Talk:Keith Khan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Talk:Keith Khan

Well, didn't take long for the concern expressed here to happen: Keith Khan's entry was originally started as pr offensive by vested parties and it was suggested that a new Keith Khan online portal and online presence would happen soon. Here we are, a brand new Keith Khan website and the link to the entry as someone's courtesy.

To recap (as by Ahhite (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) ==> I would also like to voice a concern that Keith Khan's Wikipedia entry is not only one of propaganda by vested parties but it has been originally written tendentiously with numerous inaccurate facts, claims of awards and dubious secondary source material, which in turn, reinforce the implication that Keith Khan is on a pr offensive with his new companies DLime or Keith Khan Associates (another two omitted details) and also suggests that we will see a new Keith Khan online portal and online presence in the very near future. Note to the vested parties: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back and reassessing your edits. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously. BhadraV (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

I've combined the intro, awards, work history and notable projects together to look less like a CV. I'm also working on the controversy section to root out the weasel words. BhadraV (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

I'm listing anther two observed points. I'll go over Wikipedia guidelines to back these up:

- All of Khan's job of importance post-moti roti has been far too short and erratic to be deemed notable made worse by the various negative press around since then.

- 'Coincidentally', Khan's linkdin profile is also omitting the 'art executive' job at locog and stating that he was the Head of Culture for 2 years.

Ahhite: you've misspelled my user name (BradvaV, when should be BhadraV).

BhadraV (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

Repose, thank you for the compliments regarding the 'detective' work as you put it, but it's only due to the 'natural' inquisitive nature of my profession as a writer and that the facts pointed out in this entry are known facts in the art scene. I'm sure you understand about being meticulous with facts in Wikipedia, seeing as you have kept so up-to-date and shown so much regard to another very thorough entry of yours: Martin Percy (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Martin_Percy&action=history) WP:BLPEDIT. May I request that you build your refutals firmly based on Wikipedia Guidelines and avoid stating opinions instead of facts. Your arguments presented numerous opinions as facts, please stick to the well sourced and referenced facts as these are not widely open to interpretation and do not require opinion and I would also suggest a comprehensive read of Wikipedia's take on 'balanced and neutral'. For a 'balanced' Wikipedia entry you will need sourced facts to build a counter-argument. The facts, irrespective of a 'negative/positive' status, should be stated even if you cannot present a counter argument, this does not make the entry 'unbalanced', otherwise the entry will be more of a PR statement than an encyclopaedic entry. Please note the Wikipedia guideline: WP:WELLKNOWN - A Biography of Living Person should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities. Perhaps it is just unfortunate that Khan hasn't been so forthcoming with quite a few details from his career, making some to believe that he is notable or has contributed enough to his area of expertise (which has yet still to be properly established).


  • On your points regarding the job title:

Your argument regarding the Arts Bureaucrat title is flawed and contradicts itself by denying the Arts Bureaucrat title when all job titles you have mentioned characterise a bureaucrat role. You say 'Currently we describe him as a "costume designer" ', but no, that’s a description given by Khan himself (check the sources). Not even Khan's professional linkedin profile, as found by our wikipidian colleague BradvaV, lists the job title 'designer' or 'director' as insisted by you and three out of the four job titles on linkedin (Chief, Head of Culture, Chief Executive) characterise a bureaucratic role. Your 'Dictionary.com' research on the word ‘bureaucrat’ is not only unnecessary but is also over-simplified, resulting in a hasty generalisation and does not support your desired conclusion. Most importantly, you are missing the point that Arts Bureaucrat was a term given by Khan himself (sourced) and you failed to mention a few synonyms of a Bureaucrat listed on Dictionary.com: CEO (as in Rich Mix), chairperson (as in the Arts Council and DCMS), director(as in Moti Roti), executive (as at Locog), judge (as on Arts Fund Prize), organizer(various), head person(as Head of Culture). Bureaucrat is neither a negative or positive term, but a description which is used colloquially to describe individuals in similar positions to Khan's and mainly within public bodies and quangos with no real accountability - Khan's last five years is a clear prime example of a Bureaucrat. Let's also give some thought to the fact that most of his work, if not all, was funded or paid for by public bodies, and either commissioned by government or charitable status organisations.

