Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sultan (2nd nomination)

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. Also noting no mention of Punjabi source searches—worth considering in the future. czar 23:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sultan

[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)

In May 2018, I nom this BLP for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sultan. However it was kept even though there was not a single policy based arguments in favour of keeping the page. I also raised my concerns before the closing admin at User_talk:Sandstein#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maria_Sultan.

I'm renominating this for deletion because being Director General of the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute is not in itself grounds for notability and I still believe the subject fails to meet GNG. G'search does produce namecheck type of press coverage which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject. Saqib (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. It is too early for WP entry. She is name-checked by multiple source but fails to satisfy WP criteria of significant in-depth coverage. She was also involved in fake degree case. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Most sources in the article are either profiles or are not independent of her. There is also no indication from reliable sources that she is a notable figure. Having interesting jobs does not make someone notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage exists in quotes and passing mentions which is not presently enough per WP:GNG. Rzvas (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I am unable to find evidence that she meets either GNG or WP:NPROF: mentions of her in the media are largely describing her opinion on something, and her work is not widely cited. I'm a bit hesitant because she is being quoted by mainstream news media in multiple countries, but I don't think that's quite enough for notability. Vanamonde (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2018 (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.