Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas


 * 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. The article has been changed several times but the consensus this does not belong in article space remains. Draft is an option, but only if an acceptable article can be made and the pile on of deletes at the end suggests this isn't the best option. With the COI arguments raised here the case for deletion is well made. Spartaz Humbug! 18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Firdaus Kharas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is unsourced and has few references. It is mainly a piece that provides a platform for the subject of the article to document his curriculum vitae and current projects. In my opinion, the Kharas article fails WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:PROF, and WP:NACADEMIC. Dr42 (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 11:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: relisting to allow discussion of recent additions to the article by an editor who did not participate in the AfD
 * Delete. This is written like a résumé rather than a proper encyclopedia article, is very likely an WP:AUTOBIO given the creator's username, and is not referenced to the depth or volume of reliable source coverage about him that is required. Three of the six footnotes here are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage, and the three that are reliable sources are not about Firdaus Kharas, but just briefly mention his name in the process of being primarily about other people. As always, he's not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because he exists, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much better sources. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete . Although there may be some marginal notability here, the article as it stands is unacceptable per Bearcat.  Looking at the history of the article, it has been repeatedly been cut down into something encyclopedic by experienced editors, then expanded back to puffery by SPAs.  Arguments from WP:BOGOF are pretty relevant.  Comment that history suggests SPAs may immediately recreate. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:CSD (but not speedy so we can more easily apply G4 if/when necessary). Normally I would consider two honorary doctorates clear evidence of notability but given the ongoing puffery being added even during this AfD I have no faith that the article can be maintained in a promotion-free state, and I don't think it does too much harm to the encyclopedia to just delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion as Delete, but based on comments by User:Vinlev on my user talk page, I have reverted and relisted for additional discussion. Pinging User:Dr42, User:Bearcat, User:Russ Woodroofe, and User:David Eppstein to ensure they are aware. --RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Re Vinlev's claims that the AfD should consider newly-added sources in the article: The sourcing is not the biggest problem with the article — it is the apparent promotionalism and COI editing. So even more editing by the same editor is unlikely to be an improvement. Nevertheless the Tim Review source is just a talk announcement, the Thiel College source is not in-depth, the Animated Activist source is just a YouTube link and does not appear reliable, the NPSIA source is a duplicate of one of the others, the animation magazine source does not mention the subject, and the New Yorker source mentions him only briefly, as the business partner of the subject of the article. So although some sources look reliable and in-depth there do still remain sourcing issues as well as the bigger promotionalism issues. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I may be completely wrong, but I think there's a good chance that User:Vinlev (also see Special:Contributions/Vinlev) is the subject of the article. Regardless my own research shows that this individual lacks significant, sustained coverage. It does not appear from the perspective of WP:GNG that this man in the Steve Jobs-esque photograph with a poorly-constructed WP article and very few sources verifying any of this information has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject [sufficient enough to warrant the presumption that this man is] suitable for a stand-alone article". The article is just a curriculum vitae space for a man who, while he may do some good things and have an academic appointment, is not notable and does not meet WP:N or WP:SIGCOV. The remedies that Vinlev made to the complete absence of secondary sources and references do not help him in his quest for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is a clear COI because I have a hunch (and I may be wrong) that Vinlev is Kharas. Perhaps an expert like User:ST47 or User:Bbb23 can be of assistance at this point in the conversation since User:Vinlev (also see Special:Contributions/Vinlev) is an SPA and most likely Kharas himself. I was about to Speedy this, but I will await the expertise from the aforementioned admins. Dr42 (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok great, let's follow this direction.

First thing is that it is obvious I'm not sure exactly how to follow all the discussions about what editors feel about the entry. Therefore any direction about where to look and contribute my comments would be greatly appreciated.

I do understand your points about "puffery" and believe that the entry could easily be pared way down to make a few specific points, and to use those citations that you consider valid. I also have many other possible citations that talk more in depth about Kharas.

