Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humayun Khan (soldier)

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 speedy/SNOW keep (non-admin closure). The topic may still be organized into different articles through merger, but that need not be discussed at AFD p b p 02:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Humayun Khan (soldier)[edit]

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

Both of these articles should be redirected to 2016 Democratic National Convention. Humayun Khan fails WP:MILPEOPLE. I posit that WP:BLP1E applies: Khan is otherwise a low-profile individual and all of the sourcing comes from the appearance of his parents at the convention. Coverage about the ensuing furor does not cause the subject to be generally notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because Khan's parents are also low-profile people and therefore not generally notable:

Keep Coverage in reliable sources is extensive and more than sufficient to meet WP:GNG. The nomination is defective since it cites Biography of a living person known only for one event. This is not a living person but rather someone who was killed 12 years ago. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) @Cullen328: Yeah, I was completely wrong on that count, about BLP. It applies to the parents, but not to the deceased captain. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article about the parents as well, who now meet WP:GNG by a country mile, and will most certainly be described in great detail in history books about the 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - If all the parents had done was to speak at the convention, then BPL1E would apply. But the give and take, and ongoing media appearances have been going on for five days. This is not a flash in the pan. This will become a part of history, and part of Wikipedia's role is to curate and catalog the reliable sources as they develop over time. Why not withdraw these nominations now, and if I am wrong, renominate in a few months? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Cullen328: I disagree philosophically. None of this coverage is about the subjects. This is really about the campaign. I wouldn't oppose having an article about this controversy but I refuse to believe these people are generally notable. I totally understand how editors would see GNG out of all these so-called news articles. I'd like to think the consensus has better sense than to write about peripheral personalities. I discussed this with the author of the first article. He also created an article about Mitt Romney's tax returns which itself isn't a subject. The subject of that reportage is the political football. I'm correcting a mistake with this AfD. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- w/o the Convention speech, it would have been a Delete vote. But the new section added since the article was nominated changes things. WSJ called the speech a "Convention standout and NPR describes an "ongoing controversy over GOP (...) Trump's response. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge the parent's article into this one. 79.193.104.232 (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now, because it's been continuously in the news for over a week at this point. I would've said delete 4 days ago, but since then it has had so much more coverage.--Thalia42 (talk) 08:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Politically relevant. Google search for his full name "Humayun Saqib Muazzam Khan" returns over 5000 hits as of 8/3/2016.--Calcobrena (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This serviceman died over 12 years ago. Is the only motivation for this article his parent's actions at the DNC? Also his father accounts on what happened conflict with this article [1] from the Washington post in 2004. The article claims Capt. Khan was killed at an IED attack on a vehicle checkpoint, a very different story than what is on his current Wikipedia entry. Some research should be taken and a {{Disputed}} warning is in order. 71.183.11.219 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] killed June 8 after a vehicle packed with an improvised explosive device drove into the gate of his compound while he was inspecting soldiers on guard duty in Baqubah, Iraq. , on a side note as unfortunate as every death is I think this has only come up because of current politics and isnt notable outside of the fact it is currently on the news.--Savonneux (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if we are to consider WP:GNG and the extensive coverage afforded to the subject. Merging and giving passing mention on the convention article wouldn't do justice to the topic. Mar4d (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point of that WP:GNG creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included, it isn't the end all be all criteria for inclusion. Generally failing the inclusion guideline for Biographies WP:ANYBIO (which this does by a wide mark), it defaults over the WP:SOLDIER for military personnel. Frankly he died 12 years ago and was barely mentioned as one of many unfortunate casualties in the Iraq War. All the in depth coverage that has developed recently is directly caused by a one time event at a political function.--Savonneux (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His life and death were the subject of multiple independent reliable sources from over a decade ago that we know about: the Washington Post[3][4] the University of Virginia's student paper[5] and even the Government of Virginia (pdf)[6] That he's become sort of a "political football" now shouldn't cancel all that out. -- Kendrick7^talk 12:08, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly while those do cover him as a person in depth they are also rather routine for soldiers who die in combat. You can pick any random individual from the Army's list of the fallen and get at least a couple news articles on their life (which isn't something I have a problem with, they should be recognized). Example of a compilation of AP articles [7] for one week in 2010. The Army Times also usually covers them. The Virginia legislature also rountinely passes those resolutions [8] [9] etc. That's why the criteria for WP:SOLDIER is so specific.--Savonneux (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Savonneux, those are some good points which I will keep in mind before creating other articles about deceased soldiers. I was barely cognizant that we had such a policy, but it mostly makes sense (I might take issue with such strict standards being applied to living, captured POWs... but we can have that argument another day). Still, in this case his father, a D.C. lawyer with enough pull to get that WaPo sit down (I posted the wrong 2nd Washington Post link the first time) did just enough to put Khan over the goal line, even way back in 2005, in my opinion. Obviously that's all just a mental exercise now, as the father has since kicked it through the goal posts. Who gets recorded by history has never been an exercise in fairness (Ob arm, ob reich, im Tode gleich). -- Kendrick7^talk 00:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My thinking when creating the article on the parents was largely along the lines of what Cullen328 says above, and how I described it on that talk page. There's no question that there's enough significant coverage of them to satisfy notability. I think there's more than enough to justify an article independent of the convention, too, given there have been new developments that have kept them among the top national headlines every day since the speech (e.g. just a few hours ago from the NY Times -- not the best source, because it's more about Trump than the Khans, but not all of the sources have to have them as the primary subject). There's a valid question of whether, per WP:BIO1E, it would make sense to move the article about the parents to an article about the speech (not the campaign/convention), but I think a biography is justified and that discussion can always happen down the road. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep clearly notable at this point & suggest closing this per WP:SNOW cOrneLlrOckEy (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - extensive, sustained, international coverage; this goes well beyond the usual campaign controversy. I wouldn't mind merging articles about the parents and the son into a single, consolidated article on the entire affair, though. Neutrality^talk 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with this potential consolidation plan, too. Altenmaeren (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep - And merge. Seems the most reasonable and easily solved&closed solution from this humble lurker, especially since his fame is due more to his parents. Ihadurca Il Imella (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the speech was what propelled them, their situation and relevance currently goes well beyond that now. The article is properly sourced and fulfills general notability guidelines. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 14:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. GNG is easily met (and not temporary) for both articles. Consolidation and merges could be discussed once this is less of a current event.

