Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulekha Daud

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) -- Dane2007 ^talk 02:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zulekha Daud[edit]

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

trivial awards, and a relentlessly promotional article. I strongly doubt notability , but I have no doubt about the self-advertising. Read the lede paragraph. Forbes List of 100 leaders worldwide would be significant, Forbes list of 100 Indian leaders would probably be significant; Forbes list of 100 leaders in the UAE would conceivably be significant; but Forbes list of 100 Indian leaders in the UAE?

The article continues in similar detail. She lists a single meeting with the Minister of Culture as significant.

The references are almost entirely mere notices of her awards combined with PR. Not a single internationally recognized reliable source. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (weak) promo article on a ~~non notable~~ subject of some local importance who appears to be recognised for lifetime contributions, per sources presented by North America. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as by far nothing at all actually convincing for substance. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag for advertising. Even with the (potentially accidental) weasel wording, overall the article is well sourced with inline references and has some good claims for notability. Most of the awards do seem trivial, though I can't help but note that Economic Times named her one of their "20 most influential global Indian women" in 2015, which I find impressive. That combined with some of the other sources currently on the page, and I believe she passes WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject passes WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Northamerica1000 about article passing WP:BASIC via available sources. Aust331 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ditto WP:BASIC. Agree that the tone could be improved. It rather looks like someone has tried too hard to justify this article with all the awards. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:BASIC. She has achieved something (collectively with all the recognition) and has got media coverage. Agreed, the tone can be less promo.([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|Kiranbramakrishna]]&#124[[User talk:Kiranbramakrishna|t]] )([[User:Kiranbramakrishna|COI]]) (talk) 11:33, 12 August 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.