Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir

Ruzwana Bashir was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was - no consensus

Please Note While no wording of running text has been changed, i have reformatted several votes to facilitate accurate counting of votes, without adding signed explanatory notes to each of them. --Jerzy(t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

The subject of this article does not wish to have her name in various online encylopaedias and dictionaries, which are clones of Wikipedia. The history of posts attributed to her name includes some highly offensive and hurtful content, and major factual inaccuracies which unfairly portray her in a negative light. These posts have been maliciously edited by those who are jealous and spiteful of her, also responsible for factually incorrect and misleading content in the media. I urge voters to respect the wishes of the subject, and prevent a history of offensive posts from being permenantly available online. Instead, she could be briefly referred to in the main Oxford Union page. 163.1.141.7 00:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Note anon. nomination does not count as an automatic del vote.  --Jerzy(t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * Delete You know, whether this is slander or not, I don't care. This is an article about the internal politics of a campus organization.  Granted, it's a famous campus organization, but I don't think that an article about the battle for editorship of The Crimson would be worth a tinker's damn, either.  This is non-notable at this point, so delete. Geogre 01:30, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: wrong side of the line. Merits a 1-liner in the main Oxford Union page. Ruzwana Bashir was added by the same anonymous editor who added the Matthew Richardson vanity article (which survived vfd last May, see the page history), presumably since Bashir is/was a minor player in Richardson's world. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Petty frivolous student politics. 129.67.16.88 03:00, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Anonymous votes don't count.Alberuni 03:57, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) -- & struck thru by Jerzy(t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)


