Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anila Ali


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Anila Ali

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. WP:BLP of a person with very little substantive or properly sourced evidence of notability. Nothing claimed here constitutes an actual claim of notability: being a candidate for election to the state assembly or to her hometown city council does not pass WP:NPOL; writing books is not a notability freebie if your source for that is the publication details of the books rather than RS coverage about the books; being a delegate to a political party convention does not make a person notable; and on and so forth. And of the 19 sources here, only one of them is actually a real piece of reliable source coverage about her, and it's local coverage in the context of starting a Facebook group. All of the other 18 references are DOA for one reason or another: references #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 18 and 19 are primary sources that cannot support notability at all; #7, 9, 10 and 13 are just letters to the editor in the newspaper; #11 and 12 just glancingly mention her name as a convention delegate; #16 just briefly quotes her giving soundbite in an article that isn't about her; and #15 and 17 are dead links whose content is unverifiable. And there are a lot of claims in here that remain entirely unsourced, as well. As always, Wikipedia is not a free campaign brochure platform for aspiring politicians -- but nothing here is sourced well enough to pass WP:GNG or to play the "preexisting notability for other things before running for office" card. Bearcat (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 09:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, article needs some refinements and better laid out sources here and there etc. Still Anila Ali is notable for various things. She is also the founder of the American Muslim Women’s Empowerment Council, an organization which works to have women from Muslim backgrounds placed into positions within the law-enforcement and justice systems. That's just a small slice from the pie of this Irvine, California resident. Her involvement in various organizations is not only commendable, she is notable for this as well. She is I believe the author of two published books. Karl Twist (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Being the founder of an organization that doesn't even have a Wikipedia article is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact (and even if the organization did have an article, per WP:NOTINHERITED that fact still wouldn't give her an automatic notability freebie if the sourcing about her was still as bad as what's been shown here.) Writing books is not a notability freebie in the absence of reliable source coverage about that fact. As I've already explained, there's only one source present in this article that counts as a reliable one at all, and it's a local news article about her starting a Facebook group. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, though could do with pruning to remove puffery and unsourced material. Meets WP:GNG as has significant coverage from India-West, the Orange County Register and the Clarion Project . Qwfp (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A candidate in a city council election would be expected to garner coverage in her local media. Covering local politics is local media's job, so all candidates for city council seats always garner local coverage — and accordingly, such coverage is routine and does not confer passage of WP:GNG for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The OC Register link has already been addressed above; it's covering her only in the context of launching a Facebook group, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. India West is a local community newspaper covering her announcement of her city council candidacy, which is not an encyclopedic claim of notability. And the Clarion Project is not media, but an advocacy group — so content it publishes to its website does not count toward passage of GNG at all. When you can start showing coverage in The New York Times or the Washington Post (and that means coverage about her in the news section, not letters she wrote to the editors), then GNG will come into play — but the media coverage that's been shown here is local and routine, not GNG-passing. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG does not even contain the word 'local'. WP:ROUTINE is part of Notability (events), while this is the biography of a person who is notable for more than just her role in one event, whether that event is an election or the launching or a Facebook page—hang on, that's two events for a start—I don't see how you can argue that the coverage is only in the context of an election on the one hand, while also dismissing another source for covering her in the context of the launch of a Facebook page, i.e. something entirely different. In any case, India-West is no more 'local' than the Los Angeles Times, while the Orange County Register has a daily circulation of over 250,000 and is 'local' to Orange County, California, the sixth-most populous county in the US with a population of over 3 million, more than many countries. Qwfp (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The election is an event, so localized coverage of it does fall under WP:ROUTINE — and candidates involved in it do not inherit notability from the event. If localized coverage of local elections in local media that would be expected to be covering that election counted toward meeting WP:GNG in and of itself, then we would have to keep an article about every single candidate in any election at all — but our notability standards for political candidates are purposely designed to keep Wikipedia from devolving into a public relations repository of campaign brochures, by limiting the notability of political candidates to those who can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm (i.e. by already having preexisting notability for other things, or by generating far more than the merely expected level of campaign coverage.)