Note also: WP:GYNOT - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A dictionary focuses on words or phrases, exactly as they are titled, and generally without deviating from that title. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to tell about a person, group, place, object, event, or concept. Any of these may be known by one or more titles or groups of words, and any such title may have more than one meaning. While every Wikipedia article has a title, it is not the title that defines the subject, but the information contained within. Based on all of the above, Keith Khan's job title in the article should be recorded as, and only as, Arts Bureaucrat.


Allow me to correct you, the Evening Standard is not an example of a voice supporting Khan as the article is solely stating speculative opinions. The unnamed writer is also not supporting Khan but only stating that an unnamed source questions Khan's departure as Head of Culture. This is a speculative article based on unnamed sources written by an unnamed writer, perhaps there is just too much unreliability to even begin to be consider it a serious, independent and reliable reference or even, as stated by you, a voice (Wikipedia guideline: Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources). Plus there is also the question of the unnamed source being no other than Khan himself for reasons already explained.

Note also: WP:OBV - For biographies of living persons, regardless of how much they may be seen by society as being worthy of having articles, it is especially important that all information be accurately sourced.


  • On your points regarding the Times article and 'negative voices'

The expansion of the Times quote (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article4332838.ece) has been carried out by our wikipedian colleague BradvaV as documented in the entry history but that was a succinct addition offering the readers more factual and balanced information. The entry does indicate that the writer Karen Bartlett has offered Keith Khan the chance to defend himself and Khan has declined to comment (it is not the case that Khan was not available to comment).

Note also: requesting to delete part of a referenced quote will only reinforce implications that the entry is an advertisement or propaganda by vested parties. When evidence is intentionally excluded to bias the result, it is sometimes termed the fallacy of exclusion and is a form of selection bias.

And you mention: 'Currently, the only voices we quote about Khan are negative, which seems to me not quite a balanced reflection of the reactions to his departure which we have found.' Not quite Repose, we haven't found any source in his defence that fulfils Wikipedia guidelines. For the 'positive' Khan argument that you seek you will need independent, reliable and relevant sources to counter argument but Khan, since leaving Moti Roti in 2004, has practically none (unless you add sources out of context, violating a few more Wikipedia guidelines). Have you also considered that not having a single clearly indepedent, reliable source on Khan's demotion as Head of Culture is a clear indication of the lack of achievement or any plausible cultural program left behind? Not a single figure within the cultural, political or arts scene has publicly spoken in his defence. The same goes for his time at Rich Mix. The issue here is deceptively simple: the quotes are backed up by reliable, independent sources and all referenced as per WP:SOURCE and the interpretation of the facts as negative, positive or neutral is quite simply the reader's prerogative.

Note also: WP:BLPSTYLE - Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

And: WP:WELLKNOWN - Biography of Living Person should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities.


All in all, Khan's Wikipedia entry at the moment puts him in a very good balance - during further research for this refutal, I have found out that Khan had left the Manchester Commonwealth Games creative team (for reasons yet to be clarified) well before the project delivery, hence the lack of official notes or his name credited on any Commonwealth Games official documents - this is of some importance and it could be seen as some kind of deception as well. We shall research further into this as our debate progresses, but be assured that Khan's Wikipedia entry has been kept quite conservative regarding controversial facts and some sources haven't yet been mentioned here: Ian Herbert, writing for The Stage, refers to Khan as a serial grant beneficiary (http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/feature.php/19454/arts-council-england-a-window-on-how-the) or Richard Brooks, for The Times Online, questioning if Khan is right for the high-profile job as Head of Culture (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/visual_arts/article1803439.ece) or Ted Jeory, for The Express, referring to Rich Mix as a failing project and that the man in charge, Keith Khan, was persuaded to stand down then handed a plum job working on London 2012's "cultural Olympiad" (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/114834/The-fine-art-of-wasting-1-1bn) and the list goes on.

Again: WP:WELLKNOWN - Biography of Living Person should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. It is very important to place all critical material in the proper context, and ensure that an overall balanced view is provided. A balanced view does not need to be a sympathetic view but it does need to reflect the balance of opinion among reputable authorities.