 * Merge into Oxford Union; does not deserve its own article. Note that the "libel" and "wishes of the subject" issues are frivolous and invalid reasons to delete. See Talk:Ruzwana Bashir and User talk:163.1.141.7. &bull; Benc &bull; 03:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment 1: we have 43 articles in Category:Presidents of the Oxford Union. Some of these should probably be merged into Oxford Union, too. &bull; Benc &bull; 04:13, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment 2: if the consensus is to merge, it should contain everything that's already been written, not just a one-liner. Why would we ever want to lose information when merging? Encyclopedic == comprehensive. &bull; Benc &bull; 04:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment 3: Disagree with the above. The only content worthy of inclusion is the first line. The rest is campus-based student politics, irrelevant outside the campus, and indeed irrelevant to most within the university. 129.67.16.83 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Question: Do all these presidents of the Oxford Union get articles because they were presidents of the Oxford Union, or because of the various notable things they did after graduating. Taking my Crimson example, above, I'll bet that most of its chief editors of the past 100 years went on to be important folks.  That's not the question.  The question is whether a political struggle within a campus organization is something of sufficient international import to be a separate article.  Does it serve our users to have these breakouts?  If the information is present at Oxford Union, then separate articles are duplication.  If the information isn't at Oxford Union, then it is isolated and starved for people who search these people solely due to their Oxford Union context.  It is only when they are notable as separate entities that they should be treated as separate articles. Geogre 04:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Answer: most, but not all, of those 43 people have done other notable things. I fully agree with you that simply being the president of a campus organization does not make you notable, which is why I voted merge, not keep. Some of their personal info can be removed, but the whole Bashir controversy seems like a big thing within the context of Oxford Union, so I think it deserves a section. &bull; Benc &bull; 04:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Abstain. I don't know if she's famous or not, but wish to comment that it doesn't matter if she doesn't want to be mentioned in here or not. If she's notable, and a good article could be written, then one should be created. If not, then not. Her thoughts don't matter on this issue. --Improv 03:49, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep I've changed my mind based on info provided by User:Benc above. If 43 other presidents of Oxford Union get wikipages then so should Ruzwana Bashir. Alberuni 04:32, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Please base your decision on whether this president is notable. If there are other non-notable Union presidents on Wikipedia, then the correct solution is to remove them, rather than using them as an excuse to add more non-notable content. Pnot 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 43 other former Presidents of The Oxford Union are listed because they have done something notable afterwards - for example Tariq Ali and Benazir Bhutto. This subject has not done anything notable. When she does she can be included. 129.67.16.83 11:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Oxford Union, or failing that delete. Nobody becomes notable by being president of the Oxford Union. Even within Oxford University, very few people care about the political machinations of the Oxford Union. If any other Union presidents are on Wikipedia solely for having been Union presidents, they should also be VfD'd. In short, I agree with User:Geogre's comments above. Pnot 08:40, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a well-known organization, so I don't see why we shouldn't have its presidents here solely by virtue of being its presidents. --Delirium 13:48, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Union was founded in 1823 and elections are held termly, giving us potentially around 540 presidents. Please let's not have articles on all of them. If you're saying that Bashir needs an article solely because she's a Union president, what's the argument against an article on, say, whoever was president in Michaelmas Term, 1834? If Bashir's notable within the context of the Union, she goes on the Union page. Were she notable in her own right, she'd deserve her own article. I agree that in many cases the presidents of well-known organizations are well-known, but that's because, generally, you have to be prominent in your field to become president of a prominent organization -- they're presidents because they're notable, rather than being notable because they're presidents. The Oxford Union is an exception: as young students, its presidents are generally not notable at the time when they are presidents; many of them achieve notability later in life, but many others do not. Pnot 21:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. First asian woman to hold the post, therefore notable. Article seems NPOV. I don't think all Oxford Union presidents are necessarily notable, but she seems to be.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 03:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * No, she's the first British-born asian woman to hold the post -- Benazir Bhutto was (I believe) the first asian woman to hold it back in 1977 (but that's not why she's in Wikipedia; the article doesn't even mention the fact). I think this is a little too specialized to count as a notable first. Well, maybe it's notable solely within the context of the Oxford Union, but in that case it belongs in the Oxford Union article. Pnot 05:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * (half-hearted) Keep President of the Oxford Union is an important post -- several British prime ministers have held it. Cabalamat 21:53, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Untrue. Several people who held it have (much) later gone on to become British prime ministers, which is a very different thing. I fail to see how this confers notability everyone else who has ever held the post. Are you really saying you want articles on (potentially) 540 former Union presidents? Pnot 04:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - Note that the people saying Keep are uninformed. Delirium and Cabalamat: 3 Presidents are elected every year, should all 500+ of them have a page? No, only if they do something notable after being president. Gwalla: First Asian woman to be President was Benazir Bhutto, first Asian to be President was Tariq Ali, and first British-born Asian to be President was IndraNeil Mahapatra. But is first (a) British-born (b) Asian (c) female (d) to be President notable? No.
 * Invalid vote: unsigned & cast by anon IP who nominated the article.
 * Del. With that in mind, delete. Ambi 07:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. Many people who have held the position of Student at Oxford University have gone on to greater things. We should therefore have articles on all of Oxford students.  Maybe not.  Delete Dsmdgold 14:05, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Del. No compelling evidence of notability is offered. Probably others among the 43 should be deleted, but that is not a prerequisite for deleting her; we should handle them one by one, and neither side's advocates are under special obligation to hunt them down. --Jerzy(t) 00:10, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I first mentioned the other 42 because it's a relevant fact. I never meant to imply that we should let that get in the way of deciding what to do about Ruzwana Bashir. (My vote to merge stands, by the way.) &bull; Benc &bull; 00:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Since the Oxford Union is quite notable, the fact that it has had a protracted period of disputed leadership is notable as well -- especially since 1) the problem has persisted for two election cycles, 2) this is an interesting facet of any notable organization that is run by students, and 3) this is an interesting facet of the maturation and increasing openness of organizations affliated with ancient, formerly non-coed universities. Would support moving it into a section of leadership disputes on the Oxford Union page. Chrisvls 22:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete and create a redirect. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 01:15, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I don't see a need for a redirect. Holding a post which some other famous people have also held does not constitute notability. RadicalSubversiv E 02:18, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the arguments above that simply holding the post does not make a person sufficently notable. However, apparently the controversy surrounding this particular election has garnered a bit of media coverage. I think that the media coverage makes this person notable, just like Laci Peterson is more notable than random murder victim 734, so I'm going to vote keep on that basis alone. Gamaliel 06:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - all the articles on Oxford Union Presidents are articles on people who did notable things (like become Prime Minister) after they were at Oxford. There are no other articles I can find on individuals whose only notable accomplishment is being Oxford Union President. A number of notable people went to my university and have wikipedia articles on them, that doesn't mean anyone who attended my school merits an article. Further, the article is almost entirely about a rather petty incident in a campus political campaign. If she had done anything else of merit in her life it might be an interesting footnote (like the way Conrad Black sold copies of stolen upcoming exams when he was at Upper Canada College) but it does not merit an article in and of itself and doesn't merit having an article because she might end up becoming a notable person. Right now most former Oxford Union Presidents do not have articles and probably will not have articles so there' s no reason to have one on herAndyL 20:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:10, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. [[User:Bob|Bob (Talk)]] 02:28, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The above contrib by User:163.1.141.7 (User talk:163.1.141.7, contribs), the nominator or someone sharing that IP, is forged to appear to belong to a registered user; that user either has no contribs, or is in fact nonexistent by virtue of never having registered. Struck thru. (Amusingly, the contribution was made after the passage of the day-of-nomination and the 5 additional calendar days normally allowed, 1 minute before i removed the nomination from VfD to VfD/Old!) --Jerzy(t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)