 * But starting a Facebook group does not satisfy either of those conditions — it doesn't show preexisting notability, because it's not a notability-conferring event at all, and the rule is not that a candidate gets over the "more notable than the norm for a candidate" hump the moment you can show that one piece of media coverage has existed about her outside of the election context. The "preexisting notability" claim has to fully satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion all by itself, such that the article could still have existed on that basis even if the person hadn't run as an election candidate at all — but one piece of media coverage about starting a Facebook group would not have gotten her into Wikipedia by itself, because the claim itself passes none of Wikipedia's SNGs and the depth of coverage doesn't satisfy GNG.
 * And it doesn't matter how big a newspaper's local coverage area happens to be, either — if a class of topic is subject to the "more than just local coverage" test, as unelected candidates for office are, then what matters is not the size of a media outlet's distribution or circulation range, but its physical location in relation to the topic and her notability claim. Even The Los Angeles Times or The New York Times could not singlehandedly GNG an unelected city council candidate in their own local coverage areas just because they're more widely read than the Sandusky Register or the Bozeman Daily Chronicle — the context in which that coverage is being given still has a bearing on whether it assists notability or not. Even in New York City, an unelected candidate for New York City Council still wouldn't get an automatic GNG pass just because the routine local election coverage of that election happened to be in The New York Times, because the claim itself isn't one that satisfies our inclusion rules. If the election-related coverage is in a media outlet that would be routinely expected to cover that election, because the election is taking place in that media outlet's own primary local coverage area, then that coverage still does not go toward GNG regardless of whether the media outlet has a daily circulation of 250,000, 30 million or just ten — the place from which the coverage is originating has to be geographically non-local before it can speak to "more notable than usual for a city council candidate", and a newspaper to which that city council election is local news does not get a special dispensation just because it happens to have a larger local readership than other newspapers and/or some non-local readership too. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: it was hard to see through the flurry of promotionality on the article, so I gave a go at de-puffing it. I'm on the fence about this AFD. I feel like I've never seen so much WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE of someone without very much corresponding WP:SIGCOV. She certainly gets mentioned a lot, but she doesn't seem to be the focus of much coverage. The OC Register piece is good, but it's local, and I can't find a second piece of equal value. Right now I'm leaning delete, but I'll watch this page to see how the discussion evolves. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete minor writer and activist who is good at self-promotion but lacks any indepth coverage. Her political career is so far below the level of notable it is laughably abyssmal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as certainly not convincingly notable as an author, and then there's nothing actually substantial as a political activist, this article itself then suggests hints at job listing-like information, which then amounts to PR. The concerns here outweigh any chances that this may somehow be acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  06:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG met. Article could use clean up, improved referencing, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - GNG met. Article could be cleaned up and referencing can be improved, not deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.40.94 (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG met how, exactly, if all we have for GNGable sourcing is one local newspaper article about her starting a Facebook group? Bearcat (talk) 16:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Fails GNG. Article appears to be highly promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is someone who is at best only locally known. More importantly, a lot of the coverage is routine local coverage in the context of an election candidate. We tend to discount these for WP:POLOUTCOMES, as otherwise every single minor political candidate will become notable. The subject did not win any post and neither is there any other significant coverage in a non-local media. Accordingly, delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ali is good at PR and certainly very busy supporting good causes but that doesn't make her notable just yet. Had a go at removing the worst puffery but boy, there's a lot. Sources don't always support what they are supposed to support either. (I'm very much reminded of the Mandy Sanghera article, also up for deletion, that had very similar problems).  Yinta n  09:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, I have had a look at the usual places that we look and there is enough to satisfy the notability aspect of this person to be in Wikipedia. So I stand by my Keep vote! In saying that, there are much better references that can be used. So I ask that the creator of this article please look around for better refs, I will do a couple but I'm too busy to be bogged down here. So over to the creator and contributor. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet again, you cannot just assert that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG. You have to demonstrate that sufficient sourcing exists to get her over GNG, by actually showing the actual results of your work. