Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khymani James: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
vote
Line 51: Line 51:
*'''Weak keep''' I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' the [[WP:NOTNEWS]] arguments do have some ground, but at the same time there seems to be enough in-depth coverage to pass [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Weak keep''' the [[WP:NOTNEWS]] arguments do have some ground, but at the same time there seems to be enough in-depth coverage to pass [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:Inter&anthro|Inter&anthro]] ([[User talk:Inter&anthro|talk]]) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' I don't see [[WP:AVOIDVICTIM]] as a significant concern here, but the case via [[WP:BLP1E]] seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact [[WP:BLP2E]] or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into [[2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation]]. [[User:Jmill1806|Jmill1806]] ([[User talk:Jmill1806|talk]]) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 3 May 2024

Khymani James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLP1E User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. The high school bio provides context, however. Is there a problem keeping it? 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Seems like the person should occupy 4-5 sentences of the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation article discussing the leadership (of which this person is clearly a leader) and controversy. That article is protected, but perhaps one of the editors can make that addition in order to facilitate the deletion of this article on James. CampaignZippy (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is dangerous for a person who has openly said he "feels comfortable calling for the death" of any individual to be given fame/notoriety and a platform in the first place. Keeping a webpage up for a domestic terrorist like Khymani James is outright wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.141.24 (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not censored. Terrorists exist, and many are notable. For example, I'm guessing you know who Bin Laden is (if you live in the US at least). Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Slugger O'Toole's general points. Uncertain how victimhood could be asserted (& if it is I would strongly disagree with that assertion). The individual is notable. The President of the United States has commented on the individual & they are a leader in a movement gaining global attention.
I don't think it's prudent to rush to delete the page as these events are still in progress. It's not possible to determine whether this individual is basically inconsequential, or whether they will be considered a key contributor when we are all looking back on this. Give it a few months & perhaps that will become more clear. Dlobr (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s clear in a few months then that’s when you give him a page. Until then the president commented on him because he said vile, evil things about people and organized a protest. Not everyone who organizes something warrants a page, ESPECIALLY such a vitriolic and hateful individual 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that if the page gets deleted at this point, that decision will be forever cited as the rationale for why the page should never exist, in spite of the continued notoriety. The cat is out of the bag already.
Remember that this discussion is about whether the individual is notable enough to have a page at all; this is *not* a discussion about what content inside that page is deemed hurtful or impertinent. Dlobr (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not an intrinsic and immutable property. This discussion is about whether the individual is presently notable; we can leave the question of WP:FUTURE notability to the future. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This guy should not have the satisfaction of having a Wikipedia page 2600:1700:9857:70C0:B9A4:731D:B3D5:9D8A (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, delete, this is single-event notoriety and belongs as a section within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Columbia_University_pro-Palestinian_campus_occupation.
In fact this incident is already described therein, under "Allegations of antisemitism". Marcworld (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge into the 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation page. Topjur01 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently written like a hitpiece and violates BLP. The student isn't notable at the moment. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons above. Jjazz76 (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'd prefer more in-depth biographical coverage, but given that there are sources from 2021, BLP1E doesn't really apply. Don't see how AVOIDVICTIM applies either. Will we be hearing about them in a year from now? Two years? Really not sure, and we can't really know yet, so I can definitely see the case for merging with an article on the protests, but the previous coverage pushes this just over the line for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the WP:NOTNEWS arguments do have some ground, but at the same time there seems to be enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see WP:AVOIDVICTIM as a significant concern here, but the case via WP:BLP1E seems clear. I suppose one could argue that this is in fact WP:BLP2E or similar, in particular via the Globe human-interest story, but it's not as if James has an activist career that makes him notable rather than the notability of the ongoing event he is associated with. Almost all the useful content can easily go into 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. Jmill1806 (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]