Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hareem Shah

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. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hareem Shah

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No doubt, the subject is a well-known name in Pakistan, but popularity doesn't always mean notability. The cited Pakistani media sources are only tabloid, trivial coverage of the subject's activities like viral & leaked videos, having affairs with government officials, slapping this person, marrying that person, etc. No reliable source gives any significant in-depth coverage of the subject's life and career as a social media personality. The only sources disclosing info about their personal life (place of birth, family, education, etc.) are some Indian newspapers that assumed everything published on the subject's social media handles to be accurate and made up some articles by joining different pieces from the local media. Fails WP:BASIC. Insight 3 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the article should be deleted as the coverage of her stands.it is hard to find reliable sources for even the most basic information about her such as her age (ranging form 29 to 41 years old). if her coverage was consistent in even the most basic facts about her, then I would say that this article should be kept, though as it stands this is not the case. Roma enjoyer (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above nomination, fails WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social media forum. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The OP notes that the subject is "well-known name in Pakistan" which actually implies notability. In any case, a deletion of yet another biography of a woman would be a shame and unfortunate to say the least, as all the work put into creating the page would be swept away. Surely, the page can use work, but deleting it is NOT the way to go about it.Historyday01 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the subject is famous on internet but lacks the required SIGCOV. Just have a look at the titles of the cited sources, they are all sensational pieces about trivial things and don't help to write an encyclopedic bio. Insight 3 (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the issue of woman being ignored and having their article deleted at a disparately rate is a problem( though I feel that it may not mostly be due to bias on Wikipedia's editors part and more sources paying less attention to woman, because of sexism) This issue should not be used as justification for keeping a woman's article, as it can still be the case that a woman's article is disserving of deletion. As for this article, it is clear to me that the lake of consistent information about shah means that her article should be deleted, at lest as the information about her stands. For example, her date of birth ranges form the 28th of December, as per https://awampk.com/tik-tok-model-hareem-shah-biography-age-and-family/ to the 22th of November 1991, as per newsunzip(which I can not like to a Wikipedia block on it) and to the 22nd of November 1981, as per https://thesportsgrail.com/who-is-hareem-shah-whose-colgate-video-went-viral-biography-age-husband-real-name-instagram-picture/ Roma enjoyer (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable person who is famous in Pakistan and meets WP:SIGCOV Qwv (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How dose shah meet WP:SIGCOV? Her coverage is not reliable, and as per WP:SIGCOV a topic is ''presumed to be suitable'' if it ''received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.'' The sources covering her are not reliable, one of them,newsunzip is even on a Wikipedia black list, and that's on the first page of google results Roma enjoyer (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable, seems to be plenty significant coverage as per WP:GNG:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1714521
https://www.dawn.com/news/1672603
https://www.dawn.com/news/1669061
https://images.dawn.com/news/1183896
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/etimes/trending/who-is-pakistani-tiktoker-hareem-shah-whose-private-videos-has-been-leaked-by-friends-here-are-details/articleshow/98386157.cms?from=mdr
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2085688/pm-takes-notice-hareem-shahs-tiktok-video-inside-foreign-office CT55555(talk) 16:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source [1] is just a news report about her petition in the court, [2] is a court's direction to FIA, [3] is about initiation of FIA against her, [4] tells she once broke into the foreign ministry office and it heavily relies on social media posts, as I mentioned in the nom, the Indian source [5] is just a piece of churnalism, and [6] is about inquiry of a security breach and the intruder. Where is in-depth coverage of her life and career as a social media star in multiple reliable sources? Being in the news for this or that issue doesn't make anyone notable. Insight 3 (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand most your objections. News reports on people are good indicators of notability. We're at a point where you've described her as well-known and agree that there are news reports about various things she has done. It makes me wonder what would convince you of someone's notability if not fame plus news coverage? CT55555(talk) 16:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is these kind of sources don't tell why is she in the news in the first place. What's her career really about? As the things like intrusion into a government office, money laundering, court cases, etc., do not generally define a social media personality. Insight 3 (talk) 04:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone's lack of understanding of why she is notable should not be confused with a lack of her notability.

I don't know why most influencers are influential, but that is besides the point. CT55555(talk) 04:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we are talking about a biography here, not any metaphysical reality. Generally, we do know why particular influences are influential. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion. Regards. Insight 3 (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Dawn (newspaper) is the newspaper of record in Pakistan with an 81 years history. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aside from notability issues, I think there are serious crime/privacy issues with this article and so I have posted a notice at WP:BLPN. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an attempt to WP:CANVASS and I have written it neutrally with regards to notability. CT55555(talk) 17:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is inadequate to construct a neutral, balanced article about this person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll note WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion. WP:BLP says it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Right now, the coverage of the subject of this article that I've found, and what's included in the article, just consists of sensationalist tabloid-like stories, as well as WP:BLPGOSSIPy content. If that's all that is able to be included in this article, it isn't a proper biography, and isn't complying with WP:BLP, and should be deleted. --Tristario (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not !vote in that thread (I would prefer to be article more sourced in general) but pay attention it is the most viewed article nominated for deletion among women biographies by distance and yet the person was born in 1981, not 2000 or 20005. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I have with this however, is fat that it has only three results in google scholar but perhaps t is related with fact that it is Pakistan-related article. PRobably we have a lot of articles from English-speaking world which are less notable than her but it still is not eough argument to keep though, but also not argument to remove. Dawid2009 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion above, most are trivial mentions. Delete unless we find substantial coverage of the individual. I can't find anything extra about them. Oaktree b (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it is WP:NOTGOSSIP, and it is WP:NOTNEWS, e.g. most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, so there are several policy-based reasons supporting deletion based on the available sources. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that being popular does not equate with being notable. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:46, 21 March 2023 (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.