Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakeel Ahmad Bhat

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. Consensus is that notability requirements are met. Sandstein 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shakeel Ahmad Bhat

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

this person's only claim to notability seems to be that photos of him have appeared in various newspapers Tractor Tyres (talk) 00:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Person-memes can achieve notability through unconventional avenues. The references show Bhat has been the subject of coverage in at least 5 objectively reliable sources; after reviewing the content of this coverage, each article appears to be unique and not the reprinting of a single wire service report. DocumentError (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in this case the Wikipedia article reproduces an essentially racist narrative of Muslims as savages. The individual in question is not notable, and the meme as such isn't that noteworthy. --Soman (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you think there is a racist narrative involved is irrelevant to this discussion because Wikipedia is not here to takes sides. The facts are the facts, I am afraid. That the meme is noteworthy is self-evident from the amount of high-quality references possible for it. Please demonstrate otherwise if you disagree. --gilgongo (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per DocumentError. Person Meme can be notable.Subject has been mentioned in books by name and even his personal life is discussed ,added references and has reliable sources and coverage of the Subject. The effort has been lasting from 2006 if one takes the Guardian article in 2007 article to date and his photos are still being used to portray him as a symbol or face of protests and it has received significant independent coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The subject is better known as "Islamic Rage Boy", and as such has very substantial independent secondary coverage. While the subject himself may not be notable, his bio is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia for the same reason as any meme or related phenomenon requires background documentation to contribute to the sum of human knowledge, to wit "Who is Islamic Rage Boy?" It is articles like this that keep Wikipedia great. It must not be deleted. --gilgongo (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with user Gilgongo, and also feel it is important to maintain an authoritative article to inform people of the existence of this person. Many news outlets exploit his image for their own purposes, and it is useful to have a reference to expose this manipulation. As such, the article is not racist, and in fact exposes the racism inherent in the use of his image to perpetuate stereotypes. Ema Zee (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2013 (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.