I would also like to voice a concern that Keith Khan's Wikipedia entry is not only one of propaganda by vested parties but it has been originally written tendentiously with numerous inaccurate facts, claims of awards and dubious secondary source material, which in turn, reinforce the implication that Keith Khan is on a pr offensive with his new companies DLime or Keith Khan Associates (another two omitted details) and also suggests that we will see a new Keith Khan online portal and online presence in the very near future.

Note to the vested parties: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for advertising or a vanity press. As such, it should contain only material that complies with its content policies, and Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia first. Any editor who gives priority to outside interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. If other editors suggest that your editing violates Wikipedia's standards, take that advice seriously and consider stepping back and reassessing your edits. In particular, consider whether you are editing tendentiously.

And, at last, please consider: WP:IMPACT - Think like an historian: Why will this topic be remembered? How did it impact the community? What is different now because this happened? How does knowledge about this topic help us to explain the world around us? These notability-proving impacts don't have to be a total paradigm shift in human thought. In short: who cares and why?

Ahhite (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

Has anyone came across articles on Keith Khan's companies Dlime and Keith Khan Associates? I've found online citations, although not entirely independent as the first is part of an interview. In the interview for the Trinidad Express, October 2009, Khan says: 'I have created a new company called D Lime, which is currently developing a range of arts and entertainment projects and ideas.' (http://www.trinidadexpress.com/index.pl/article_news?id=161540096)

I've also found that Khan has a LinkedIn profile (also not acceptable as independent source or for web links section) and there he seems to be the owner and Chief Creative of yet another company called Keith Khan Associates since September 2009. (http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/keith-khan/15/316/93)

BhadraV (talk) 6 May 2010 (UTC)

=[edit]

I've added the full quote of The Times because the previous part of the quote ("wallpaper showing a black gangster pointing a gun at a white woman's head") doesn't offer the full picture to the readers and could be seen as manipulative for ignoring the full quote (“Keith was not a natural cost controller, but the board was also weak.” Overstaffing, disputes between builders and architects, and specially commissioned wallpaper showing a black gangster pointing a gun at a white woman's head all added to the expense, with some funders temporarily witholding revenue in 2007 until a new business plan could be agreed. Khan did not want to comment on Rich Mix for this article."). The part of the quote ("Khan did not want to comment on Rich Mix for this article.") is also important as indicates the impartiality of the article's writer.

Ahhite, could you explain the issues with the Evening Standard please, I'm not sure I can find that specific reference and your entry below is quite confusing.

Thanks.

BhadraV (talk) 2 May 2010 (UTC)


=[edit]

Hello ahhite, many thanks for this. As always, the force and detail of your arguments is a pleasure to read.

I have added two new references for the claim that Khan was "Artistic Director, Celebration Commonwealth procession, Queen's Golden Jubilee". Yes, one is a PR release - but it is a press release on behalf of the Commonwealth Institute, who commissioned the procession. The other is a story in the Evening Standard which describes Khan as "the designer... responsible for putting together the Commonwealth Parade". However, I realise of course that neither of these is the sort of magic bullet reference I was hoping to find: however, it was a real world event back in 2002, and they clearly didn't regard online as worth bothering with!

On the other points I raised earlier...

  • Regarding what might be a suitable title for Khan, part 1: "costume designer" or "designer and director"

Currently we describe him as a "costume designer". However, I believe the following titles are established from his work with motiroti:
- Costume and 3D Designer
- Co-Founder and Director
- Co-Design and Co-Conception
- Co-Designer and Co-Director
...it seems to me that "designer and director" would be a more accurate summary of these roles than "costume designer"?

  • Suitable title for Khan, part 2: "arts industry bureaucrat" or "arts industry executive"?

Dictionary.com defines a bureaucrat as: "An official of a bureaucracy. An official who is rigidly devoted to the details of administrative procedure."

With Khan's roles, I believe the following titles have been established:
- Artistic Executive
- Head of Culture
- Member of Council
- Chair of Diversity Group
- Chief Executive of Rich Mix
Surely these are not the roles of an "official", they are higher level. Therefore the term "bureaucrat" is inappropriate here. By contrast "arts industry executive" sums this up rather well?

