The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that actual coverage about the person themselves does not meet the notability requirements. Black Kite (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Kassam[edit]

Raheem Kassam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete Non-notable person. I admit this is a borderline case, as he appears to have been widely quoted and published in the British media, as demonstrated by the references. But I can find virtually no coverage in independent reliable sources which focuses on him and covers him in detail, as opposed to mentioning him briefly. (The best there is is this brief portrait in the Evening Standard:[1]) I don't think there's enough significant coverage of him to pass the notability test. (Additionally, there are concerns this article has been subject to conflict-of-interest editing [2], although that's separate from the notability issue.) Robofish (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This individual meets notability requirements. Fairly frequent references in the media to Raheem Kassam, and enough reliable independent third party sources to create a credible article. That does not mean the piece is currently in an acceptable state, but the problems can be resolved. Philip Cross (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a vanity page. Looks self-edited, too. Note things like the description of the THE article as an "interview" (when he is one of lots of people cited [3]). The notability guidelines[4] say "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." That does not mean being cited in newspapers because you have sent out press releases on a widely covered story. Only one source - the Evening Standard article[5] - meets that criterion. And the premise of that article is "here are people who might matter one day but do not now". Nor, indeed, does it mean getting stuff onto comment pages as a guest writer. As the notability guidelines say[6]: "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability". Indeed, if we judge him as a journalist, he clearly fails. He runs a blog. He is not, to quote the guidance on journalists, "an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". Afraid not, Raheem. Hippogriffinette (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)— Hippogriffinette (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete The fact that this individual has a Wikipedia page is a joke. He is minor even amongst other Westminster activists/talking heads. Other more notable individuals who do exactly the same thing as RK, like Harry Cole who co-writes the Order-order.com blog, do not have pages. For a sense of perspective Harry Cole has just under 17,000 followers on Twitter, RK has < 4,000. The founder of the TPA, Matthew Elliott, the man who effectively won the No2AV campaign and is said to be an adviser to David Cameron has a Wikipedia page half the length of RKs. Also Student Rights and YBF are both owned by the same individual, Donal Blaney. RK speaking at YBF events is treated as something apart from his job when in fact he is obligated to do so. Most of the articles citing RK are not intellectually independent of each other. People who work at/write for ConservativeHome have close links to YBF and the TPA. Jonathan Isaby, for example, was an editor at ConHome and now works for the TPA. Donal Blaney, his employer, writes frequently for ConHome. RK is listed as an 'MIP People' person. Nick Wood, the CEO of MIP writes regularly for ConHome. Another 'MIP People' person is Olivia Cole who is a 'contributing editor' of ES (Evening Standard) Magazine. If you take out the YBF, Student Rights, ConHome and other articles on platforms published by his employers, former employers, his friends and himself the citations for this article become very thin indeed. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC) — 86.145.246.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I fail to see how anyone can possible come to the conclusion that this individual is notable when so many others who do the same thing so much more successfully do not have Wikipedia pages. We would be setting a really bad precedent. Essentially, Mr. Kassam runs a blog, occasionally writes a few articles and is invited on the BBC to offer his thoughts on political stories on slow news days. RK has never even been on Question Time or written a book unlike other political commentators/journalists. I don't think [any amount of editing can cover up this blatant lack of notability]. This guy may become more notable in the future but having your own Wikipedia depends on being notable now. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this has spun out of a posting of mine at WP:AN, referencing this article which mentions the distinct possibility that Kassam has substantially edited his own article, both as a registered editor and as an IP. I agree with the nominator's assertion that there is not enough significant, third-party coverage for him to be considered notable. GiantSnowman 19:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Keep" - notability guidelines are clearly met. Demands for removal seem politically motivated. Where are the mods on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.15.181 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • The Mods are the ones who proposed this page be deleted, Raheem. I strongly recommend you read this Wikipedia essay. 86.145.246.83 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity page - The previous comment is from an Israeli ISP. It could be that Mr Kassam is well known around the globe. Or it could be that Raheem himself, currently in Israel, is still self-promoting. STOP IT, RAHEEM. Hippogriffinette (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indented this as to insure it doesn't look like a separate !vote, since this editor has already !voted above. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What's the argument, here? Just because there is a lot written on the subject doesn't mean he is notable for a page on this encyclopaedia. The entire article reads like a Curriculum vitae, to whom is it beneficial that the subject has worked on a minor Presidential candidate's campaign? The reader or the subject? or that the subject has a position at antiquated think-tank? Why should we care that he worked briefly for the Taxpayers' Alliance? How is this individual notable enough for that information to be useful? From the beginning of this article, it looks as if it has been the victim of sock-puppeting - and even if it isn't - how is the subject notable enough to be on this encyclopaedia? Blog-posts or 'executive editors' (who normal web-masters would call 'Admins') of minor blogs have never been enough for an article entry. I recommend deleting. The entire page sounds like a marketing campaign for the subject and, by the style of the writing, most likely to have been written by the subject himself. I direct users to WP:SOAP and WP:N for I believe these two issues are the one's at heart at deleting this page. 78.40.152.129 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article is an ugly mess, but having reviewed some of the sources, they appear to show notability. Other than a possible COI, I don't see a problem. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's plenty of sources quoted here leading to a first impression of obvious notability. Scratch the surface though, and they fall roughly into two camps: the tangentially related or works of the subject of the article. That a person whose work includes writing has writings published on the Internet where they can be referenced does not in itself lend notability: it is an inevitable part of that role. Where are the independent non-trivial sources asserting the notability of this individual? I don't see them here, and the fact that someone has taken the trouble to find so many references that don't fit that criteria leads me to believe that they probably don't exist. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete No independent sources which discuss the person at reasonable length. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Bearian. The provided references indicate notability. AFD is not for cleanup and we don't delete things simply to spite SPAs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable person. Almost no-one who is not outside of the Pakistani or Muslim community in England and in the United Kingdom has ever heard of him, until now, and there is no documentary evidence to suggest otherwise. He is probably a little too young to have an entry upon Wikipedia, anyhow. He is hardly Mr. Mark Zuckerberg, is he? — KC9TV 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ANYBIO. Raheem Kassam may have worked for a number of notable people and the article namechecks a lot of them, but nothing that Raheem has done is notable in itself. --17:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.