Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aileen Soares

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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 16:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aileen Soares[edit]

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

The person does not seem notable at all, there is a large number of teachers with similar profile. The references include a couple of newspaper articles which, though reliable, does not mean the person should have an encyclopedic article. The article was created by user Dsouzaron, who is blocked due to sockpuppetry. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is also covered by speedy deletion criteria A7, with the only instance where notability is asserted being the last line which is not referenced (atleast in-line) and another claim about excellent results (which seems to be a bit weasel description). I think it should be deleted. If the person is really notable, it will be recreated eventually with the actual details that establish notability. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, I didn't mark it for Speedy Delete for same reason; last two lines qualify for something but they need description with reliable references to make the person notable. And since the creator is blocked, I doubt there will be anyone working to expand it. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This woman's achievements, which might be taken as run-of-the-mill in some parts of the world, earn her mentions in the Express Tribune beyond those cited in the article. Here for instance. If the press in Pakistan thinks she's notable, who are we to argue? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your comment and I am inclining towards a keep. But apart from a few sources I cannot find substantial info about her to expand the article (the only details mentioned in sources are already in the article). Still not sure what to do with this one. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - it appears that this is a local news story, but I'm not certain. Do the sources have Pakistan-wide readership? Bearian (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Express Tribune has country-wide readership, other two sources do not. This source also mentions her achievement. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 09:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. And "the second Catholic female Pakistani 50-year schoolteaching veteran" seems more like trivia than an encyclopedic accomplishment to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reconsidered my initial request for deletion and believe the article should be kept after expansion and addition of reliable material. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 18:37, 24 April 2012 (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.