Also, surely it is a term with a more "neutral point of view"? An "executive" can be good or bad, effective or not. But by definition - because a bureaucrat "is rigidly devoted to... details" - one can't be a good "bureaucrat".

  • As far as your analysis of the Evening Standard piece goes, I admire your detective work, and I accept that Khan may possibly be the source - but then again he may not. It is interesting but inevitably speculative. But surely the Evening Standard piece is clearly an example of a voice supporting Khan - even if that voice is only the journalist who wrote the article. Currently, the only voices we quote about Khan are negative, which seems to me not quite a balanced reflection of the reactions to his departure which we have found.
  • I am also concerned that the quotation from the Times has been expanded to include the sentence "Khan did not want to comment on Rich Mix for this article." It's common for journalists to create a sense of implicit guilt through a subject's reluctance to talk to them, but I wonder whether it is really appropriate for Wikipedia to include this?

However, this is obviously just my point of view. To move things forward, may I suggest we follow your excellent suggestion and "defer to the noticeboards mentioned previously for wider discussion"?

Many thanks for your attention to this piece; as always, while I may not agree entirely with your point of view, your energy is remarkable, and I greatly admire the elegance and depth of your arguments.

Repose in motion (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

Hi Repose.

Thank you for your comments and observations on my edits and discussion entry.

  • I feel that I must insist on the role of Keith Khan as an Arts Industry Bureaucrat due to the roles he has undertaken since leaving Motiroti, none of which have been creative or noteworthy other than in their capacity as bureaucratic roles, hence it is an efficient term to describe Keith Khan's position, an administrator suggests too much that he was involved in the organisation of arts events when the roles do not appear to encompass such activity. As previously mentioned he has not produced any work of note as a creative person or producer which leaves only his bureaucratic work to be of note, although still questionable.
  • The purpose of Wikipedia is not to give a balanced view and comment on the articles subject, but rather to show relevant facts if the subject is deemed notable. The Evening Standard article, which was published when Khan was demoted, is too unreliable not only does the author use weasel words, but there is an oddity which brings the integrity of the article's source into question. Consider that the article states "One source close to the process said: "The big problem is that Locog doesn't given a damn about the Cultural Olympiad." and then the article states later "A source said: "Bill is very very busy and his background is in outside broadcasting. If you look at things like the Commonwealth Games or the Golden Jubilee celebrations in the Mall, they were a success because they had logistical geniuses and artists working together. "And what you haven't got [at Locog without Khan] is a practising artist for the Olympiad."". Considering that the quote refers only to two projects which Khan was directly involved with (the Commonwealth Games remains to be proved) one must question if the sources are one and the same and an implication can be made that the source might even be Khan. This would compromise the integrity and independence of the article as a reference.

If you feel strongly about those two points might I suggest that we defer to the noticeboards mentioned previously for wider discussion, I will be happy to set this up, otherwise we might invite others to participate in the articles talk page.

Keep up the good work. Ahhite (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

I've been following the development of this article with interest and have become an admirer of the way in which the editors have conducted the in-depth research and knowledge of Wikipedia's rules. I'll do some more research for articles and I'll try to participate in the discussion as I get to know more of the editing rules.

BhadraV (talk) 21 April 2010 (UTC)


=[edit]

Many thanks for this, ahhite, I stand corrected on numerous points.

The critical thing is that I was under the impression that the subject being mentioned in multiple newspaper articles in itself established notability, since obviously Khan has been discussed frequently in the Evening Standard, Times, Guardian, etc. However, on reading your references I now realise this is not so, apologies.

I also take your point that a press release is not an acceptable source for claims such as being "Director of Design Ceremonies for the 2002 Commonwealth Games" and "Artistic Director for the Queen's Golden Jubilee Commonwealth celebrations". The fact that it was from an official source such as LOCOG had given it a false weight in my mind - because LOCOG could be assumed to have checked this was true before issuing the Press Release. On reflection, however, of course I was wrong about this -- I take your point that "independent, reliable or... official sources" need to be found for a claim of this sort.