Another point I'd like to make is that as a long-retired journalist I did Kharas's Wikipedia entry completely on a volunteer basis. I have also done dozens of other communications and stories for other small, often one-person, humanitarians on a volunteer basis. This is the way of many do-gooders today. Also I believe Kharas is a huge benefit in this space. He has helped save thousands of lives with his (self-funded) animation campaigns, especially The Three Amigos (HIV/AIDS) and the three Ebola videos. In fact I have a letter (somewhere) from Population Services International stating that after the release of the Three Amigos during the height of the South African AIDS epidemic, their distribution demand for condoms increased about 40% in that country. That alone may have saved many lives.

OK, enough puffery.

I appreciate the chance to work this through and create an entry for Kharas that meets Wikipedia's criteria. vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 00:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification, Vinlev, are you Firdaus Kharas? Dr42 (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

correction: PSI's condom distribution increased 29%, not 40% as stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The notability test for getting a Wikipedia article is not the things a person does — it's the amount of media coverage he does or doesn't get for doing the things he does. Until you understand that, there's nothing else to discuss. Everybody and their dog can claim to "deserve" a Wikipedia article because they're such awesome people who do amazing things: which is precisely why getting into Wikipedia is not a matter of saying the person does amazing things, it's a matter of showing that media have independently deemed them amazing enough to cover their amazingness as news. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Bearcat: does that also include academic institutions and highly respected individuals deeming that someone's work is amazing, or just media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 04:30, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Vinlev, if you need more information about notability guidelines, please see WP:GNG. Also see WP:BLP. Just because there is a claim by an academic institution and a very ambiguous group of "highly respected individuals" that Firdaus Kharas or his work is "amazing", it doesn't require that this individual is worthy of an article in Wikipedia if there is a lack of substantial, significant, or sustained coverage. This is not meant to discount or condone one's work, it's simply a matter of conforming and adherence to policy and regulation pertaining to WP:N. With that in mind, it doesn't seem that this individual is notable based on the clear lack of coverage. I don't intend to come across as uncaring about the work you put into the article, I'm just giving my opinion that the article clearly does not meet the standards that are set for BLP and notability. Even with the newest edits, it's just a CV, and that's not what wikipedia is for. Also see WP:NOTPROMO and WP:SOAPBOX. Dr42 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing you need to understand is that Wikipedia is highly prone to being misused by people as a publicity platform — so the notability test for getting an article on here is not what the person says about themselves, it is what other published third party sources have said about them in the third person. We have to be able to verify that the claims are accurate, because self-promoting wannabes often make false claims about themselves so that they sound more notable than they really are, and we have to be able to verify that media outlets have considered the person's accomplishments to be of enough public interest to write and produce their own content about them. For example, a person is not automatically notable just because he's won just any award that exists on earth — a person is notable only if he's won a certain specific tier of important awards, determined by whether the media devote attention to the award presentation or not. A filmmaker is notable for winning an Academy Award and a writer is notable for winning a Pulitzer Prize, because those are major awards that get a broad range media coverage — but a person is not necessarily notable for winning an award at a minor film festival, or in a local poetry contest, that can be "referenced" only to the awarding organization's own self-published website because media coverage about the award is lacking. The notability test is the existence of substantive coverage about the person, in published sources (e.g. books, magazines, newspapers) that are independent of the claims being made. Not his own website, not press releases from the involved organizations, not his staff or alumni profiles on the websites of companies or universities he's been directly associated with: evidence that somebody independent of the claim made an editorial decision that the claim was interesting enough to create and publish third party content about in some form of media. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additional Notice: The article seems to be created by an SPA with one contribution. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kharas~enwiki ...note that the user name is "Kharas~enwiki" As most everything remains unsourced, and as the article still reads like a cv or a soapbox, I have nominated under CSD. Dr42 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Dr42: No I am not Firdaus Kharas. My name is Mike Levin. I am a retired journalist in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 *  comment Keep - okay, having gone through this, I lean towards the idea are enough sources here. The Atlantic interview is an interview, but it's an independent publisher and about him .  The Ottawa Citizen profile is kinda short, but independent (it's profiling him for his honourary doctorate - but looking at who else is there, seems an indicator of notability).  The Globe and Mail profile is also shorter, but certainly about him, not a passing mention  - the Methodist News is an interview  because he was apparently some kind of keynote speaker at a Methodist summit, but is about him, has a clear author, etc This Global Calcuttan thing might be good, but I'm not totally clear on how reliable it should be considered.  Most of the awards I couldn't confirm and should probably be nix'd, but AfD isn't cleanup.  In the event this AfD would be closed as "delete", redirecting to The Three Amigos Campaign would obviously be preferable. Wily D  17:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dr42, Bearcat, WilyD plus others: I truly understand you editors do this on a volunteer basis and that I have been inundating you with questions you feel contributors should know the answers to. Therefore the only path to follow is for me to completely redo the Kharas entry, pared down to a few paragraphs (similar to other Wiki entries for humanitarians) and to use only the citations that you have indicated are valid for wiki criteria. I will do this today and tomorrow and replace the existing entry with it. Please don't delete the existing entry until I can use it to reproduce the coding. Thanks. vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 17:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per David Eppstein. 2001:569:7C07:2600:BD6E:33FF:4F97:7577 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, there may be WP:COI and WP:OR issues here, what is especially worrying is the article creator stating above "In fact I have a letter (somewhere)...". at the very best this could be draftified to allow a cleanup and then put thru the afc process. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - while there is some coverage (see The Atlantic), we have almost always deleted articles about "producers" (a title that is now meaningless without an adjective preceeding it) and online "entrepreneurs" who are far too common to include. Notability is neither the same as "amazing" nor "famous". Unless I see a clear change in consensus, or much more than bare notability, I would go along with the deletion of this page. I do note that extensive editing may be needed before this page would meet the "Heymann" standard. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Producer" is a pretty nothing term, but if you look at the sources that establish notability - for instance, the Ottawa Citizen on his honourary PhD, I think it's more representative to think of him as an activist - that's how he's interviewed, that's why he got an honourary doctorate, that's why he's hanging with Desmond Tutu, etc. If you read WP:BARE, you'll see it really doesn't apply here.  The Atlantic, the Globe and Mail, even the United Methodist News Service - these things are not blogs.  And those are all direct about him - Maclean's, Huffington Post - those are more centred on his work, but it seems correct to construe him as the primary artist for those (e.g., he accepted the Peabody for The Three Amigos, he's not loosely affiliated). Wily D  13:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm open to alternatives to deletion, but WP:TNT is pretty relevant.  Perhaps the article could look more like it did in 2012. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Editors: Thanks for your comments. I have redone the entire entry with citations that fulfill Wikipedia criteria. Look it over please. Vinlev