Parents: The WP:BIO1E policy on "low-profile individuals" is intended to protect the privacy of people who did not seek media attention and do not want personal information widely disseminated. As explained in WP:Who is a low-profile individual, the fact that they've given multiple scheduled media interviews about their son and political opinions makes these aspects of their lives "public" for our purposes.
Son: WP:SOLDIER starts by explicitly deferring to the GNG. In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage...In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify if [they meet one of the following criteria]. SOLDIER doesn't say they can't have an article if they meet GNG in some other way. FourViolas (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article on the parents. The convention speech, Trumps angry reaction, the reactions of military veteran organizations and politicians of both sides to Trump's statements, all appear to be affecting the course of the 2016 presidential campaign. The veteran himself falls under WP:BLP1E and should be redirected to the parents' article. For perspective on this,see deletion debates on Joe the Plumber. The article called Joe the Plumber was redirected to the article about the 2008 political campaign, but the article about the person Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Wurzelbacher was kept, even though it was then eventually renamed to Joe the Plumber. The deletion debate itself got press coverage in Columbia Journalism Review. The Keep close by user:BJ said "He is currently in the national spotlight, many people are hearing about him for the first time and they come to Wikipedia to read (and write about him). While yes, his article violates the BLP policy, there is no deadline and exception can be made. Redirecting his article now would only cause needless drama, from both experienced editors who think he should have an article and new editors who can't understand why we don't have an article on such a "notable" subject. This close is not indicative of a consensus to keep, but an interim decision that I feel will result in the least drama. In a few days or weeks after the spotlight has moved to another political talking point, this should be revisited with a new AfD. I realize this means that Wikipedia will be a news site for a short period of time but I don't see any real harm in that." I agree with BJ. His Keep close was endorsed by deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Joe the Plumber. Such decisions stand as defacto guidelines. Persons known for only one thing can become memes in US presidential campaigns, and remain important in political history, like Willie Horton whose prison release was important in the 1988 campaign with the "revolving door" meme.Edison (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG.-Classicfilms (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. I would add to the arguments written by Edison above that multiple news sources are beginning to comment on the confrontation between the Khans and Mr. Trump as a significant event. NYT said the confrontation "has emerged as an unexpected and potentially pivotal flash point in the general election", CNN said it could possibly be "remembered as the turning point" in the election, and The Washington Post headlined that the confrontation "could haunt Trump." In addition, pageviews for the parents' article were 42,350 for the past 2 days, and the five-day total for the son's article was 85,598, an indication people are seeking information on Wikipedia about the Khans. I would not object to merging Humayun Khan (soldier) with the article about his parents eventually, but for the time being, I think both articles have the potential to be important additions to the encyclopedia. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow close as keep Obviously.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both articles. Quite clearly notable per WP:GNG. Filpro (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and rename Khizr and Ghazala Khan to Khizr Khan because of a significant difference in media presence and attention. gidonb (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the renaming, not only because Ghazala has been the focus of major developments (including Trump's original criticism) but because using both names provides a natural solution to the WP:PRECISION problem created by the current subject of Khizr Khan. FourViolas (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Both articles satisfy WP:GNG, and ongoing international media coverage of the subjects on mass scale solidifies the notability.--JayJasper (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Unless the war hero has a separete article about him, then do concentrate on the whole family, such that the soldier and the parents are equally represented in the article. -Mardus /talk 21:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Per WP:GNG. This family has received lots of media coverage on their own and deserve at least one article of their own. With that said, I would support a possible merge of Humayun Khan (soldier) into his parents' article, though. Parsley Man (talk) 22:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"YES, Keep" OK to merge pages re family members . I read the delete guidelines. Someone asked me what Khizr Khan did for a living, it was his name that brought me to Wikipedia and to biographical information beyond that in news coverage. I see this as one of Wikipedia's core functions. Mr. Khan has indeed become a notable person, and I have to question how some of this information can be fitted into a page about the 2016 D Convention without there being a link to a wiki page about the Khans. Blueacorneater (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~SPEEDY DELETE~~. Okay, I'm just trolling jk: snow keep for previously mentioned reasons. In the near future, we can consider opening some sort of merger discussion for the family. ^Falling_Gravity 00:30, 4 August 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.