Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Hameeduddin


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 20:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Mohammed Hameeduddin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local politician Onel5969 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Local politician in a minor place with no widespread coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Geo Swan (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep The innate notability of politicians laid out in WP:POLITICIAN applies to office holders at the State or Federal level. Local politicians's have to establish their notability through significant coverage in reliable sources.  Most local politicians aren't sufficiently covered by reliable sources.  There are exceptions.  Sorry nominator, I think a closer compliance to the advice of WP:BEFORE would have shown you that Mr Hameeduddin is an exception.  We have PBS Newshour choosing to call for him to appear on-air to offer his opinion.  We have sholars from Australia, half a world away, quoting him while comparing American and Australian attitudes.  This doesn't happen to ordinary mayors.  So please, pay more attention to BEFORE, next time, OK?  Geo Swan (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but mayor is a "local office", and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN "who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature."  It says nothing of exceptions regarding this qualification.  That would have been covered in the second item, "received significant press coverage", which is clearly not the case in this minor official.  The amount of press this person has been given is less than other non-notable local politicians who have been deleted.  In fact, he fails to meet all 4 criteria.  '' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2014 March 21‎
 * The third numbered point in WP:POLITICIAN says: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article"."
 * I think I understand where your confusion stems from. On your user talk page you explained that you thought we should discount all coverage that was based on "the accident of his ethnicity".  I asserted that we can't treat his ethnicity and religion as beneath notice when verifiable, authoritative reliable sources specifically single him out for coverage based on his ethnicity and religion.
 * Gwen Ifill is respected enough that she moderated a candidates' debate during a recent US Presidential election. She is highly respected.  When she searches the US for a prominent articulate individual to represent the muslim point of view during a discussion of the Ground Zero Mosque controversy, her choice of Hameeduddin confers a strong measure of notability on him.  Her reference is one of the references that establish his religion is a factor that helps establish enough notability for a standalone article.  Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As I stated on my talk page, A person's ethnicity and religion, in and by themselves, for any human being are not trivial to that human being, but on the grand scale of things are inherently trivial, due to scale. Never said that it was not worthy of mention.  Only said that when this is the only measure to a person's significance, it in and of itself does not merit qualifying that politician as notable.  And that is truly the case in this instance.  He was merely asked to comment on existing situation, to which he had contributed nothing.  And he was asked SOLELY on the basis of his ethnicity.  The fact that a person is quoted from a single event by multiple sources does not make them notable, again, per wiki guidelines.  At best, that would rate a mention of him in an article relating to that topic, not a separate article. Onel5969 (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This is only partially correct. A non-notable person's religion and ethnicity won't make them notable, even if they were to appoint themselves the pope of a new religion, and devote every waking moment to it.  Their religion becomes a notable factor when that is why reliable, authoritative, verifiable sources seek them out for interviews, for profiles, or use them as examples, or otherwise cover them.
 * Hameeduddin's opinion was sought out, while the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other muslims were not sought out, because the multiple journalists and scholars who quoted him, or noted him, or asked to interview him reached their own conclusion that his opinion held value. Various things establish notability factors.  For WP:ACADEMICS and other professionals, the recognition of one's professional peers helps establish notability.  For just about anybody, having journalists specifically seek you out, because they value your opinion, establishes notability, just as the recognition of one's peers does for academics and professional.
 * The comments, immediately above wrongly imply that all quotes of Hameeduddin date to one event, a claim at odds with the actual references, which are spread over a variety of dates. Vijay Prashad, for instance, praises Hameeduddin for his leadership in guiding Teaneck city council to pass a "a far-sighted anti-bias resolution".  Most city council resolutions of cities of 40,000 citizens aren't notable, and guiding those non-notable resolutions through council, doesn't make a local politician notable.  But coverage of the resolution and the politician's leadership, in reliable sources, adds to the notability of both the resolution and the politician.
 * No offense, but if the nominator really means to suggest that an individual's religion or ethnicity, and coverage of that religion or ethnicity in reliable sources, can never help establish notability, I am afraid that this would strike me as an unfortunate lapse from the advice in the widely admired essay WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions commonly shortcuted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add a quote from WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Hameeduddin's opinion was sought out, while the opinions of hundreds of thousands of other muslims were not sought out, because the multiple journalists and scholars who quoted him, or noted him, or asked to interview him reached their own conclusion that his opinion held value. Various things establish notability factors.  For WP:ACADEMICS and other professionals, the recognition of one's professional peers helps establish notability.  For just about anybody, having journalists specifically seek you out, because they value your opinion, establishes notability, just as the recognition of one's peers does for academics and professional.
 * The comments, immediately above wrongly imply that all quotes of Hameeduddin date to one event, a claim at odds with the actual references, which are spread over a variety of dates. Vijay Prashad, for instance, praises Hameeduddin for his leadership in guiding Teaneck city council to pass a "a far-sighted anti-bias resolution".  Most city council resolutions of cities of 40,000 citizens aren't notable, and guiding those non-notable resolutions through council, doesn't make a local politician notable.  But coverage of the resolution and the politician's leadership, in reliable sources, adds to the notability of both the resolution and the politician.
 * No offense, but if the nominator really means to suggest that an individual's religion or ethnicity, and coverage of that religion or ethnicity in reliable sources, can never help establish notability, I am afraid that this would strike me as an unfortunate lapse from the advice in the widely admired essay WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions commonly shortcuted as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add a quote from WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * "Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a municipal government, or (b) have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue or for breaking the law, are also often found to be sufficiently notable."
