Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Rafah

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Rafah[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's premise is that he is politician but fails WP:POLITICIAN as seat was won by Vice Mayor: Teresa O'Neill. No longer notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not temporary. Sources that are provided provide a reasonble quality of third party coverage, meeting WP:POLITICIAN criteria 3. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 02:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He was never elected and worked in a exceedingly minor role of caseworker. scope_creep (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He does seem to narrowly meet WP:BASIC as an advocate and notable 'local Afghan refugee success story,' if you will, in the area. Weak keep. There's just enough coverage, for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the notability requirements for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's lead is indeed that he is a politician. It then goes to expand on his work and notability as an advocate. So it is not quite correct that the article's "premise" or thesis is only that he is a politician, as the nominator suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The whole article is artifice. It gives the effect of making you believe he is a politician and that he some senior or past member of government. He is neither. It is a complete subversion. Tenuous notability, like name dropping, spun up into something bigger than it's really is. WP:Politician policy doesn't apply in this context. He never won the elections, and he worked as caseworker, outside the political stream, a problem solver essentially, so no undertaking the art of being a politician. No politiking. scope_creep (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so worried about what to call him, just that he got enough press in the San Francisco Bay area, according to Gnews, that I thought he might barely creep past WP:BASIC, regardless of why. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per scope_creep. Fails WP:Politician, fails notability. He lost the election and holds no political office. Seems conflated to make him appear far more than he really is. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate for a city council seat — and Santa Clara isn't a large enough city to confer notability on its city councillors even if he had won the seat (which he evidently did not.) But there's really just not much here on which to hang a "preexisting notability for other things" claim — "policy advisor to a US Representative" is not an automatic inclusion freebie either, and there's really very little substantive coverage of him besides purely local and WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election campaign itself. So there's simply no strong evidence that he would pass WP:GNG for any other reason. As always, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for political hopefuls' campaign brochures. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2016 (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.