Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harris Bokhari


 * 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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. AfD rationale is probably too confusing to attract casual AfD discussion. How about discussing his notability?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Harris Bokhari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The user who has created this page, put it in the Category of 'British Islamists’(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Islamists). This Category only has 26 individuals and all apart from Harris Bokhari they are all convicted or suspected terrorists. This is clearly libelous. He neither a terrorist or connected with terrorism. This clearly shows the user is trying to damage this person’s reputation using Wikipedia and is personally motivated. The inclusion of this falls under 'original research' which is banned by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Ramesh15011986 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the page and this is a fair point. The category addition was done only because of Bokhari's evident affiliation with the Muslim Association of Britain which many independent third party sources say is an Islamist group. However, the point that the British Islamists mentioned in that category are all terrorists is a fair one and the association is clearly unwarranted. Therefore, I have removed the article from those categories which solves the problem. Other than that the suggestion that the entire entry is libellous is unwarranted as the article has been cleaned up now with input from a range of contributors and editors, and there is nothing contentious there - everything is sourced to independent third party sources and the notability of the subject is not in question from these sources. Therefore the request for deletion is unwarranted and this matter should be closed.Dgjefferson (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an invalid AfD reason. If the nominator is unhappy with aspects of the article, the article should be cleaned up and potentially libellous contents removed. They may consider REDVEL for those edits. From what I can see the individual is covered in a variety of media, so may be notable (though I have not really gone to a great length to make a full judgement on this). This all seems more like a case of article clean up / NPOV. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The deletion for this page is merited as it is clear the user Dgjefferson is personally motivated in setting up this page which goes against the principals of Wikipedia. The term “Islamist Group” is not once mentioned on the current Muslim Association of Britain Wikipedia page and there are no credible secondary sources to confirm this. Any reference to Bokhari being linked to this organisation after 2008 is not available so the user previous versions/edits show they are personally motivated in trying to presume they are and the edits don’t read as an encyclopedic entry. The only secondary sources available shows the Muslim Association of Britain was working and being funded by the UK Government during the time Bokhari had any known involvement with them.  There are no secondary sources to say Muslim Association of Britain is a banned organisation in the UK and searches show their Vice President recently had two meetings with the UK Prime Minister May and recently won a liable court case against the accusation of being a supporter of “Islamist extremism.”  Therefore the user did know putting this page in the “British Islamist” category when the only other individuals listed are convicted terrorists would damage this person's public reputation which goes against the policy of Biographies of living persons.

The page was created on 14 January 2019 and is the only page that has been created by this user. This page should be removed as it does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures). The policy states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There are a number of inaccuracies and information that is not relevant on this entry and therefore doesn’t read as an encyclopedia entry.

Bokhari is also a low-profile individual for the purposes of Wikipedia their career and achievements are in any way 'notable' as defined by Wikipedia.

Out of the 108 edits, this user has done, 93 of the user's contributions have been in relation to this page, or in editing other pages only in relation to how they are connected to this page. On 5th February 2019, this user spent‪ between 12:01 and 16:24 only editing this page making 37 edits and has made no others‬ edits since that date until this notice was put up and within 3 hours they replied; making no other edits or contributions to any other page during this time period.

This indicates the user knows the individual and the creation of the page and all subsequent edits were personally motivated in order to damage them and their reputation, which is not the purpose for which Wikipedia was created. It is also evident from the edit history that the user has even undone attempts by others to balance the tone and content of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh15011986 (talk) (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor did not nominate this for deletion because of lack of notability, but for issues with neutrality. This is clearly something for clean up. AFD is not here to solve content disputes. Consider the article's talk page or WP:ANI instead. I tend to agree that notability may be marginal (again, I did not fully study the subject), so this may be discussed. The edit history of the article creator is secondary. One may argue that the AFD nominator's first ever edit was this AfD, so neutrality may be an issue from two sides of the argument. Again, clean up before AfD. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The article clearly has neutrality issues. The last few sections could have been encapsulated under a single section - controversies. Last section has the same line written twice to emphasize on the subject's position on a particular sect. The article should be up for AfD if the neutrality issues is not resolved.  Udaysm (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Response: There is ongoing vandalism going on here. I have been accused of having a personal axe to grind against the subject of this entry, for which there is no evidence - I have added both positive and negative material relating to the subject from reliable third party sources, and have been responsive to critical feedback. The above comments also demonstrate ongoing vandalism attempts. The nomination for deletion has been made by on the grounds of lack of notability. It is absolutely clear and not disputed that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, as justified by a wide number of third party sources. There are therefore no grounds whatsoever for deletion. As that argument fails, users requesting deletion have shifted the goalposts to argue that the article lacks neutrality. This is incorrect. The article is entirely neutral and relies entirely on reliable secondary sources. Some of those sources are positive and some negative, but that is really an inevitable reflection of what is available about the subject from those sources. It is also not a valid basis to seek deletion. If clean up issues are required, that issue can continue, however, I note that after the last rounds of editing there have been no further edits for some weeks indicating that for all intents and purposes a consensus has been reached.

This deletion discussion is therefore mute, and any outstanding issues around neutrality should continue to be addressed on the talk page of the entry as per normal. This nomination should be closed.

As a final point, I note the questionable nature of the last user as an example of ongoing efforts to vandalise Bokhari's entry. The user appears to have some links with various efforts to create a page for an Indian business, indicating they work for the many Indian companies which do paid editing for Wikipedia. This suggests a direct affiliation with the subject, who has likely hired said user to carry out edits on his behalf due to material in the entry which he dislikes. I have documented other direct evidence of vandalism from people affiliated with the subject on the entry talk page. Dgjefferson (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment The comment added from my side is clearly misunderstood. I am suggesting clean up before AfD, which a contributor here has already mentioned.Udaysm (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Verdict: It seems that a degree of consensus has been reached that this entry should not have been nominated for AfD. The discussion here has concerned the alleged neutrality of the article and issues around clean-up. The nomination for deletion has been premised wrongly on neutrality issues, and the notability of the subject is not in question. Therefore, AfD is the incorrect route and focus should be on clean up if users continue to identify further neutrality issues. The AfD nomination itself appears to have been a form of vandalism by associates of the subject, designed to have the page deleted. This discussion can now be considered closed and the AfD template removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjefferson (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment - no editor can declare a verdict for an AfD, it has to be closed properly. But I'm concerned about the article itself and have taken it to WP:BLPN for scrutiny. Accusations that editors are associates of the subject should be made at WP:ANI or WP:COIN, not here. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I very rarely relist discussions for a third time. However, I am extremely unimpressed with this discussion and the dearth of WP:PAG based commentary.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I would just like to make clear that if there are any substantive problems with the article that can be pointed out, I will be more than happy to continue working with other editors to improve the article and ensure it is in line with PAG. I would like to add that there is an obvious reason the discussion here has been unsatisfactory - the original nomination for deletion was based on alleged neutrality issues which is of course not in line with PAG for nominations for deletion. As a result, the discussion here has focused on that issue, despite it not really being relevant - and it's only in response to the neutrality claims made here that I've had to make some points about other editors. So far, no one has provided any specific justifiable grounds for being concerned about the article. I would therefore submit that this particular AfD is not a useful route to deal with any concerns, and am still of the opinion that the nomination for deletion was itself a form of vandalism. I believe that this discussion proves my point as no one has provided any justifiable basis for actually deleting the entry. Unless someone can actually explain why it should be deleted, it is not clear to me why this AfD should remain open? And just to reiterate, very happy to take on board any further feedback/criticisms in line with PAG, although that is not really a subject that belongs here. Dgjefferson (talk) 13:21, 19 March 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.