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 keep. ( non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis ( talk) 22:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Rabina Khan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

This person fails to meet the notability criterion to warrant a wikipedia article. Like other extremely minor politicians in Tower Hamlets who have had excessively long Wikipedia articles which deviate far from any perceived basis for their notability - being a politician. Instead they contain all sorts of fawning material which has the purpose of aggrandizing them and potentially helping their political careers; for example information about the subject taking A Levels and the vocation of their husband and the names of their children and companies they have set up which objectively speaking are unheard of and do not add to the subjects notability. The Wikipedia:Notability (people) page provides clarification about threshold when a local politician (in this case a ward councillor elected by about 1000 people) becomes notable is that the person has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. In the instance of this councillor (like other councillors in Tower Hamlets such as Rania Khan and Shiria Khatun whose lengthy, biographical articles have also been found to fall short of the notability criterion and following due consideration were deleted) she has NOT received "significant" press coverage and what she has received has rarely been in any depth. The publications where she has been mentioned have all been in tiny local publications receiving almost no recognition at all in the national press. Two mentions in the East London Advertiser is not significant press coverage, nor is one article in the 'Socialist Worker' which is not a proper newspaper, it is a promotional leaflet published by the Socialist Workers Party and, given Rabina Khan's known affiliation with that political party (when she was a member of Respect of which the SWP was/is an affiliated and dominant section in that party at the time of her membership, and probably since) so it cannot be said to have been independent. Also if you look at the Common Outcomes of such deletion debates "losing candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated". Some people in Tower Hamlets may like her very much but according to the relevant Wiki policy she is not notable; she has not passed the threshold for "significant press coverage" the independent coverage she has received has been extremely brief and almost wholly restricted to one local newspaper and she did not have any previous notability prior to her attempt at becoming mayor. This is not "significant" and the publications are not "major". Rabina Khan fails the criteria for notability and this article which is misused as a political aggrandizing tool should be deleted. Aetheling1125 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}| lambast 01:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 12:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, The article is well sourced with many secondary sources, thus it fulfilled GNG. Ibrahim Husain Meraj ( talk) 04:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Aetheling1125: I see that you haven't made a recommendation in very many AfD discussions before, and may not be familiar with the relevant Wikietiquette. Your nomination is understood as your recommendation. Engaging in discussion is encouraged, but you are asked not to repeat your recommendation as a bold bullet item (see WP:DISCUSSAFD), so please strike your "delete" above. Thanks, Worldbruce ( talk) 23:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC) reply

Done, although I have amended my initial rationale to include the supplementary points I made regarding independence of Socialist Worker. 2.220.0.139 ( talk) 08:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep, local politician, has been elected to local office and has received significant coverage. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 02:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep - tl;dr. Article references show subject meets GNG —Мандичка ^YO 😜 18:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep - I've had great difficulty coming to a decision on this one. The article does not meet WP:POLITICIAN(point 1) or WP:AUTHOR, but Khan has had a reasonable amount of national media coverage so seems to pass WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN(point 2). On balance, I'm going for a Keep. Rwendland ( talk) 11:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep – The subject has received significant coverage from numerous independent, reliable sources therefore meets WP:GNG and is notable. Tanbircdq ( talk) 22:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply

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.