Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tahira Qazi

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tahira Qazi[edit]

[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)

Notability (WP:NOTMEMORIAL) Mooonswimmer 19:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source in the article from the Guardian. I find sources from the Daily Mail and Newsweek Pakistan, both of which have been depreciated as reliable sources on wiki. Leaning delete unless someone can comment on the validity of the sources used in the article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valid source, but the article is a short opinion peace commemorating someone who is only notable for being killed in a tragic attack, and for her defiant words before her death. Honorable woman, and there is quite a bit of coverage, but a standalone article isn't warranted. A small paragraph can be incorporated into the main article. Mooonswimmer 22:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to discount an opinion piece if it was written independently of her, and in the context of her being death, that is obviously the case. CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm confused by this one as the article has in it multiple news articles about her (including international media), which demonstrate notability for her marriage, her defiance, her death. CT55555 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:VICTIM:

A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.

Per WP:BLP1E:

Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

Mooonswimmer 00:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:VICTIM It seems she was known for who she married, her defiance and her death. They are connected. So that's borderline. But to be specific about the guide, is there an existing article on her death that you think this should be merged into? If not, that quote is not relevant.
The "L" in BLP1E stands for "living" and therefore does not apply here.

So both these seem not relevant. But what is very relevant is the multiple reliable and international sources of news about her. CT55555 (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and her husband doesn't seem to be a notable individual anyway. Yes, she is known for her defiance and death... as the victim of a terrorist attack. Would she have a Wikipedia page had she not been killed in the attack? The event (the massacre) is highly significant, but was Qazi's role as significant? It was a heroic act, but it did not change the course of events. Are we to create a Wikipedia article for Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old who smeared blood on herself to play dead during the Robb Elementary School shooting? Plenty of reliable sources of news: Insider The Hill CNN People Rolling Stone France Info Le Matin Heraldo Infobae etc..
My bad. See WP:BIO1E.

Mooonswimmer 00:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to assess (and don't see it as important to this discussion) an article about Miah Cerrillo.

She would probably not be notable as per wikipedia norms had she not been killed. But she was killed. And that made her notable.

The relevant parts of WP:BIO1E are about the decision point between an event article or a biographical article. That is a valid debate to have. So if you want to say this should be changed to "Death of Tahira Qazi", I'd probably agree, but that's not the argument you are making, because you are misunderstanding the guidance.

You could maybe argue that this could be merged into an article about the event she died in. Is there one? If not, none of the policy you are quoting is relevant. WP:GNG however remains relevant and is the core issue here. CT55555 (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I previously suggested that this article be merged with the event's article ("A small paragraph can be incorporated into the main article."). Mooonswimmer 01:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that above. I consider that a valid point of discussion. I don't know what the policy says on the issue. My personal perspective is it would depend if there was enough content to make an article about them and if merging it would mean losing information.

As it's start class rather than stub, I lean towards keep still. But I certainly consider it a fair question to ask and respect the counter argument.

I still vote keep CT55555 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point is she was not just a passive victim of a "single event", she played an "active and well-documented role" in it and she was awarded by the government for that. So I think in some cases, notability does come with a "single act", instead of a life long career's achievements. The rule for people notable for only one event should be read in this context in her case.Insight 3 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly was the active role? And all 145 victims of the massacre were conferred the same awards by the government (Dawn)
As for well-documented, are we to create a Wikipedia article for Miah Cerrillo, an 11-year-old who smeared blood on herself to play dead during the Robb Elementary School shooting? Plenty of reliable sources of news: Insider The Hill CNN People Rolling Stone France Info Le Matin Heraldo Infobae etc.. Mooonswimmer 17:10, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please move away from WP:WHATABOUT and just focus on if this article meets the WP:GNG. CT55555 (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

Okay, perhaps it is presumed the subject is notable. Can we discuss why the subject merits a standalone article? Mooonswimmer 17:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The "active role" cannot be evaluated by the end results. It would be irrational to say she would have been eligible for a standalone wiki article only if she had killed all the terrorists and saved all the children. Also the government gave "medal of bravery" to the rest, but to her the higher award of "Star of Bravery", so she is different here too, adding to her notability.

As far the Miah Cerrillo to whom you are referring again and again, she saved only her own self (good for her), on the other hand, Qazi stood not for herself but for her students. Don't you see any difference here? Qazi would have been simply shot dead (rather than burned alive) had she not resisted the terrorists. Even the terrorists noticed her "notability"!

After reading all of your arguments, now I am changing my 'comment' to 'keep'.Insight 3 (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is the active role simply pronouncing honorable and defiant words before being killed?

Last WP:WHATABOUT comment, but do you also believe Afsha Ahmed warrants a standalone article? Her actions and last words are mentioned in most of the sources referenced in the article.

"Another pupil told how he watched his teacher being burned alive as she stood in the path of the terrorists in a bid to protect her students, giving them a chance to flee. Afsha Ahmed, 24, confronted the gunmen saying: "You can only kill my students over my dead body." She was doused with petrol and set alight. One of her students, 15-year-old Irfan Ullah, wept as he recounted how his teacher gave her life to save her students." IBTimes The Independent Hindustan Times Newsweek Pakistan

Honorable last words, defiance before death, and posthumously awarded the Sitara-i-Shujaat. Exact same as Tahira Qazi. Is that where the bar is set? Why not merge what little material there is covering both women into the event's article?

Which award is the "Star of Bravery"? To my understanding, everyone killed was conferred the "Sitara-i-Shujaat."

Also, I brought up Miah Cerillo because the fact that Qazi has a bit of coverage in reliable sources/meets GNG was brought up multiple times. So does Cerillo (even more so than Qazi), but it would obviously be ridiculous to create a standalone article for her. Mooonswimmer 11:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Afshan Ahmed didn't get much attention but she if did, I would say, she deserves a standalone page on the same grounds.

"Star of Bravery" is the "Sitara-e-Shujaat" and in 2015, only 3 persons received it, Qazi being one of them posthumously.(Express Tribune)

Comparing Qazi and Miah, the amount of coverage is not the point, but the nature of role is, as I mentioned above. Insight 3 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – subject clearly qualify WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, as she received Sitara-e-Shujaat and tons of "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". As per arguments above, I think this is one of the cases, discounted by WP:1E. Thanks. Radioactive (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Iseult^Δxparlez moi 00:04, 8 June 2022 (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.