Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam saab


 * 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Mariam saab

 * – ( View AfD View log )

fails the criteria of notability, refs are either mere mentions or are primary sources Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. Refs in the article are lists of her news reporting or passing mentions. A search on Google, JSTOR, NYT and Gale did not produce sources that established notability. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete:, as per above, searching does not produce sources. WP:TOOSOON -- Whiteguru (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * keep she is a rising star in Australian broadcasting, receiving wide plaudits for her journalist coverage, diction, and international outlook (see  Twitter commentaries). ABC News is broadcast worldwide and she is the anchor on late night news. However, she avoids or minimises her presence online and in the media, and has deleted her instagram account - suggesting  there may be very good reasons for her actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.7.11 (talk) 19:47, September 19, 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - the fact her personal online presence may be minimal is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Deus et lex (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Can't see how it meets WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If kept, move to correctly capitalised title Mariam Saab (delete A7 in 2014). Pam  D  10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note that Draft:Mariam Saab exists and was declined at AfC in May 2020. Pam  D  10:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Borderline, but I am leaning to keep. She is a key presenter on the ABC, The Australian National News Channel (ie our equivalent of the BBC), and certainly a known figure in Australia, with experience presenting in Europe - Google seems to indicate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  Weak keep per Deathlibrarian. Agree with PamD name change if kept. Deus et lex (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 04:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Third and assumed final relist, especially for continuing discussion on whether the new sources are valid for proving notability
 * Keep. Someone has added much more detail on background and journalism work, including the 19-20 bushfire coverage, epic in Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.7.11 (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is much improved. The draft should be deleted, as it is totally useless. --Bduke (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I took another look at the sources in the article, and I am staying with my Delete vote above. None of the sources in the article give Mariam Saab significant, independant coverage as required in WP:GNG. The ABC, DailyStar, ABC National Radio, ABC Australia and France 24 articles were/are her employers, so they are not independant. The Sydney Morning Herald, UNSW Press and mei.edu do not mention Saab (or mention her in a footnote), Youtube is not a reliable source and the MarieClaire article is not significant coverage. I would be willing to reconsider if there is a significant profile on her life or career in an independant source. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. No problems at all with how this evolved. Z1720's points are not sustainable (and spells 'independent' incorrectly). ABS and SBS produce non-commercial state journalism, and were used to illustrate contributions, as were the other sources, not 'to describe personal 'notability'. How would news presenters establish notability except by presenting well? Notability here is curating material well for a huge audience in a very high profile job. Anybody in Australia would agree.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batterbu (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:AfD, AfD discussions are to determine "whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies", including WP:NOTABILITY. In the comment above it states the ABC and SBS sources are "to illustrate contributions...not 'to describe personal 'notability'." I agree that the sources do not describe notability, and since they were/are both employers of hers, I do not think we can use them for notability. Contributions, although important, cannot be used by themselves to decide if we keep an article. If it was, editors could argue "keep" for a painter by posting pictures of their work from a Google Image Search.
 * It was asked, perhaps rhetorically, "How would news presenters establish notability except by presenting well?" In WP:JOURNALISM there are four criteria that Wikipedia uses to establish notability for journalists. It is possible that Saab might pass one of those criteria, but we must be able to WP:VERIFY that the subject is notable using WP:RELIABLESOURCES. For example, a source could say she won a prestigious award, critiques her body of work, or profiles her life. Since sources have not been posted in this discussion that describe her notability, I have decided to continue advocating for a "delete" vote. Z1720 (talk) 22:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm going to lean on the side of caution with this one and change my !vote to a keep. I think there are enough reliable sources that are not routine to meet the GNG criteria. Deus et lex (talk) 11:20, 15 October 2020 (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.