Valid votes

 * Del: 8
 * Kp: 7 (2 of them weak)
 * Abst: 1
 * Other: 1 Merge, 1 Merge-&-Redir,-or-Del

Possible special circumstances
The behavior of the nominator has been horrible: on this page, their IP was used However, the arguments put forward by horribly behaving people are not necessarily horrible but may even be sound; the circumstance stated below may deserve some consideration.
 * for casting an anon vote after it had been pointed out that anon votes could not be counted, and the fact that that vote was the only unsigned contrib in the debate suggests intentional concealment, and
 * on a separate occasion, for forging a sig that created the appearance of a registered user's vote.

The nominator claimed that some Keep votes were based on misinformation, and presented plausible and testable information about firsts, and about the number of presidents, that strengthened at least my pro-Del opinion. IMO the arguments are nowhere near so compelling as to be  prima-facie res-ipsa-loquitur evidence for discounting even one keep vote, but i am taking the liberty of inviting each of the three editors specifically named to explicitly confirm, or to reconsider, their Keep votes. If any one of them should state they now felt Del was the better action, --Jerzy(t) 07:41, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)
 * we'd be one more reversed opinion from a 10-5 straw-poll for deletion, and
 * therefore perhaps someone (not i) should then consider re-polling those who cast the other 4 Keeps.

While i was preparing the above (already belated) edit, the process reached a normal conclusion. (And i have not followed up with the messages to 3 editors that i had intended.) While i hope that edit and this one will be tolerated in the permanent record, my interest is not so great as to engage in the troublesome practice of reviving the VfD in question.--Jerzy(t) 18:42, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC)


 * I do not consider my behaviour to have been "horrible" - I was protecting the interests of my friend, and other voters have been utterly horrid and spiteful. This is not Martha Stewart, Jeffery Archer or someone from Enron, this is a 20 year old student who does not want frivolous student politics stuck to her name for the rest of her life. Secondly, the second edit had something disgustingly offensive and slanderous, which should not remain online, and if this is not deleted I will consider taking legal action against Wikipedia. Thirdly I was outraged to see that the "deletes" were being counterbalanced by "keeps" from misinformed idiots, who seemed to think that being Union President warranted an entry, not realising another 540 people (3 a year) have been Union president. Being the first Asian president is notable. Being the first female president is notable. Being the first British-born Asian president isn't really. And being the first British-born Asian female president certainly is not! If the entry is not deleted, legal action will be taken. 163.1.141.7 15:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.