Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saarah Hameed Ahmed (3rd nomination)

Add links
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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 05:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Saarah Hameed Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Person not notable. Only claim is "only known Muslim pilot in Indian aviation sector". Has no encyclopedic value. Pinging involved users For (;;), Lemongirl942, Adog104, Dharmadhyaksha, SwisterTwister, Aoziwe. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG when all biased pro-Islamic references are removed out for also being non-RS. The false propaganda of "first female Muslim pilot" was struck in previous AFD discussion. Refer supporting references there. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I put those so-called biased sources back into the article. A source can be biased and still be reliable. If she was any other religion, I am sure no one would be worried about Islamic sources. It is natural for people of Islamic faith to write about Muslim women. I expect to see articles about Jewish women in the Jerusalem Times and Mormon Women in the Deseret News, for the same reason. Please see WP:BIASED. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination claims the information is not encyclopedic but WP:NOT does not seem to support this. For notability we look for coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources (and in this case find it). We do not substitute our own views of what is important. The existence of the coverage is was matters – the reason for the coverage is not of primary concern. Thincat (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide those "multiple, independent, reliable sources". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the article and you will be able to find them. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article and removed non-independent, non-reliable sources present in it. There are only two sources present there now and that is not what multiple is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see that some substantial sources have been removed without discussion but that is merely an example of biassed editing and does not affect whether the individual is notable. We are concerned with what coverage exists, not what has been allowed to remain in the article. Thincat (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's less than two months since the previous AfD was closed as no-consensus. What has changed in that time? The Hindustan Times and Deccan Herald are both long-established daily newspapers in India: simply asserting that they are not reliable does not make it so. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I note that all of the users pinged as "involved" voted "delete" at the previous AfD. I don't have time right now, but someone should notify the other involved editors: as it is, this is inappropriate canvassing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the biased canvassing at all.
I think this article should be replaced with History of women's aviation in India or such as per the previous AfD. Current content and the previous AfD research, especially that by Lemon Girl, should be salvaged. Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to starting a new article about History of women's aviation in India; but I wonder what would be added in it by salvaging this article; her opinions and false publicity? That would be undue in the topic. Also, History of women's aviation with a small para about India would be sufficient enough for now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument about first-woman-Muslim-pilot-India is spurious. The question is not whether this is a notable combination but whether it has created notable discussion in reliable sources. Claims have been made in these AfDs, but no such notable discussion has been added to the article. As such, the article in its present form is not supportable, but I don't know if that is just bad wiki skills on the part of its supporters. In essence, the article needs to explain why the first-woman-Muslim-pilot-India is so significant and to cite sources for that explanation. I also agree that the canvassing for this new AfD appears biased and should be investigated by an Admin. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but as well as a probably weak initial article there has been a lot of removal of sources recently, combined with tagging that sources are required. Here is the article at a possibly high point for referencing. Personally I don't see the benefit removing [1][2][3][4] although the extent to which they contribute towards notability is reasonably debatable. It must be a nightmare editing articles in this topic area! Best wishes to all concerned. Thincat (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Here is an RS explaining the religious context: A flight away from religious stereotypes, The Hindu, 8 March 2015; "Said to be Karnataka’s first Muslim woman pilot, Saarah has defied religious and gender stereotypes." and here is the HuffPost giving background to the gender context:[5]. There is more out there to be found. One might argue that the article comes too soon to meet WP:BLP, but if so then the content should be merged elsewhere or moved to draft space, it should not be summarily deleted. For what it's worth, the "first" issue is also an irrelevance. maybe she was factually first in some aspect or other, maybe not, the claims are widespread and can safely be sourced as claims.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment please do not ping me further on this article. The number of times this article has been nominated for deletion is like an edit war run amuck. Time is better spent elsewhere. SusunW (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What SusunW said. Also I do not wish to see this article deleted. Move on, folks. Drmies (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is ridiculous. The subject of the article passes GNG. I think the amount of times the article has been listed for deletion is insane. This is borderline harassment, feels like an edit war and is certainly a waste of everyone's time. It's very WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. I'm adding citations to the article right now as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is clearly WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. Earlier, Dharmadhyaksha claimed it a propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources[6] and I don't see him coming up with anything to substantiate his claim. The article should stay and please do not ping me