Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iffat Rahim (2nd nomination)


 * 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. - No progress is no grounds for deletion (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 13:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Iffat Rahim
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article doesn't satisfy WP:ENT. No references. No meaningful wikilinks. No meaningful external links. Previously nominated in 2006. No significant progress in 3.5 years. Bazj (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep article seems to be a poster child for WP:NOEFFORT... but that should encourage us to continue encouraging others (even if fruitlessly) to improve it. With respects, that no ones working on it is not usually a valid reason to delete if sources exist that might show notability, such as Newsline, or Daily Times. Notability might be shown by meeting WP:ENT or WP:GNG, or both. Not meeting one does not dismiss the other. I did find that under her married name of Iffat Omar, she is involved in the Pakistani television series Chalte Chalte, but I am myself having trouble finding additional English language sourcing for a Pakistani model/actress. WP:CSB would encourage us to encourage efforts to improve, not toss the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for rescue. Hopefully something can be done. If not ... Plastikspork (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just made a specific request at Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics for help in sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - it is not surprising that an Indian model of the 80s-90s doesn't have much English language coverage available online. Presumably she is written up in various Indian newspapers and such, so I am inclined to keep.  Weak keep because the sources online are rather weak: here is a profile from a source of questionable quality; here is an interview form a decent looking source; here is another interview; and an obviously not reliable indepth Geocities profile. Overall, enough to establish she is very likely notable, but not quite enough to absolutely prove it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - She is well Know actress here, worked in many a comedy dramas including some of the famous one such as "family front" etc. I will edit it in a next two to three days.-- yousaf465  04:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to hints of systemic bias, I have no ethnic-cultural bias, just a bias against Z-list celebrity puff-pieces posing as encyclopedic articles. When I tried to add links, none of the movies or videos resulted in a blue link to the movie/video in question. The article's an orphan, except for deletion discussions and attempts to corral keep votes. Even with references added there's still more work required.Bazj (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - see no deadline also as noted previously systemic bias needs to be avoided. Pahari Sahib  08:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Did the nominator check the last discussion, and check the link provided there? Did you not think that proved she was notable?  And more news stories are available, mentioning here.  Some should probably be added to the article.   D r e a m Focus  11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator thinks it's more customary to establish notability in the article, not in AfDs. The nominator is glad you've found some references, notes your "Some should probably be added to the article" and hopes you'll make good on your suggestion. If all the good intentions raised here are acted upon we could be looking at a worthwhile article, and this AfD could turn out to be the best thing that's happened to this article.


 * 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.