Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabila Jamshed (3rd 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nabila Jamshed
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete:-The subject of the article is Non notable without awards or significant inventions.She has just written a book that has been reviewed in some newspapers but that in no way establish the notability and significance of the subject as well as the article.When nominated first it was deleted and it is likely that the subject kept on screaming to keep it and previously deletd page can't be put up like this.see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nabila_Jamshed Also the weeks link do not work.External links have a blog.Also book has not been published by any significant publisher.It just small new house with few books.Mere media coverages can't establish notability.The coverages must speak about the notability which this article is lacking.Just a way of self promotion.I suggest strong delete of the article.Moreover the subject has written just one book that is no bestseller or award winning book.Just this is a case of self promotion.--Poet009 (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - IMO the coverage in The Hindu, NDTV and a regional page of Indian Express makes her meet WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just media coverages can't make a subject notable.Te coverages donot speak of the notability.If media coverages were enough to make a person eligible for wikipedia then all journalists whos articles appear in their name must have their bio in wikipedia.Not a strong reason.Also user has not singed his comment.My friend aboe who has forgotten to sign has not read WP:GNG properly.There should be depth in coverage and it should mention why the article is notable.Also the "Presumed criteria is there.The subject might have media contacts through which she had promoted herself but I don't find her book in any journals and so.--Poet009 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me above. I have stuck your second vote, as we are allowed only one vote each in AfD. I am afraid my interpretation of GNG differs from yours. She is an author of Young Adult Fantasy, so naturaly you won't find the book in a journal. It has received reviews in two (three if i count the The Week review) national media outlets and in on regional page of another national media outlet. The coverage is about the book and the author and i believe it is deep enough. Media coverages do make subjects notable, that's why GNG exists. This is not the case of a journalist whose byline has appeared in the media. A borderline case for the author, but enough coverage exists. (and how she "might" have obtained the coverage is pure speculation. Even if she had the articles planted - must have a good PR team to get covered in Hindu, IE, Week and NDTV - its still coverage )  --Sodabottle (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just 3-5 media coverages do not make a subject notable.3-5 media coverages is not enough that too which doesn't mention her notability.There must be other independent sources and these sources should mention why she is notable.Writing just one book that has neither received an award nor has been on the front page of any magazine like India Today etc. she can't be notable.Many people receive 3-4 media coverages but that doesn't make them suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.And yes neither the publisher is a famous and renowned one.--Poet009 (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Sodabottle. This young author has received reviews from several national media outlets, WP:RS that are not passing mentions but focus entirely on her. The subject's previous first AfD deletion now seem to me to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; she truly does have the refs to retain, it seems to me. And I agree with Sodabottle about the nominator's baseless speculations. They damage rather than help his case, as does his efforts to !vote twice. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also the nominator has linked to the first AfD where the article was deleted but conveniently omitted the 2nd, where it was kept after a unanimous !vote. See: Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_3. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He omits linking the 2nd keep AfD, but then leaves this message on that nominator's User talk page, blatantly canvassing for his delete !vote. This is really poor behaviour by this nominator. Suggest this be speedily closed as a bad faith and point-y AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment:- My dear editor Shwan in Montreal has forgotten the policy that re-creation of a deleted article is not allowed as per G4 but still this article was nominated for a 2nd afd without a deletion review and Significant media coverage doesn't mean 3-5 media references about a new book.I have no problem if this article is kept but I don't feel this is a notable author as per BLP.Good day.--Poet009 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Deletion review allows for editors to "create a useful article on the same subject" if a stub has been deleted for lack of content. I don't have access to the first article, but as the closing admin at the 2nd AfD did not seem to consider this article to be speediable per G4, I think it's a little late for that argument. And please read WP:CANVAS regarding Votestacking. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Delete - meh, considering my involvement with the page, I think it's reasonable to drop me a line. My !vote hasn't changed since the first AFD which was successful (and the second should have been deleted as db-repost but wasn't, oh well).  Note that as far as I can remember, the sources for the first and second page (i.e. initial page and the recreation that was AFD-ed a second time but survived) were identical, and are still the same - the only thing that's changed is the fact that it's now for sale outside of India, which doesn't seem to help it pass WP:NBOOK.  The sources are problematic - the first is now dead].  The second is a bare mention, two short paragraphs that don't even review it, merely summarize and give a blurb.  The third is also not a review, it's a short blurb.  The fourth is the longest, but there's nothing after that.  Google turns up little - wikipedia is the first and facebook the second.  