Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hakki Suleyman

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. KTC (talk) 00:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hakki Suleyman

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

Wholly-negative BLP on a relatively minor figure. Close to an attack article. No sources for anything biographical outside of roles in minor political controversies. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - whole I disagree that someone who holds enough votes to create (which happened) and finish to Opposition Leader of Australia is not notable, I also value the opinion of experienced editors and this doesn't have a snowball's chance in surviving. Flat Out (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - not wholly negative with positive Chair roles included and reliably sourced. The extensive reliable mainstream media sources including The Australian, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, ABC, Financial Review, and Crikey indicates that the subject is not a "relatively minor figure" and has held key national roles including this one.  Flat Out (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor experienced in Australian politics can transform this article from a BLP violating political hit piece into actual NPOV biography. Ping me when it has been rewritten. Otherwise, my recommendation to delete stands. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respect to Cullen328 whom I admire greatly, a thorough reading of the sources will show that article is a fair and accurate summary of the points made by those reliable sources. Flat Out (talk) 05:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If true, that hints to me that the sources in the article are not representative and are cherry-picked to portray the individual in a negative light. A political figure does not rise to a position of national prominence without reliable sources saying a few positive things about them. Certainly, the sources would have offered the types of basic biographical details which are entitrely lacking in the article. My BLP violation detector screams "hit piece" when I read this article. Why am I wrong? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I encourage you to perform a search and see if you still think I have cherry picked sources. Note' - a figure can rise to national prominence when they control a stack of votes that support the pre-selection of a Federal politician and the support for that politician over an opponent when a Federal Opposition Leader was elected partially by the party membership. If anyone can find positive coverage I'd be happy to include it Flat Out (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added some commentary regarding party investigation into branchstacking and the clear links to the subject and the current Federal Opposition Leader. Flat Out (talk) 05:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterate my recommendation to delete as a BLP violating hit piece, with disappointment. This is not an NPOV encyclopedia biography. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes it passes GNG. But it looks like the only thing he is notable for is branch stacking. In other words, for a pretty small-time crime or fraud. WP:CRIME suggests that criminals are only noteworthy if "renowned nationally or internationally", or if the "motive or execution is unusual". None of this applies here - branch stacking is pretty yawn-worthy stuff for 99.9% of the population. None of his other (positive) achievements would make him notable in their own right and I dispute the assertion that he is "not a minor figure" - would you seriously argue that being elected as one of 86 delegates to a Labor party conference gets him an article? That's ridiculous. Hence this article fails to establish notability despite passing GNG. It could also be said to fail WP:BLP1E, so I can't possibly see how keeping this article adds to the encyclopaedia. Frankly I'm surprised it has't been speedied as a blatant attack page. Yeti Hunter (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here actually convinces me that this is a sufficiently notable crime as to warrant permanent coverage in an encyclopedia — it's an extremely localized crime of limited import. And it's a fairly WP:ROUTINE one, at that — dig deep enough, and you could find thousands of political organizers, in practically any country on earth, who've done the very same thing or worse without Wikipedia feeling the need to maintain an article about all of them. Branch stacking may be a uniquely Australian term, but it's far from being a uniquely Australian phenomenon — I could point to dozens of examples in Canadian politics where basically the exact same thing was at least alleged, with the only discernible difference being that "branch stacking" isn't the name we use for it up here. Yeti Hunter is correct that both WP:CRIME and WP:BLP1E militate against this — Suleyman wouldn't earn a Wikipedia article for anything else that's been shown here, and this in and of itself isn't a notable enough crime to lift him over the bar. And finally, I strongly suspect that the intention here had as much to do with making sure his daughter, and/or the entire Labor Party in toto, was tarred and feathered by association as it does with him personally — but it would be a rank WP:NPOV violation to keep an article on that basis either. All in all, just not a thing we should be keeping an article about. Bearcat (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per all of the above points. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/snow delete per all of above. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:36, 15 November 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.