't get its way? Lord Bob 01:58, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
No, about equally: that's nasty too. On balance, though, I'm still for deleting. — Bill 22:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indrian 02:00, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ye gods, not again. Delete, as before. I agree that it shouldn't have been relisted so quickly, but I don't agree with voting keep just to discourage this behaviour. I believe that votes should be made on an article's own merits, not on the basis of what behaviour this might encourage in the future. 163.1.141.7, please comport yourself in a more seemly manner. Litigious threats and accusations of ignorance and spitefulness are more likely to harm your cause than to help it (see Cabalamat and Shane King's votes above). Consider also that the longer you leave it before relisting, the further the whole affair will have sunk into the mists of time, and the less notable it will be. I imagine that if this page were VfD'd in, say, 2104, a delete would be likely (not that I'm suggesting you wait that long). Pnot 02:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • "slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia" says the No Legal Threats page. So why does the 2nd version of this entry, which is all of the above, continue to remain in Wikipedia's history of thie page? 163.1.141.7 14:32, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • For reference, here is the revision to which 163.1.141.7 objects. It inserts the single word "dwarf" in a reference to Ms Bashir (swiftly reverted, of course). I don't agree that this is "all of the above" (it can't be both slander and libel, and calling someone a dwarf is hardly "defamation of character").
        • Not to condone the "dwarf" comment, but out of interest, how does 163.1.141.7 think they are going to sue for libel when it was Ms Bashir who was attacked? Unless they are Ms Bashir, he/she will not be able to sue for libel as the attack was not directed at their person! And I think the court would laugh them out of court on this one. It's just not serious enough - it's just name calling. I've been called worse, and I'm almost certain Ms Bashir has been called worse at her University. Also, who are they going to sue? People are pretty much anonymous on this board. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • In any case, I'm pretty sure that VfD is not the place to discuss this problem, and possible libel in a reverted revision is definitely not grounds for deleting the whole article! (What if it was discovered that revision 29 of the Mr T article called him a dwarf? Would we have to wipe the whole article and start from scratch?)
    • I'm neither a lawyer nor a long-time Wikipedian, so I don't know (a) the legal ramifications of reverted libel in the history or (b) the proper forum in which to discuss this. The article's talk page, perhaps, or Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance? Please, could someone more knowledgeable point 163.1.141.7 in the right direction? (Incidentally, 163.1.141.7, discussion would be easier were you to create an account so that you can sign your edits with a name rather than an IP address!) Pnot 23:51, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • The 'dwarf' comment deeply hurt and upset the person in question, and secondly the entry is not notable and not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, as is confirmed by several voters on this page. None of the Keep votes on this page have suggested that the entry is notable enough to be warranted inclusion in Wiki. It's simple - being Union president alone is not worthy enough to merit inclusion (there have been over 500, 3 a year), and the person in question has not done anything notable since, unlike all others listed in Wikipedia. 163.1.141.7 00:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • 163.1.141.7, if Ms Bashir feels badly enough about this I would welcome her to send an email to Jimbo Wales discussing this issue. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Dpbsmith. Eugene van der Pijll 11:55, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:08, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- 1) The election dispute was, in fact, news -- and is now notable as part of the history of the Oxford Union. I would support moving to the OU page, but not deletion. I learned something interesting and important about the institution. 2) The conflict within the organization has extended to two election cycles now. 3) Interestingly, electoral controversy has happened before, see Benazir Bhutto 4) This is one of the interesting things about such august campus organizations -- the group of students involved hold the responsibility to maintain the democratic process of picking its leaders. 5) The insider/outsider clique problem is a recurring trend in the modern history of Oxford, et. al. 6) This has been re-listed unacceptably soon. What happened to the old votes? Chris vLS 02:42, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Same vote as before: I still think it's notable, and I think this was re-listed far too soon after the previous vote was closed. — Gwalla | Talk 05:05, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This isn't what you're supposed to use VfD for. Even aside from the relisting issue, the topic seems notable, and is obviously newsworthy at least. I hope this won't be listed here again next week. Factitious 08:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
