Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fayrouz Saad


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:20, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Fayrouz Saad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPOL. She ran in a congressional primary and lost, per WP:POLOUTCOMES, this page should be redirected to the main election page. There is coverage of her campaign, but she isn't independently notable and we don't typically (or didn't used to) host candidate bios until such time that those candidates became elected officials. Marquardtika (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete losing candidate in a primary election. Previous career was WP:MILL for a political operative.  Quite a lot of identity-related coverage of her campaign, but, still, we don't keep losing candidates with no notability prior to or apart form the campaign.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, the in-depth and even international coverage clearly was not just about the campaign but about her as a female Muslim politician, daughter of immigrants, and her unconventional positions. Omikroergosum (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Even if Fayrouz had won the primary that would not have made her notable. Loosing the primary makes her clearly not notable. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we have decided that passing coverage at election time does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course candidates for the Congress who have received significant and in this case even international press coverage are automatically notable. And she had in-depth news coverage already a year before the primaries, very strange to call that "passing coverage at election time". Primary notability criterion is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Omikroergosum (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The references including The Independent and Spiegel show that she passes WP:GNG. Looking around, there is more, e.g. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/muslims-running-for-office-2018-travel-ban-trump/index.html http://www.arabnews.com/tags/fayrouz-saad http://www.globaldetroit.com/detroits-fayrouz-saad-and-family-recognized-by-president-obama/ The latter, in particular, is not related to the Muslim Wave campaign. Ross-c (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ross-c, and (the article creator,) User:Omikroergosum, appear to be misunderstand the policy, WP:POL, as verified by   WP:POLOUTCOMES and by many, many outcomes that can be viewed in WikiProject Deletion sorting/Politicians/archive, is interpreted ot mean that a candidate has had WP:SIGCOV predating and apart from the candidacy.  It is often the case that the individual has not had a Wikipedia page before deciding to run for office, but the page has to be validated by discovering preexisting SIGCOV or finding that the individual passes the standards in some category, such as WP:JOURNALIST.  The exceptions are in instances of truly extraordinary coverage during the campaign. A recent example is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  In this case, however, pre-candidacy WP:SIGCOVcoverage does not exist, what does exist is coverage of Fayrouz Saad's candidacy as part of  a wave of Muslim-Americans running in the recent Democratic Party primary, where she placed fourth.  It is not enough.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not basing my Keep vote on WP:POL, I'm basing it on WP:BASIC. If a person satisfies WP:BASIC then there is no need to satisfy specific requirements such as WP:POL. Hence I think E.M.Gregory's comment misses the point.Ross-c (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think you are both referring to the guideline WP:NPOL instead of WP:POL. I agree with Ross-c that you can meet either one to justify inclusion. NPOL itself states:

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
 * which as shown by many of the cited sources this BLP subject clearly does meet. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Undecided. I expanded the original stub and added the sections on the 2018 campaign etc. But since Saad has lost the election I don't know whether it meets the notability criteria. I have rewritten it now with some feedback I got from my wikiedu instructors. I saw that Krish Vighnaraja who has a wikipedia entry is somewhat similar to Saad. I defer to the better judgement of those who know wikipedia content more than I do. Thanks. GDevi17745 (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745
 * Krishanti O'Mara Vignarajah page should probably also be taken to AfD. Lost the primary election, and while she has held responsible jobs, I ran a quick search and failed to find pre-campaign coverage of her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As there seems split views on whether there is sufficient non-standard coverage per POLOUTCOMES to warrant retention

