Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khurram Dara (2nd nomination)

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. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khurram Dara

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

I'm nominating this for deletion after trying to find sources for his book

(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
czar · · 08:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

weak Delete I think he's of some importance, but the only real source is the one from the Nation, and it's not from their main publication but Student Nation. I think the use of multiple quotes from unreliable sources is a promotional technique and to be highly discouraged--otherwise I would be much more positive about the article. A separate article on the book is in any case a very poor idea--and also is a promotional technique. On the borderline, of notability, we should consider other factors. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The article relies very heavily on primary or unreliable sources. I am not sure whether it has bearing on my ability to participate in this discussion, but in the interest of full disclosure I'd like to note I nominated his book's article for deletion. Stamscaney (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the fact that this article is mostly source with primary sources and the single reliable secondary source isn't enough to establish notability, this article was already deleted three years ago. Why was it created again? Seems like an issue of
WP:FANPAGE. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Do not delete Publisher here. The previous page that was deleted was made before Dara was an author, I believe as a prank by his friends (he would have been a teenager back then). We feel that his writing (featured on CNN.com, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post), his speaking events at a number of universities, and as someone quoted by news outlets (see recent AP story, and past local stories) warrants this page and meets notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TensileConsult1 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just getting published on various sites is good, but it doesn't really extend notability. He might be usable as a reliable source for other things, but being usable as a reliable source doesn't equate out to notability. Most people who post for sites (regardless of which ones they are) usually do not pass notability guidelines.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

~~Do not delete~~ Third party sources: http://www.arabnews.com/node/396068, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mmw/2012/01/book-review-the-crescent-directive/, http://www.thenation.com/blog/165833/how-make-it-america-manifesto-average-american-muslim, http://columbiamsa.org/announcements/eidulfitrdinner http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-muslim-questions, http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/ask-a-muslim-response, http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/local/area-muslims-react-to-9-11-anniversary, http://www.startribune.com/nation/204902851.html?refer=y, http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/2007/September/Sept17/OxfordPhilibuser.htm, http://books.google.com/books?id=9-mpA2UJU2kC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=%22khurram+dara%22&source=bl&ots=yzv_jIMkMs&sig=VS9NMyMSN_j5hOlZ5CC9dZzypE8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fomBUeuOOLSp0AGri4HoDg#v=onepage&q=%22khurram%20dara%22&f=false, http://www.nmlsa.org/leadership.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by TensileConsult1 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I struck the second vote- you can only voice one argument per AfD. Arguments aren't decided on votes, but rather the strength of the arguments. In any case, I did a rundown of the links given here:

Source rundown

[1] I'm willing to argue that this could help.

[2] Patheos isn't usable as a reliable source, partially because we have no way of really knowing the credentials of the person writing the piece. It's sort of a website where anyone can contribute.

[3] This one is kind of debatable, so I'll run it by the RS noticeboard.

[4] This is a notice of an upcoming events. Notification of events is not usable as a reliable source.

[5], [6] This is a blog and besides, it's sort of a primary source in that it's essentially him answering random questions and not really something along the lines of him getting interviewed by a reliable source.

[7] This is a news article about people reacting to 9/11. Dara is mentioned, but is not the focus of the article at all. This is a brief trivial mention at most and wouldn't give notability. I actually wouldn't use it as a source at all because there's nothing mentioned here that would really help out the article.

[8] This is another trivial mention. The thing about being quoted or mentioned in a news article is that these don't give notability. They might help establish him as a potential reliable source on the subject of whatever the article is about, but being a potential reliable source does not give notability.

[9] This is an article about him, yes, but it's about a record that he didn't really break. It also doesn't help that it's a college paper. Most college papers aren't usable as RS unless they're so overwhelmingly notable that it's a big deal to get covered by them. Considering that he attended Emory, it's sort of a moot point as to whether or not the paper is one of the exceptions to the college paper rule.

[10] This is a quote by Dara about something else. Not really usable as a reliable source in the slightest.

[11] This shows that he works on a student board. The thing about most organizations of any type (political, religious, student, etc) and any level (local, global, etc) is that the majority of them are not the type of thing that would give notability on that basis alone. Memberships in certain groups could help gain coverage, but holding a position in an organization is generally an "all or nothing" type of situation. Either you're in a highly notable position such as a State Senator that gives notability on that basis alone or you're in a position in one of thousands of organizations that don't give notability.

Basically, only two of the sources are really usable and of those two, one is somewhat debatable. Two sources are not enough to give notability. The big issue with the article (which I've cleaned out) is that the sources are either almost entirely primary in some form or fashion, or they're non-usable sources for the reasons listed above.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 2 May 2013 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khurram_Dara_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1137970740"