for this topic. Thanks, Luke J. talk 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the last deletion discussion. Since nothing has changed, please feel free to read my comments there. Miyagawa (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is that this is a WP:BLP1E which is precisely there because of WP:NOTNEWS (which is a policy, unlike WP:GNG which is guideline). In cases of BLP1E, we might have an article on the subject, if it can be proved that event is notable. The problem is that her claim to fame "that in March 2015 she was (possibly the only) a Muslim woman employed by SpiceJet" is actually not a claim to fame. In the previous AfD I showed that she is "NOT the first Muslim woman pilot in India" which might have been a notable claim to fame. But the present claim is unfortunately not notable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also GNG is not a free pass to an article. The spirit of the guideline is more important than the letter of the guideline. GNG is supposed to be used in the context of WP:NOTNEWS which manifests as WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E. A certain "Casey Shomaker" would probably pass GNG by these [7], [8], [9], [10]. That's doesn't mean we create an article on the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But one of the reports is from 19 October 2013[11] and it says she has been flying for 18 months as a commercial pilot. And, without claiming she was the first at anything, the paper sees fit to write about her with a biography. I find it very hard to follow the BLP1E argument. Thincat (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An event could be anything (See Wikipedia:What is one event). Over here, the claim that she is "one of the few Muslim woman pilots in India". If a person is solely known for this, then it is a BLP1E. (If you look at the examples I gave above on a certain "Casey Shomaker", you will realise that we should not create an article on that individual). Often newspapers interview people and publish articles - (for example this guy who was invited to Wikipedia's prestigious teahouse). The deccan herald source is also such an interview. I'm also about the reliability of the articles saying that she is the "first" or "only" when she has herself clarified that she never made any such claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close speedily The nominator has clearly opened this third AfD in bad faith. The last AfD closed with no consensus a month ago, and the nominator's response was "the article wasn't notable then and it isn't notable now." That constitutes a blatant rejection of the previous closing and of the obvious lack of consensus in the community. This third AfD shouldn't have even been opened. Also pinging @Jujutacular and KaisaL: as the previous closers, you two deserve to be aware of this. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on "first Muslim woman" / "only Muslim woman": See http://www.siasat.com/news/i-never-said-any-such-thing-islamophobia-875778/.
In my interview I never said any such thing as Islamophobia
She also clarified that she never claimed as a first Muslim woman pilot in India but one amongst the few Muslim women pilots.
I'm just wondering if we should actually consider this Hindustan Times article and others like this source reliable here. To be honest, this is a low profile individual who got interviewed, the newspapers published inaccurate claims using her name and then she disappeared from view. The fact that the subject had to clear her name, speaks volumes about the source articles. Not only is this BLP1E, the article contained inaccurate claims about the subject such which should have been removed considering this is a BLP. I'm sorry, but this article is about someone who is hardly notable and actually does a disservice to the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. If she's in the news, she's notable. She passes GNG. There is a lot of edit warring going on with this. We've hashed it out in the other AfDs and to have another is really in bad taste. Two sources say she's the first Indian woman Muslim pilot. That's been inspirational to others over time and she's made the news. That makes her notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The subject herself denied all these claims. The article contained a bunch of stuff about Islamophobia and stuff about how her family treated her. Keeping false claims in the encyclopaedia harms not only the encyclopedia but also the subject. Ultimately, this is a low profile individual. Not only does WP:NOTNEWS apply here, it is also a BLP issue with all these claims. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"If she's in the news, she's notable" is not correct, see WP:BLP1E. On the other hand the truth of the claims is less significant than the amount of media interest they have generated: WP:NOTTRUTH. What we have here is essentially a poster child for a notable topic. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes – Don't ping me about this article and (possibly) future nominations please, I'm agreeing with SusunW and Drmies. If you can, I would suggest all of you to WP:TIO (Take it outside) please. Also, pinging users with prior knowledge of previous stances could result in a WP:FALSECON; as to why I'm not participating as others shouldn't either. Adog104 Talk to me 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adog, I would have participated anyway, because I regularly participate in AfD discussions relating to topics on women. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Megalibrarygirl– Which I have no problem with, I meant that for the people who were pinged first (because it's clearly a WP:VOTESTACK). Mainly I'm not voting because this still could be biased (because of the number of users pinged for Delete compared to the Keep) and per SusunW comments, it would be better to just TIO or better move on. Adog104 Talk to me 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I just want it to be clear for others reading the AfD. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again. And yes, TIO. And ANI if it gets nominated again. Montanabw(talk) 17:55, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above keep arguments. And yes ANI if renominated.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (again). Current nominator does not cite any policies in rationale. Article meets WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. references show notability. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:34, 7 September 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saarah_Hameed_Ahmed_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1143742689"