Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irfan Yusuf

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 of the debate was keep and expand. The subject of this article obviously has some notoriety as a Liberal candidate for the House of Representatives, and there's scads of online stuff about him, including transcripts of ABC radio broadcasts on Radio National and notices about his practice on the NSW Law Society website. --Tony Sidaway 23:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan Yusuf

nn lawyer/politician/blogger, prod removed without comment by new user Tango 11:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough to have been endorsed by a major political party in a federal (national) election. Someone may require information in an encyclopedia as to his history simply because of this. Ans e ll 11:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are 150

Divisions of the Australian House of Representatives. I'm not sure how many major parties they have, but there must be at least 2, so that means at least 300 people are endorsed by a major party at each election - are they all notable just because of that? Had he won, then maybe, but the article just says he stood, so I'm assuming he lost (it would have said so if he'd won). --Tango 15:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

That said, I only vote delete if I feel something needs do be deleted. I dont believe that someone who could be searched should necessarily be deleted. The current article does not exactly spell out his notability, however, the (accursed) google search does reveal his influence in australian politics is actually more than it seems at first glance. [1] Ans e ll 23:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only read the first 2 pages, and even then just the extracts, but none of those pages seem to be about his political career. Looks like more of a legal writer to me. Possibly a notable one, but the article needs serious work if it's worth keeping at all. --Tango 23:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ans e ll 11:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn-bio; being an unsuccessful election candidate does not make you notable, and I see no other claims for encyclopedic nature. — Haeleth Talk 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...I think. I'm sure I've heard of the guy (and Sydney is over 1000 km from here), but I can't recall why. He seems to be an outspoken representative of the "typical Australian Muslim". The article definitely needs more work though. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a failed candidate and we're all important! No seriously this guy sounds very interesting - a conservitive candidate who is a muslim in a city that has had significant problems with relationships between muslim communities and the community in general recently. He may well figure in future debate, and it would be useful to be able to access infomation about his background quickly. Just the thing an online reference is most useful for - up to date infomation on seemingly unimportant topics that may quicky become important as things change. Michael Johnson.

Interesting does not mean notable. A large number of his google hits seem to be his own writing. Also,

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - we should have an article on him once he becomes important, not in anticipation of it. --Tango 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd like a definition of important. Some people are putting a lot of effort into writing articles about railway stations in Melbourne, not railway stations in general, or even the busiest, or most architectually interesting, but every single railway station. The balance of importance seems to lean pretty heavily towards unimportant here, and to be honest I don't mind that at all. A paper encyclopedia is limited by the cost of production and pure size, constraints that sure do still apply here but to knowhere the same degree. A good thing. Someone thinks he is important enough to write an entry, he is in public life in this country, so I still say keep him, untill such time as the server is full, and we have to start deleting stuff. --Michael Johnson 12:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a risk of setting a precedent if we keep unimportant living people that doesn't exist so much for railway stations. This person is no more notable than 100s of other minor public figures - do we want articles on all of them? His claim to fame seems to be that he's a political activist that writes the odd article. Is that really enough? --Tango 13:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a token Muslim candidate put up in a dead-safe Labor (non-conservative) who never had any chance of winning. The vehicle for a stunt to get Muslims to vote Liberal (conservative). Muslims, despite maybe not liking the foreign policy of conservative governments are generally regarded as socially conservative. I didn't think that they would go and vote green?
review me 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

If you can find a reliable source for that, it could actually make an interesting article... --Tango 11:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if a 1.1% swing to his party really counts as a swing though. The following election had a larger swing to Liberal, who still lost. [2]--Scott Davis ^Talk 15:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:BLP. Stifle (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Non-notable. --Roisterer 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ambi 05:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major political party candidate in a national election. And quite an unusual candidate ("token" perhaps, but still notable). Zaxem 09:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a token candidate is also a candidate. gidonb 15:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but are all political candiates notable? As I said above, there are at least 300 candidates in each election. --Tango 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the candidates of the large parties are, even if they don't have a good chance of getting elected. The "tokeness" of a Muslim conservative can actually contribute to one's notability. Of course I respect if you have different opinions, many of the items here are really border cases. Regards, gidonb 16:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that token candidates are probably more notable than other candidates, but standing in an election and losing is a single act that doesn't really effect anything. Were it a major position you were standing for (President or something) then the election campaign is notable in itself, but a single seat in a parliament is rarely newsworthy during a campaign, it's the leaders of the party that do all the big talks and things. This is rather a general issue, though, so prehaps we should have a proper discussion on the requirements for a politian to be notable (unless one has already taken place, of course - I'll go look). --Tango 16:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A root approach vs. a branch approach is always a good idea! Regards, gidonb 19:34, 13 May 2006 (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.