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG and does not violate WP:ISNOT. There is significant coverage (more than trivial mentions) from multiple independent reliable sources. Meeting our general notability guidelines justifies inclusion even if she lost the election as I don't think that the article could be categorized as WP:NOTNEWS or any other example of what Wikipedia is not. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Except that all of the sources are WP:MILL campaingn coverage, except those with the theme: "Fayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress," "These Candidates Could Be America’s First Muslim Women In Congress." There were 5: Rashida Tlaib has a page because she was a state legislator, and she will almost certainly become the First Muslim Women In Congress.  Ilhan Omar was already in the state legislature, and therefore has a page. Deedra Abboud and Tahirah Amatul-Wadud, like Saas, were non-notable political activists before the campaign.   They do not have pages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources (including the last two cited by ), I see that many are not just WP:ROUTINE coverage but do provide in depth coverage. In my opinion clearly enough to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As I explain above, we have a sort of case law and precedent tradition at WP under which we delete candidates who lose party primaries for house seats.  The exceptions are not people who generate coverage during the campaign, they are people who have done something else that has drawn SIGCOV played in a notable band, been a notable teenage fashion model - something.  Please scroll up the page, read my post, and link through ot the old deletions discussions. It will give you a better feel for which losing candidates are kept, and why.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, we must follow the currently approved policy and guidelines. WP:POLOUTCOMES is neither, it just points out that a candidate that looses an election does not have inherent notability, but I don't think that it means that we could ignore that it passes WP:GNG and that it does not violate WP:ISNOT. There are many guidelines on notability for different kinds of subjects, but they are all complementary to GNG if either one is met, it warrants the inclusion of the subject. For primary candidates who loose elections to be automatically excluded even if they have in-depth coverage from multiple independent RS I feel that it would need to fall as, or we would need to have it added as a criteria to the list of what Wikipedia is not.
 * Also please notice that most of the lead does not make reference to the failed candidacy that was mentioned only on the last sentence. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also please notice that she was quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs (see here) with no mention to her candidacy, and that is not the only international coverage. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * She drew little or no coverage during her the years she worked in non-elective political jobs; never held a major job; was never profiled by a news organization; and got no INDEPTH coverage before she ran in a primary election.  A Muslim woman running for Congress was not a first - there were, as I write above, FOUR such candidates this year.  But she lost.  Similar to Articles for deletion/Ethan Sonneborn. A spate of identity- driven (youngest, or  Muslim woman) does not make a losing candidate in a Party primary notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Please refer to WP:WHATABOUTX. Her notability does not come from being a loosing candidate. The subject did receive significant coverage before running for the election. Examples from 2016: An Hour with Fayrouz Saad, Remarks by the President at Eid Reception, Detroit’s Fayrouz Saad and Family Recognized by President Obama. In any case she has also received non-routine coverage from multiple reliable sources (some of them international like The Independent, Spiegel, Al Jazeera, La Vanguardia, etc. ) which does count towards WP:GNG. The article itself is not centered on the fact that the subject did run for Congress and the fact that she failed does not invalidate the significant coverage beyond routine mentions therefore it clearly meets WP:GNG and since it does not violate WP:ISNOT I do not think that not been elected is a valid reason for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON for this failed candidate and ethnic activist who has held minor and/or local politics related jobs appointments. She has been building a resume, and has had the local coverage cited above by Crystallizedcarbon in local Detroit media, (Hour Detroit).  In addition, the 3 sources cited above include a local acrivist organization, Global Detroit: Mobilizing Detroit's Immigrnat Population, and on the White House website when she was part of a group invited to the White House, administrations do this sort of ethno-religious recognition events.  Beyond that, her candidacy garnered some coverage in Wave-of-Muslim-congressional-candidacies in the primary elections.  This is  WP:MILL primary season stuff. She finished 4th in the primary.  She may well have a future in politics, but we don't keep failed candidates with this sort of ROUTINE coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not routine for candidates to receive international coverage and the subject has. What is your definition of routine coverage? This international in-depth coverage from The Independent: ayrouz Saad could be America's first Muslim woman in Congress per WP:ROUTINE it's clearly to me that this is not just routine coverage, It is at an international level and it does not just mention the name as been a candidate, it is a very in-depth and long article about the subject, and clearly meets WP:SIGCOV:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
 * The same applies to this article in German from Der Spiegel: Und diese Frau will Donald Trump besiegen? as well as others form other countries mentioned above and many at the national level. Again significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable sources is all that is needed to meet WP:GNG. The fact that some or most of that coverage may have been sparked by her failed candidacy is not a relevant factor towards meeting the guideline, and since she is also known, as shown in the article, for other events in her career (for example quoted by a Spanish source as director of Detroit's Office of Immigrant Affairs without any mention to her candidacy) it is clearly not a case of WP:NOTNEWS. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I just want to add that while I was writing the Saad article for my wikiedu class, I called the Detroit Mayor's Immigrant Affairs Office and learned quite a bit about Saad's work there. However, this information was given to me by a staff of the office and I cannot quote myself in the article. There is no mainstream or international coverage about much of her work in the Mayor's office. So I have not included any of it in the article. It did make something very clear to me, however: Muslim women in politics in our country do not receive much interest and coverage by mainstream media. Notability for them has additional layers of constraints. It will be very hard for Saad to have much recognition for her public work unless she wins a major office. Thanks much.GDevi17745 (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)GDevi17745


 * 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.