Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ola Kamel

Ola Kamel

Ola Kamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) –

Non-notable individual. She had run for a political office in 2004, but has not actually held any. The only references given are a list of people who are members of the Labor Party, and a brief statement she made when she ran for office. There's at least an assertion of notability, so this doesn't qualify for a speedy delete, but I do not see any verifiable sources of notability. - Kesh 02:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note - As a minor note, the author has a conflict of interest in the subject, as pointed out here. -- Kesh 02:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• She held office as Spokesperson for the local Muslim Community and as Chair of the EAC (Egyptian Association of Canterbury) and as Treasurer for the Labour Party's South Island Branch and as Chairperson of the Multi-Ethnic Branch, and more that i will add to the article later as i find info about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 02:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable Pilotbob 02:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete presented as 'also ran' candidate with other civil interests, none of which add up to notability. SkierRMH 03:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

One of the linked sources simply shows some indication about her involvement and political activities and leanings.--Info Of Interest 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

• It is verifiable online that she is the local politician the article cites. And that she ran for office and held certain views as indicated in the short quote. She was Spokesperson for the An-Nur Mosque and that would be confirmed by the institution at any time. The Labour Party can verify the same, and she is cited as a former List Candidate.--Info Of Interest 03:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I obviously need help tidying it up. I couldn't insert the picture in the usual way (side-lined). It is one of many pieces photographic evidence I could potentially add of her political activities. --Info Of Interest 04:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC) But of course only one should be enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
• Delete, WP is not a advertising service. meshach 04:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• She's not selling anything or even currently seeking any office! She's a woman who did good works (public, political, and professional work) and who is notable!--Info Of Interest 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

No one is questioning her existence. To stay in wikipedia there needs to be verifiable reliable sources added to the article that verify she satisfies the notability requirement. If these can be added then I am sure it will be kept. Otherwise it will likely be deleted. meshach 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, thank you for your participation. I do wish for this page and for the Ola-abaza article to be done properly. I found this text: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources.

I will try to look for sources myself but it perhaps would be better if third-party people interested in improving the article approached relevant institutions online and asked them to verify Ola Kamel's positions and activities. These could be the The New Zealand Labour Party1, the Muslim Association of Canterbury (MAC)2, or the Egyptian Association of Canterbury (EAC). MAC can verify Ola Kamel's many activities including her position as the first female Spokesperson for the Mosque, wide involvment with the media, and representing the New Zeland Muslim Community at a major overseas conference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 06:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• I made some changes. Minor ones.--Info Of Interest 06:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)

• Last note for now: I suspect both this article and the Ola-abaza article can probablly be edited to comply with your standards. I tried to do that today. --Info Of Interest 07:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not the lack of the sources that is the main problem, but rather that the assertions in the article don't add up to a sufficient level of prominence for this person. — BillC ^talk 07:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Don't delete: the sources indicate and give hints towards her varied involvements. In terms of prominence, but I cannot provide these easily, for quite a number of years she regurally appeared in the Print Media and on TV in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 07:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete [1] and [2] are primary sources that don't establish notability. [3] is a reliable secondary source, but it only trivially mentions the article's subject. Therefore, the article doesn't establish notability in its current revision. — Ksero 09:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

All of these are in fact not primary sources, they are sources from institutions that do not equate to Ola Kamel but have cited her online. So perhaps don't delete, with the exception of the quote she didn't sign the sources. And the sources are an indication and demonstration of her political activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As WP:PSTS writes, secondary sources draw on primary sources to make generalizations or interpretive, analytical, or synthetic claims. I don't think [4] and [5] does that. Therefore, they are not secondary sources. They are primary sources that don't establish notability. — Ksero 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are just lists that show she exists. They do nothing to show she is notable per our policies. -- Kesh 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what I said. We agree. — Ksero 20:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my indentation was off. That was meant as a reply to Infoguardian! -- Kesh 20:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there again. The 'lists' say more than just that she simply exists (and not all of the links are simply 'lists ' either). They indicate and demonstrate her activities and involvements in line with the assertions of the article. I will add detailed references today of her appearances in the NZ print media, but i cannot scan these, i can only provide dates and references to specific articles and their contents. Anyone can follow up on the accuracy of these if they can be bothered.

• Also, anyone seeking to improve the article can try and do that. I doubt/hope any of you would claim that the article is simply inaccurate? And in terms of 'notability' I think what is already shown in the article hints towards her notability in the local context in which she worked. I am new to editing wikipedia but i am an old user/reader of the wiki. So i strongly think these articles are within the scope of this wiki. There are many similar articles about similar figures which you could look up if you can be bothered. I request that instead of deletion, patient correction and improvement is allowed.

• I must repeat that Ola Kamel is notable due to her extensive activites and relative local fame (and her special place as one of very few empowered female spokespeople for Islam). I hope the wiki community will see that. --Info Of Interest 07:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

---

• Keep I've fixed up the article significantly, but it still needs a few good sources. However, and added a few sources. I think it easily demonstrates enough notability to be kept. Any thoughts on the changes? GlassCobra 07:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• I am happy with your version. I welcome other people's contribution in the future and I will avoid adding much info myself due to the fact that Ola Kamel is my beloved mother.--Info Of Interest 07:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)
• Delete I stress that notability has nothing whatsoever to do with goodness, competence, or productivity. I am sure that Mrs. Kamel brings honor to her family and to her community. That said, if we posit that there is any level of "notability" whatsoever below which an individual does not "merit" (used loosely) an article in an encyclopedia then she would be below any reasonable bar. --Justanother 15:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If we look past your purple prose, you're not really stating any reason for deletion. Would you mind clarifying more? GlassCobra 05:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course I am; you just need more practice with "purple prose" (smile). Here, let me make it clearer. N-o-t n-o-t-a-b-l-e. --Justanother 12:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• She is clearly notable. She was an important and pioneering female official for MAC and caught the national media's and the public's attention in this country. --Info Of Interest 02:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoguardian (talk • contribs)