Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameera Aziz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. 7 05:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sameera Aziz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Shameless spamvertisement for journalist, unsalvageably hagiographic. Orange Mike | Talk 04:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've removed the least encyclopedic parts of the article. This discussion should be listed in "Saudia Arabia" and "Pakistan" related discussions. Be careful what you refer to as "unsalvageable." There seems to be plenty of sources online to establish notabilty [1], with very little work. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep -self promotional, no-notable, originally a cut/paste from facebook. Noble effort to save the article, but still nothing there. It's not the quantity of ghits but the quality that matters.If we are going to rely on simple ghits to judge notability we are in trouble, as it is misleading. If you run a simple quoted version of her name you get about 4500 ghits - but as you scroll through to subsequent pages the number reduces to 170[2], none of which are WP:RS to establish notability. 7 06:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being mentioned as an honored speaker by the Pakistan Times and the Arab News at an international symposium are not "quality" mentions? There are over 100 articles online which were written by this journalist for the Saudi Gazette, which is itself a notable publication. There are regional differences in return of search results, especially since many of the articles regarding this author will be in a language other than English. Even if that were not the case, non trivial mention in 3 notable, reliable press outlets meets notability requirements. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing articles for a notable publication does not confer notability. The Saudi Gazette reference is not a third-party reference. The other three references I would indeed call trivial, but regardless, of trivial-or-not the threshold of notability is not that they are non-trivial, but rather that their has been significant third-party coverage from RS. Being quoted by one publication while speaking at a function for your own paper doesn't meet the bar for me. However I really don't want to come off as being argumentative here, and I may be biased by the cut/paste spam©vio start of the article. If she is indeed notable and the only difficulty we are having is because of regional search results then I'm happy for the article to survive. I just personally don't have the language skills to confirm that, so hopefully others with those skills will be able to chime in. 7 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your open mind. I have been hammered on these boards for being West-centric in regards to my thresholds of notability, so I've learned to look for "aggregates of information" when dealing with Asian countries. Also, "journalism", as we know it, does not exist in Saudi Arabia (see BBC article), especially for women (see topical article and Women's rights in Saudi Arabia). So we may never find the type of sources you might expect to find for a Western reporter. The fact that she is a senior editor for one of the few magazines allowed to publish in Saudi Arabia, makes her a much bigger fish in a small pool. The amount of info we are seeing about this reporter is actually a testament to the level of notoriety she has achieved in the international community. While we may never get a slam dunk on notability, do we really have a slam dunk on the deletion? --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated to keep based on work done to the article and sources discovered by OliverTwisted. 7 05:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your open mind. I have been hammered on these boards for being West-centric in regards to my thresholds of notability, so I've learned to look for "aggregates of information" when dealing with Asian countries. Also, "journalism", as we know it, does not exist in Saudi Arabia (see BBC article), especially for women (see topical article and Women's rights in Saudi Arabia). So we may never find the type of sources you might expect to find for a Western reporter. The fact that she is a senior editor for one of the few magazines allowed to publish in Saudi Arabia, makes her a much bigger fish in a small pool. The amount of info we are seeing about this reporter is actually a testament to the level of notoriety she has achieved in the international community. While we may never get a slam dunk on notability, do we really have a slam dunk on the deletion? --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Writing articles for a notable publication does not confer notability. The Saudi Gazette reference is not a third-party reference. The other three references I would indeed call trivial, but regardless, of trivial-or-not the threshold of notability is not that they are non-trivial, but rather that their has been significant third-party coverage from RS. Being quoted by one publication while speaking at a function for your own paper doesn't meet the bar for me. However I really don't want to come off as being argumentative here, and I may be biased by the cut/paste spam©vio start of the article. If she is indeed notable and the only difficulty we are having is because of regional search results then I'm happy for the article to survive. I just personally don't have the language skills to confirm that, so hopefully others with those skills will be able to chime in. 7 09:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable journalist deserves article --117.195.134.197 (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. article is good but very short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.120.150.175 (talk • contribs) (comment moved from talkpage)
- Update - I've listed this article at the Saudi Arabia portal and Journalism portal for additional feedback from editors more familiar with Saudi Arabian journalism. Also, please keep in mind that there are only 2 newspapers within Saudi Arabia which are printed in English, and the subject of the article works for one of them. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 04:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of the sources, but the article is by no means a good one. I did a bit of trimming, and there's more needed. ` DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 01:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
so do i 've to inform the writers and journalists from saudi arabia to take part in this disscussion? because nobody knows about this article in wikipedia until now. what is the best way to inform the people? i sent this article to madam sameera at her official e-mail ID <redacted> (that published in news paper earlier), she replied with thank you. she liked the article. (MOON) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon round (talk • contribs) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (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.