Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khymani James

Khymani James

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Think it should probably be merged with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation, and remove some of the info about his highschool bio? User:Sawerchessread (talk) 21:53, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable for multiple events, some while in high school and others while in college. Both got headlines. This is not a case of BLP1E. I am also not sure how he is a victim. He has made statements and taken actions of his own will that have made him notable. He is not in the news because of the actions of others. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely keep it. Merging it with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation makes some sense, but you are write about including his high school experiences. They help define him, and will become prescient when he resurfaces, which seems likely. 2601:6C1:780:B340:456D:C356:A6AB:AB5B (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, actually agree, WP:AVOIDVICTIM probably does not apply. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? He is at best a footnote in the Columbia protests. Should every individual who organized an event get a Wikipedia page now? If I organize a potluck this Wednesday should I get my own entry? He is specifically responsible for spreading dangerous rhetoric and incitements and I’m talking about his comments, not the protest. An individual such as this does not warrant nor deserve a page 173.56.60.163 (talk) 09:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it "seems likely" that he'll resurface later. Inclusion is based on present notability, not WP:FUTURE. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:49, 1 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 has been paid $38,000 to damage the education of other students. His life goal is to be on congress. He wants all white people dead. He says his current life goal is to physically kill people. The voters have the right to know who they will be voting for even if it would be 10 years in the future. Employers have the right to know who they are hiring. Keep the article for the safety and well being of the rest of society. Actions have consequences. This article stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.44.251 (talk) 08:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Columbia University pro-Palestinian campus occupation. The movement is noteworthy but the subject's notability does not seem to warrant a standalone article. This a mostly leaderless movement that would be happening with or without the subject's involvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Struck per WP:ARBPIA. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pop music would be happening without Taylor Swift & the sun will rise tomorrow morning even if I'm not awake to observe it. Dlobr (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a crystal clear WP:BLP1E to me. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There is significant coverage of him from 2021, including in depth profiles by the Boston Globe and the Bay State Banner. Do those not count? --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bay State Banner looks to be an interview which doesn't count. I don't see the Globe article. He very clearly wouldn't otherwise be eligible for an article apart from this incident - very clearly being covered for this single event. He's likely to remain low profile, and he did not have a substantial role in the overall event. SportingFlyer T·C 04:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer: I'm not sure why a Q&A wouldn't count, but this is a 1,800+ word profile of him in the Globe from 2021. It covers everything from his childhood to his confrontational style on the Boston School Committee to why he resigned from the Advisory Board and more. It also has multiple links to other news stories about him. That is significant coverage about multiple events. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He wouldn't have been Wiki-notable for that article. It's painfully obvious this is a BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. He absolutely wouldn't. But the Globe profile is from 2021, three years before the current events at Columbia. So is much of the other coverage of him. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 21:50, 30 April 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]

Agree, delete or merge. Non-notable and poorly sourced.CommonSentiments (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CommonSentiments: Poorly sourced? The sources include The Boston Globe, CNN, The Hill, and The New York Times. What better sources would you like to be seeing? -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d say delete. It does not seem he has much individual note. A newsworthy (but not long term-significant) instance of bigoted remarks and involvement in a movement that is itself notable does not strike me as enough. SecretName101 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - single notable event to his name with limited media coverage. unless more comes out related him that generates extensive coverage, no reason he can't just be covered under the protest page Claire 26 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Ephun (talk) 00:06, 2 May 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]