On another point, I removed some of the bureaucratic roles the subject has had because I felt these were not of "general interest". However, I take your point that they do indeed accurately reflect the subject's role as "Arts Industry Bureaucrat" - an interesting term from an article you found which annoyingly I had missed (though more on that below). Of course, as you say, whether such a role is of "general interest" is another matter.

Whether this article deserves to be discussed more widely is an issue I hesitate to express an opinion on.

In the meantime, I have just two suggestions:

- to replace "Arts Industry Bureaucrat" with "Arts Industry Administrator"? I accept that Khan appears to have used the term bureaucrat describing himself, but that appears to have been in a casual chat in a small workshop at Solar Associates; surely that doesn't mean it's appropriate for Wikipedia to use such a charged term as if it were a simple job title?

- I take your point that the piece in the Evening Standard uses Weasel Words when it says that "Many in the arts fear that if Mr Khan leaves..." etc. However, that piece did give a balance of opinion for and against Khan which appears to now be absent, as currently the only response to Khan's departure from London 2012 is "Thank goodness..." from The Times. Is this not a little unbalanced?

However these are just points I would like to pass by you, I hesitate to make these changes myself.

Many thanks for an education in writing for Wikipedia.

Repose in motion (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=[edit]

Excellent work Repose, this new input has led to new sources and references helping to clarify questions regarding Khan's notability but, most importantly, it is also keeping the debate ongoing and active.

  • The last edit has given the impression that the changes have been very selective, deleting roles which are highly relevant to the entry and could also strengthen the claim to notability and through poor referencing, thus producing a somehow biased edit. May I recommend my virtual colleague to consider WP:NPOV which states that an articles editor should not be 'selective' with biography referenced sources, as the criteria, of 'little general interest', used to remove some parts of this entry is without merit, especially as what has been deleted offers a wider view of Khan's career. The criteria rely upon the quality of the references, and to fulfil the notability criteria, not on the 'amount' of coverage. Under WP:NPOVD While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased. Please also consider adhering to non-controversial edits WP:COI
  • The original entry and last edit could imply that Khan is about to use this entry as a referral to his own website/online profile, which is also the case with Martin Percy, another entry from Repose, although already proved notable.WP:BLPEDIT
  • As an artist and/or designer Khan has not produced relevant work WP:ARTIST, nothing has been found online regarding a body of work or even a piece of relevance which Khan has created and/or designed. It is unquestionable the little impact Khan has had in his area of expertise (which remains extremely confused). Consider that under WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Furthermore, referring to WP:PEOPLE: Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary.
  • Consider WP:BASIC a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [...] If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. A high proportion of the references quoted are comprised of press releases (not exactly 'intellectually independent', and independent of the subject') and consideration of the references citing Khan's notability due to his role with London 2012 confirms a lack of depth, it is also nearing impossible to pin down notability given the confusion of Khan's occupation - he is not notable as an artist, art director, critic or costume designer, which leaves only arts industry bureaucrat due to Khan's roles with a large number of industry bodies on funding panels and the Arts Council (perhaps the most notable).
  • It is necessary to discuss the confusion not only with the role titles but also to the claim of awards and dubious secondary source material which is not reliable, intellectually independent or independent of the subject (A large number of the original sources in this entry were made up by press releases). Deleting some of Khan's bureaucratic roles only weakens this entry as his most notable contribution is as an artist bureaucrat (his own words). [1]
  • Considering WP:ELREG external links to websites that require registration or a paid subscription to view should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the website itself is the topic of the article or the link is part of an inline reference. I have thus removed the link to Gloriously Impure: interview with Keith Khan for The Society of British Theatre Designers and the entire line as there is no indication that an interview actually exists.
  • The following Interview: Interview with Keith Khan on Creativity and Innovation from the 2009 Commonwealth People's Forum as it was a duplicate.
  • I have also removed the statement: Khan's appointment as Head of Culture for the 2012 Summer Olympics in 2007 was reported in the press in the UK and internationally. as it is irrelevant to the subject and more relevant to the 2012 Summer Olympics entry, Khan's appointment was also not controversial in any quarters based on the references, and the assertion that Khan was criticised in this role as being "inclusivist" was taken out of context from the source.
  • The following section has also been removed as again it is not controversial, adds no depth to the entry and is more relevant to the 2012 Summer Olympics entry: The delay in finding a replacement for Khan was commented on by The Guardian. In an April Fools Day piece, The Guardian ironically suggested he would be replaced by Madonna. In December 2009, it was announced that the new head of culture would be Ruth MacKenzie..
  • A discussion is also required as to Khan's claim of 2002: Director of Design Ceremonies for the 2002 Commonwealth Games as the only sources which cite this appear to have come from press releases provided by Khan or his associates, there are no independent, reliable or even official sources for confirmation.

