Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pnot (talk | contribs) at 02:38, 24 October 2004 (→[[Ruzwana Bashir]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ruzwana Bashir

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruzwana_Bashir&oldid=6822027"