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: I commented above, but had not !voted yet. Although I was leaning delete, I was open to reliable sources being brought forward in this discussion to establish notability. That has not happened, so I think the article should be deleted. We need WP:SIGCOV, and what we have is a large collection of passing and trivial mentions. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep www.ocregister.com/articles/muslim-649192-muslims-ali.html is an in-depth article, as is the IndiaWest article.  There seems to be a concern that this topic is running for office in November of this year, so the article should be deleted, but the article was created in April 2014.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The IndiaWest article doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Apart from being spammy and advertising itself as the "Best Indian newspaper in print and online", I don't see any evidence of a journalistic oversight. For all purpose that is a WP:SPS and cannot be used for GNG. The other source is about the interview in context of a Facebook page which we already looked at. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your assertions and find them to be submitted without relevant evidence, i.e., these are proofs by assertion. Nor are you an expert.  The India West article has a byline of "India West Staff".  The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West.  I am aware that The Orange County Register has been declared a reliable source at the reliable sources noticeboard.  I have searched for the word "interview" above, and your claim that the OC Register piece is an "interview" is without precedent in this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The generalized aspect of the aspersions you have cast is dismissed by reading our article, India West. Our article is entirely sourced to India West's website and not to any reliable secondary third-party sources. As for the byline, most CMS (used by these websites) have a default byline which is automatically inserted. I am not an expert but I do have prior experience in dealing with media and promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again: regardless of any quibbles about whether India West is a reliable source or not, it's a local media outlet in her own local area, which is covering her only in the context of announcing her candidacy for a city council seat. This is the kind of election coverage that is routinely expected to exist — all candidates in all elections always get some — so it does not assist GNG. And the OC Register, again, is also a local paper, covering her only in the context of starting a Facebook group, which again is not a noteworthy achievement that gets somebody into an encyclopedia (since nothing stops anybody from starting a Facebook group and then maybe getting a human interest piece in the local newspaper for it.) GNG is not magically passed the moment two pieces of media coverage exist, without regard to the context in which that coverage came to exist — the coverage still has to be about her doing something that would constitute a reason why she might belong in an encyclopedia. If two pieces of media coverage were automatically enough to pass GNG regardless of what that coverage were being given for, then we would have to keep an article about every single person who ever became president of the parent-teacher association at her kids' elementary school. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't exclude "local" sources, rather that is an element found in WP:CORPORATION. This topic is not a corporation.  GNG doesn't discount evidence "expected" to exist; rather, it states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." GNG doesn't exclude "routine" coverage.  GNG does not require that there be "reasons" for a topic to have an encyclopedia article.  WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason local sources are not used for GNG is because of our policy WP:NOT. As someone said, "If we used my small town newspaper for GNG purposes my dog would be notable for having chewed up all the gardens in the neighborhood every year.". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * AFD most certainly does have a standing consensus that purely local coverage in a purely local-interest context, such as announcing one's candidacy for a city council seat, does not assist passage of GNG. If it did, we would have to keep articles about presidents of PTAs, school board trustees, teenagers who had human interest pieces written about them in the local Pennysaver because they tried out for their high school football team despite having only nine toes, librarians, still-unsigned and non-recording winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions, and the woman a mile down the road from my parents who found a pig in her yard one morning. An article does not become earned until the coverage demonstrates a substantive reason why her notability has expanded significantly beyond the purely local — which "candidate for a city council seat" and "started a Facebook group" do not. GNG is not automatically passed the moment any coverage exists at all — passage of GNG most certainly does depend on variables like context, volume and geographic range. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete mainly on the basis of the ridiculous COI editing and puffery. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Citobun (talk) 13:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PROMO; the article has no less than eight (8) photos with various dignitaries, such as "Anila Ali with President Clinton and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom" etc. Only a person close to the subject would have stuffed the article with so much puffery. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a platform for self-promotion. Even if the subject were notable (of which I'm not convinced), TNT would have applied as the article would need to be completely rewritten. If a volunteer editor comes along and wants to create an NPOV article, all the power to the. But there's not need to keep promotionalism in the article history. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.