  • Invalid Nomination. (Delete/archive/end vfd discussion and inform, warn or block nominator) (if no consensus, count as keep) Kim Bruning 18:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • should be Delete for nonnotablity, but instead it's Keep due to invalid procedure. Try again later Key45 22:47, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, If you bring this up 3 months from now, my vote would be delete, but for now, it survived a proper VfD process, and should be given a chance to show that it is in fact, notable. -Vina 23:18, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep bcz this vote should not override the legitimate one of last week, altho i voted for deletion in the first nomination. And even tho i suggested, too late for it to deserve the consideration that i hoped for, that it might be worth re-polling, in light of additional claims, the three specific editors named by the nominator in saying that Keep votes had been based on misinformation. I felt compelled to admit i was suggesting that too late; the nominator has nevertheless resurrected that argument, but
  1. they have the nominator has omitted a key point, which was that their being misinformed was irrelevant unless their minds could be changed by the additional claims,
  2. they have the nominator has added nothing (under their IP) to any of the 3's talk pages (nor anything related to this matter under any other identity
  3. two of the 3 have expressed themselves again, indicating their Keep opinions have not changed,
  4. and it follows that even if the additional claims did convince the remaining specific "misinformed" editor, the vote would have changed only to 9-6, an insufficient margin for deletion,
  5. hence the basis for renomination is not their misinformation, but their being the nominator's considering them [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVotes_for_deletion%2FRuzwana_Bashir&diff=6791200&oldid=6703988

idiots], as proven by based on their rejection of the nominator's PoV about the significance of the additional claims.

  1. By my count there are now 24 votes in a VfD that was properly completed with only 18 seeing fit to vote, and thus at least 6 voters should IMO be ashamed for voting here and thereby Monday-morning-quarterbacking the legitimate action of their colleagues. --Jerzy(t) 03:41, 2004 Oct 26 (UTC)
For those of us that speak Real English, what's "Monday-morning-quarterbacking"? Chris 00:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Monday+morning+quarterbacking 163.1.141.7 02:17, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Erm, yeah. Thanks for pointing straight to completely irrelevant Google results. Really helpful ... Chris 12:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
At the top right of the Google page it provides a dictionary definition of the term, and the search results provide examples of its use in context. Idiot. 163.1.141.7 00:14, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Sorry (tho i prefer the term "the Mother Tongue" over "RE"): I guess Quarterback doesn't cast a lot of light. The reference is to usurping the role of the tactical commander of an American football team (in discussions, with one's mates at work, of the weekend's game) by offering opinions of how the team should have been led. The analogy is weak, but i was trying to say that someone who didn't participate in the original 5 days of discussion is wrong to try to change a legitimately reached decision.
(BTW, my calculation of the number of such usurpers is unsound and perhaps unfair: i made no effort to avoid counting those who (would you say "that", really???) voted recently in order to defend the same principle that i did, when i switched "sides" as the means of supporting reaffirmation of the vote that my former "side" lost.)
--Jerzy(t) 03:22, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
OK. For any Real English :-) speakers around, "armchair punditry" (which I imagine wouldn't come as first-nature to American users), i.e. tearing the game to shreds from the comfort of one's lounge. We need somewhere to list incompatible reference pairs like this, along with what they're supposed to mean. Chris 12:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not paper If you do not want to know about this topic then do not search for it :). Give it time to grow, it is important. --ShaunMacPherson 19:24, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Abuse This nomination is almost as out-of-process as the Iraq war. Chris 03:53, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Also, the previous VfD should not have been deleted like this, though this is not the reason that I'm voting to keep this. I'm voting because she was the first British born Asian to gain this position. Also note that I am very unimpressed that legal threats entered into VfD the last time this went through voting. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:31, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • No, she wasn't the first British-born Asian to get into this position. That was IndraNeil Mahapatra, who will presumably find himself on Wikipedia in short order as a result of my pointing this out...Pnot 08:52, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • All right. I forgot to add "first British born female Asian". Mr Mahapatra was the first Asian man to hold the position. I would not have a problem with having an entry for him on Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
        • Nope, Mr Mahapatra wasn't the first Asian man to hold this position -- I think that was Tariq Ali, back in 1965. (Sorry, couldn't resist ;-) ). Pnot 21:19, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Mikkalai 23:43, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. [[User:Dmn|Dmn / Դմն ]] 14:14, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. If it survives Votes for deletion then it should survive for some time. --JuntungWu 16:54, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. What Dbpsmith said. [[User:Smyth|– Smyth]] 23:55, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1188661046"