 * Comment I am still convinced that this is a WP:BLP1E at best and does not meet WP:N or WP:GNG. Even with the reformatted and newly edited article, I doubt this passes muster. Where do we go from here? Revote? Relist? Dr42 (talk) 10:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to draft pending improvements to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. BD2412  T 04:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Move to draft per User:BD2412, with the very strong suggestion that the article be sent through the Articles for Creation process after additional work. (Struck my delete vote above.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep or draftify. My WP:BEFORE search yielded more RS. He was the main subject of "Kharas strikes it 'Rich' with English-lingo soap. (UTV International's managing director Firdaus Kharas; 'City of the Rich,' soap opera)(Focus: Malaysia)"; Latif, Baharudin ; Groves, Don, Variety, August 25, 1997, Vol.368(3), p.64(1). Here are other good sources:
 * Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps.4meter4 (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient evidence of `nh, and prolonging this through draft space is likel to bring us right back here again.  DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - First I sensed a Conflict of interest as per WP:COI - The creator's name is the same (refer history), later "he" change to "User:Vinlev" - refer to WikiCommons, you will see Vinlev is Firdaus Kharas (the author and the source of all the photos uploaded). Secondly, the article has been rewritten and revised again and again; and the final outcome is like what it is now (a "stub" resume). If this person is really notable, it should have been easy to write about him but from how I see it, he is not. Moving to draft may or may not help unless if there is someone who are committed to rewrite it again - this article was created 13 years ago but yet no one was willing to improve it (except User:Vinlev). For now, I would say "Delete" is the best vote - Jay (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.