 * "Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as the first woman, first person of colour or first LGBT person elected to a municipal government, or (b) have received national or international press coverage, e.g. for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue or for breaking the law, are also often found to be sufficiently notable."


 * }
 * Hameeduddin is not the USA's first muslim mayor, but muslim mayors haven't been that common. I don't think there is any question that he did act "as a spokesperson on a major political issue".  Nominator seems to be asserting serving as a spokesperson confers no notability -- an interpretation at odds with the advice in the common outcomes wikidocument.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No offense, but you should really let the statements I make speak for themselves, I'll repeat it: Ethnicity, sex, orientation, religion, etc., in and of themselves, do not denote notability. Your last point, is definitely valid.  However, this politician potentially does not meet that standard.  The mayors in Teaneck are not "elected", but are selected from among the 7 council members.  There is no mention whether or not he was the first Muslim on the council.  In addition, I don't think every "first" across the nation incurs notability of the standards put forth under wiki guidelines.  If so, where's the wiki page for Lucille Steiner (first woman mayor of Teaneck)?  And if serving as a spokesperson denotes notability, then we need like another 10 or 20 thousand entries on Wikipedia for every police chief/sgt/lt/officer and every fire marshal/chief, etc. who has ever stood as spokesperson on a single incident on a single issue.  Speaking on the behalf of a single incident does not in and of itself rise to the level of notability.  It would be one thing, if after his initial interview, there were follow up instances, but, according to the wiki article, I see no evidence of this.Onel5969 (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept, at face value, that it is not your intention to advance a series of strawman arguments. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this is what you are doing here.
 * First, no one has ever claimed that "Ethnicity, sex, orientation, religion, etc., in and of themselves, confer notability." What I have asserted was that when journalist and scholars choose to single somebody out, this is a factor that adds towards their notability.  In Hameeduddin's case it is his religion and ethnicity, and his ability to defend them in an articulate manner, combined with his public prominence as a municipal official, that made them single him out.  On your talk page you called this "an accident", and seem to assert their decision ot single him out should be ignored becaus they did so based on the "accident" of his ethnicity/religion.  It is not my role, your role, or anyone else's role to set our judgement above that of verifiable, authoritative reliable sources.  You simply cannot claim we should ingore reliable sources because you disagree with them, and I am afraid this is what it looks like this is what you are trying to do.
 * Second, you advanced the straw man argument that my arguments implied we would need "entries on Wikipedia for every police chief/sgt/lt/officer and every fire marshal/chief, etc. who has ever stood as spokesperson on a single incident on a single issue." Really, using strawman arguments is a real waste of everyone's time.
 * Only a few individuals have their notability established by a single event, a single factor. Most of those individual whose notability was established by a single event had that notability established through a special purpose notability guideline, like WP:ACADEMIC.
 * Almost all notable individuals have their notability established by a sensible tallying up of all the factors that conferred notability. The sergeants and lieutenants you mentioned, who are chosen to stand up and read a press release?  They are more notable than the police constables, sergeants and lieutenants who weren't chosen to read a press release.  If the police officer who read the press release was already of borderline notability, the small measure of notability of reading a single press release might add enough further notability to push them over the boundary -- because being chosen to read that press release is a measure of the regard their superiors hold for them.
 * But please don't tell me you can't recognize the difference between reading a press release before local reporters, where you don't have speak on your feet, with being chosen to appear on a national TV show, where one does have to speak on one's feet.
 * You wrote: "It would be one thing, if after his initial interview, there were follow up instances, but, according to the wiki article, I see no evidence of this." I remind you of my very first point.  WP:BEFORE!  WP:BEFORE!  WP:BEFORE!  Do you really not understand that other contributors think you have an obligation under WP:BEFORE to do your own web searches, prior to nominating an article for deletion?
 * Are you saying you think additional television or print interviews would make you change your mind? Because if you had complied with your obligations under WP:BEFORE you would already be aware of other interviews.  You have mentioned you are very familiar with Teaneck.  Is it possible your familiarity with Teaneck lead you to skip complying with WP:BEFORE, and due to skipping complying with WP:BEFORE you are simply oblivious to the factors that establish his notability?  Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Like Geo Swan, I believe that the subject did act as "as a spokesperson on a major political issue" meeting point 2 of WP:POLITICIAN. The numerous references described in this AfD and on the subject article point to his role as a spokesperson. Enos733 (talk) 22:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - One being a sitting mayor of a city of about 40,000 should be sufficient for a Politician low bar pass. For those of you being picky about "local office" blah blah blah, the fact that this subject has significant NEW YORK TIMES COVERAGE should swing things a bit, should it not? No? How about LOS ANGELES TIMES COVERAGE? Is that better? One can fight all day about whether this subject meets WP:POLITICIAN; the fact is, it's a clear and easy GNG pass, which renders that debate moot. A significant public figure beyond his actual office, due to religion and ethnicity. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep -Significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Orser67 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This one didn't take long to assess at all. The subject was the mayor of a medium-sized town in New Jersey and was also embroiled in some controversey in the news. This passes WP:GNG without a doubt. While the other points such as politician notability are also relevant, if the subject at least made it past the GNG hump it seems that would be enough. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2014 (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.