Jamshed published a single book, then there doesn't appear to have been anything else.  I would argue that this is WP:BLP1E, but it's a judgement call.  A series of short articles giving a burst of attention indistinguishable from a publicity blitz to push the book does not long-term notability make. That last article added by Arx pushes it over WP:N for me.  BLP1E might still be something, but I don't have the experience to interpret it in this regard.  The article still needs a significant rewrite though. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you deem it reasonable, "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." The nominator knew which way you are going to vote: he did not notify any of the keep !voters in your previous AfD -- which were unanimous in their opposition. Just you. This is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS I respectfully ask that the closing admin take this votestacking into account, in deciding on whether to overturn the unanimous keep !vote on the second AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you notice his edit count of less than 300? I'll try to review the whole conversation in a bit, but perhaps we should be civil with the new account rather than berating.  Consensus can change, the page is unlikely to be deleted, so this is really a learning experience for a new editor who just got bit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Votestacking is not acceptable and should rate more than a "meh" from an experienced editor such as yourself. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear editor Shawn, I was not aware of Vote-stacking.But what I am concerned with is with the article.Being an Indian myself and a teacher in English, I have never heard the name of this author and I have not been able to find articles about her in Google scholar.The Google search indicates that Wikipedia is being used to promote her novel and name.The novel for which she has been nominated has not been published by any significant publisher, it does not invent something and 3rdly it is not a bestseller either.Just some mere media clips can't make her notable as the media clippings does not speak of the notability.Her name is also nowhere is some journals neither any renowned name in literature has reviewed her work.--Poet009 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar is not the best place to be looking for WP:RS related to a popular writer of juvenile fiction, which is what she appears to be. WP:RS can just as easily be articles in mass market newspapers and media. She doesn't need to "invent something." And she certainly doesn't need to be reviewed by a  "renowned name in literature," I don't know where you found or came up with that. Look, maybe  WLU can adopt you and show you the ropes. I'm serious. He is looking to mentor new users and he's certainly a supporter of yours, even to the point of bending Wikipedia policy to do so. Ask him to mentor you on some of this stuff, maybe. We don't agree on this article's notability but I think he would agree with me that there are policy areas where you need help. Or maybe not. I don't know. Also, your level of English might make it difficult for you contribute to this project. I don't want to insult you, but it's well below what I would expect from someone who teaches English in a professional setting. You may want to consider the Simple version of Wikipedia if you intend on creating content. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Editor Shawn, without giving proper arguments is concentrating upon personal arguments or rather personal attacks as evident from his conversation.I suggest instead of making personal attacks think about the article's notability.His bottom-line is anyone who writes a first book and has 3-5 media reviews can have a Wikipedia article.Please note on the personal attack like statements made by Shawn in Montreal.News or media coverages may not be significant to keep an article just for only one event and yes when there are just 3-5 of them.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event--Poet009 (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing I've said above is a personal attack, but I've no patience for this anymore. Do consider getting mentored. Good bye. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Detailed review of the links that do not establish notability:-

1>In the footnotes the link of the Week is a dead link. 2>The Indian Express link just mentions that Girl has released a novel.The coverage includes many others.The coverage does not show why the subject is notable. 3>The NDTV Coverage just shows that she has released a novel upon terrorism.Nothing significantly told about the subject. 4>The Hindu link gives a book review with some minor details. So just one media coverage(Hindu) is there which gives a review of the book and a bit about her.Just one media coverage cannot make a subject notable.Jamshed is likely to be a self promoter editing her bio from anonymous IP addresses.Taking a look at wikipedia's policies a bio can't stand as a wiki article basing on a book which is neither a roaring best seller nor has been a subject of wide review.No awards, no inventions nothing.Just a book that too is not available in all big stores.Totally non notable subject.Her article in wiki is just promoting her book and herself in Google search.Nothing else.--Poet009 (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 10:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A person important only for having done an ordinary thing at an earlier age than usual is not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia.that;s the sort of human interest tory that falls under NOTTABLOID. I do not see any evidence that the book is otherwise notable. . The claims in earlier AfDs that the book would eventually become notable do not seem to have be borne out after 3 years now.  DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep. Passes GNG, as elucidated in the second AfD. Also, I'd note that the September 2010 release of a new edition seems to have drawn new press, for example in the July 21, 2010 Asian Age.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That pushes it over the edge for me, struck and changed !vote to keep on the basis of that final coverage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:16, 18 October 2010 (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.