Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tala Raassi

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 seems clear that the subject passes the notability guidelines (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 14:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tala Raassi

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

Lacks notability. Divide et Impera (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was prepared to recommend deleting this article about a bikini designer. A Google search verified, though, that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources because the Iranian religious police gave her 40 lashes at age 16 for wearing a miniskirt to a party where boys were present. She was born a U.S. citizen, and lives in the U.S. now. Meets WP:GNG Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - partly because I am the article-creating user and also simply because it meets WP:GNG, this per coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. you need in-depth coverage. coverage merely confirms she is a bikini designer of Iranian origin and not much more. [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep she's discussed in jakarta, in colombia, and in the u.s., and again in the u.s. (this one is paywalled, sorry). this seems like significant coverage to me under gng: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure how thoroughly that LibStar searched, but I found this profile in Washington Life, this in the Washington Times, this on WUSA, this on NBC's Washington affiliate, this on the Rachael Ray Show, this on Voice of America, this in the Jamaica Observer and this in Marie Claire. Those have much more significant coverage than LibStar indicated and seem more than adequate to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the comment above proves the notability. anyway article needs better editing. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability can be established easily. Apparently the nominator is unaware that there are obligations to carry out checks before nominating an AfD: see WP:BEFORE. Rubywine . talk 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article when doing New Pages patrolling. I do that starting from the back of the unpatrolled backlog, which usually contains the articles that stay mostly in the grey area, and no one has been willing to patroll for weeks. Which check do you feel I didn't go through and how do you determine that the notability can be established so easily on this subject? IMO she is the typical ONEEVENT case: received 40 lashes for wearing a ~~bikini~~ miniskirt in her 16th birthday, so what? For a One event person the rule in wikipedia is that we should cover the event, not the person. How many millions of law infringers do we have to bring to Wikipedia, just because they receive media coverage? Would the fact that she is a designer make her notable? Is she a notable designer by any stretch, or is it only because of those lashes (and this article in wikipedia) that she became famous? An article on Lipstick Revolution is still to be written, and she should redirect (at least until she becomes a truly notable designer) to that article. Until then, a possibility is that this article can be incubated, because IMO it doesn't meet WP:N. Divide et Impera (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, WP:BLP1E no longer applies, nor does WP:ONEEVENT because the coverage has been ongoing for years after she received 40 lashes for wearing a miniskirt (not a bikini) on her 16th birthday, and the coverage now discusses her more recent activities as a fashion designer, as well as in the context of the earlier incident. Accordingly, the extensive coverage in reliable sources identified in this debate shows that she is notable now. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what? She should satisfy something in this section to qualify as a famous fashion designer. Not everybody who designs costumes for Miss America or Miss Universe needs to be in Wikipedia.Divide et Impera (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from WP:ONEEVENT: " In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." Emphasis added. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that that quote can be used a person needs to have played a major role in a minor event. Wikipolicy adds that In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself. Such event is random in Iran and enforcement of Sharia law is more relevant than an individual, such as Tala: Tala herself is becoming famous only because in the West Sharia law is very little known. The only way she should be mentioned in wikipedia is within a Lipstick Revolution article: still to be written. That concept too is much more important than Tala. Divide et Impera (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia has been well-known if not thoroughly understood among educated Westerners at least since the time of the Iranian revolution in the late 1970s. As for Tala Raassi, she meets the notability guidelines for the English Wikipedia for reasons stated above and repeated above - significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Others subjected to Sharia may not have received such coverage and are therefore not notable by Wikipedia standards. We don't delete articles about notable topics because some editors think that other topics without articles are even more "important". If you think the other topic is important, Divide et Impera, please feel free to write the article. I am sure that it will be informative. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:48, 29 August 2011 (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.