Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caryma Sa'd


 * 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. Asides my !vote to delete, The consensus from the participants is clearly to keep the article, since all !votes weren’t necessarily to keep the article, the nominator cannot unilaterally close this as a speedy keep. They have withdrawn this nomination thus I am moving to close this. (non-admin closure) Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Caryma Sa'd

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The subject of this article is a Canadian lawyer who, in addition to doing what lawyers do and receiving mention in the press as a result, is also a comic artist. I don't think that suffices to be a notable lawyer. Looking at Category:21st-century_Canadian_lawyers she seems a bit out of place. I'm also not so sure that she meets the threshold of notability per WP:NARTIST. She "published cartoons", according to the article, but "published" here seems to mean self-published on Twitter. What's the consensus here: Is the coverage sufficient to meet the WP:GNG? Vexations (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Hi, (I created the article). As you might expect, I think we should keep this article. I submitted it through the AfC process @User:ThadeusOfNazereth was the reviewer and they approved it. More importantly, she meets the general notability criteria on the basis of articles written about her in the Toronto Star, the CBC, and Canada's National Observer. And just in simple real life, she is notable, she's in the news all the time for documenting the lock down protests.  I find the line "in addition to doing what lawyers do and receiving mention in the press as a result" strange, because yes lawyers are likely to get in the press for lawyering just like footballers got in the news for kicking a ball and Madonna got in the news for singing, that doesn't discount the coverage in any way with regards to the notability requirements. CT55555 (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weird as it may seem, we don't really pay attention to real life, only to what independent, reliable (secondary) sources say. As for the CBC, she does get a mention like "The clip was captured by Toronto lawyer Caryma Sa'd, who has become a mainstay at such protests this summer, documenting them and sharing them online" in, but that's not really significant coverage. As far as I can tell, the only articles that are actually about her are , and perhaps , although that's mopre about the case of Michael Storms. If the consensus is that that is sufficient to establish notability, I'll gladly accept that. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment — @ I found it amusing that WP:SIGCOV is also noted as to why the subject is not suited for mainspace just yet, as I used a similar argument when I opened an AFD on one of the article created by this editor, One of the most imperative arguments made by the article creator is that the article in question was approved at AFC, my thinking is the AFC perm has a rather low threshold for issuance, thus editors who aren’t well grounded in policy on notability get this pseudo perm and since they aren’t well grounded in notability criteria areas they  tend to accept non notable articles. Celestina007 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of AfC is to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't. Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted. I think what we have here is the result of blindly applying a "rule" that reflects praxis. Collectively, we have found that most notable subjects have at least two newspaper articles about them. That then became a test; if there are two newspaper articles, we presume that the subject is notable. That's backwards, and a little too easy for my taste. There is only one group of lawyers that has consistently been found notable; members of the supreme court. This is a young lawyer without a brief career who has received coverage in local newspapers. Do we want to apply the rule that "two is a pass" or do we want to think a bit more carefully about what that means. Vexations (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A small, but important detail: in response to the comment that she's only in local newspapers, that's incorrect. Despite the name, Toronto Star is not a local newspaper, it's Canada's #2 newspaper by circulation I also would challenge that Canada's National Observer is local, likewise the CBC and CTV - most of the sources are national. CT55555 (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star is a local newspaper wen it reports on local issues. They have special sections for regional news. The CBC reports local news at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto CTV, and https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/ is regional news. Vexations (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two major national newspapers in Canada, National Post and The Globe and Mail Vexations (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete — WP:SIGCOV is not met. Celestina007 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The clear consensus is that Sa'd is notable. I'd speedily close as a Keep by withdrawal, but can't do that id there is no unanimity. Can you agree to a close as keep? There is a WP:SNOW chance this gets deleted. Thanks, Vexations (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @, Alright mate, If I’m interpreting this correctly you want me to close this as a keep and give a well thought detailed rationale for doing so? Alright consider it done. Celestina007 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep The Carruthers and Leck sources both provide significant coverage of this person. Pam  D  08:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, well sourced. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment since I was the AfC reviewer, I'll refrain from voting, but the sources that were instrumental in my acceptance were Leck, Gibson, and Jerome, with the other sources further supplementing that Sa'd had notability and (in my eyes) making up for the weaker coverage in Gibson and Jerome compared to Leck. Looking at the article as it is now, I would add Dimatteo and possibly Miller/Gamage as good sources. In my eyes, she meets WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 15:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should refrain from !voting and the acceptance at AfC appears to have been done in accordance with policy and established consensus. I'd like to hear why (for example) Miller's article in BLogTO is a "good source" though. It's mostly quotes of paraphrasing of what Sa'd said. (I count six instances of "she said"). Vexations (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG. MartinWilder (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2022 (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.