Perhaps on consideration of the above, we should motivate wider discussion with our colleagues and editors by getting outside help through adding the entry to the following noticeboards: WP:POVN, WP:BOLPN, these noticeboards would be a good start for issues about whether an article is meeting WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Ahhite (talk) 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.solarassociates.net/method/


=[edit]

Many thanks to my esteemed virtual colleague ahhite for multiple improvements to my first stab at an article about Keith Khan.

I have taken the liberty of trying to build on ahhite's work to further improve the article - I mention the changes below.

Ahhite is of course correct in saying that after 2004, Khan's work was mainly "executive".

However, I would beg to differ from ahhite's argument above that this executive work is not of general interest and that therefore this article should be deleted.

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) state in part that:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

Khan and his creative/executive work has been the subject of considerable attention from the world at large, as shown in multiple articles cited below, printed in notable UK newspapers including The Guardian, The Times, The Evening standard and others. Articles about him online have appeared in the websites of publications including the Malaysian Star and Pravda. These articles are certainly "intellectually independent" of Khan -- a number of them are cited in the "controversy" section cricising him.

I suggest therefore that Khan may indeed be regarded as notable and that therefore this article should not be deleted.

The changes made include: - creating a "career" section, and moving most of the career stuff into it (while deleting some roles of little interest) - quoting The Times re: the reasons for Khan's resignation from Rich Mix - creating a section about the controversy around Khan's roles at the 2012 Olympics - adding a section in external sources giving links to some of the interviews with Khan online

All these changes stand on the shoulders of ahhite's excellent work.

Repose in motion (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

Some notes from my most recent edit to explain the reason for the changes made:

  • As a costume designer he has not produced any significant work, especially as I could not find any images or sources specifically of his costume design or which even make reference to them. The same applies to him as an artist and/or executive. It is proving to be an illusion that he has ever produced significant art or costumes, there is no evidence so far that he has had any impact in his main disciplines.
  • This page was full of references made up from bios, press releases and primary sources such as the Motiroti website, it now requires some reliable secondary source references to justify significance and/or notability.
  • There were also claims to awards for Keith Khan which were not actually awarded to him, they were given to organisations he worked for/with.
  • Some job titles were actually projects worked on under Motiroti, but it seems that they have been "hand-picked" as Motiroti has run an extensive number of projects, some bigger than those previously selected. I have removed them to give a more accurate account of Keith Khan's working history.
  • I still believe that after all the tidying up and research that this entry fails to fulfil Wikipedia guidelines for Notability under WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE in his disciplines - so there is a need of urgent discussion around the merits of the entry. Ahhite (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


=[edit]

I have attempted to clean this article up by correcting dates and providing references to secondary sources which are not just biographical for promotional purposes. I have also corrected some misleading discrepancies, such as the positions at the 2012 Summer Olympics.

This article does need some additional rewriting though to determine notability under WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE – the sources I have found mainly note that Keith Khan has been involved with a project or organization, nothing seems to be written of significance about him, and there is no evidence of his acknowledged contribution to his field or importance. I do agree that his name is notable enough for inclusion on the Motiroti, Rich Mix Cultural Foundation and 2012 Summer Olympics entries, but not as a standalone article. Ahhite (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Keith Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Keith Khan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New image[edit]

Hello all, I added an image to this page as part of a short-term paid project to share images of a year of culture that was held in Leeds. There's more on the project here and more images to make use of here. Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keith_Khan&oldid=1211210640"