Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Samdani


 * 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   delete. Consensus is stronger to merge than delete, but at this point the merge target doesn't exist. Let me know if this needs to be restored for the purpose of merging. -Scottywong | spout _ 16:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nadia Samdani

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

WP:N Bazuz (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It's got multiple sources. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Not all of the sources show notability, though. Of these sources, the first two are usable, as is the very last one by the News Today. They talk about Samdani at length and she's the focus of the article. That's where the sources get a little wonky. I'm not saying that she's not notable, just that saying that there's multiple sources isn't automatically a sign of notability.
 * 1) This article is written by Samdani herself and is a primary source
 * 2) This one establishes what it's sourcing, but she's not the primary focus of the article. She's mentioned in it more than just briefly, but she's far from the focus. This can be used to source a claim but I'd hesitate at saying it shows notability.
 * 3) She's more briefly mentioned in this, although that she has an award named after her family is worth noting. If the article is kept, this should absolutely be noted.
 * 4) This doesn't really seem like it's a reliable source. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, the article does not mention Samdani at length and her brief bio looks to be pulled from a press release.
 * 5), , , More about the summit than Samdani, might be usable as a trivial source, but not much else
 * Basically, the biggest problem here is that most of the articles are more about the Summit that she put on than Samdani herself. At the most they're all trivial sources. Even the three articles that are about Samdani at length seem to all have been written at the same time as the articles about the Summit and don't really show a depth of coverage over time. This isn't saying that it's not possible to salvage the article, as she's most certainly not a nobody and will be likely to have other sources, just that having multiple links does not always show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm... a brief lookup on Google News did find one source that mentions her from January of this year; although it's a glancing mention, it does show her as having previously been in the news. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 14:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But does it show that she's been extensively covered over a longer period of time? By that I mean that she's had articles about her specifically in the past or she's been mentioned in an article where she's a major focus? If she's had nothing but trivial mentions and quotes, then that doesn't really show notability. I'll try taking a look, but merely being mentioned briefly in the news in relation to a person or project doesn't in itself show notability for an individual since that notability doesn't automatically transfer.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete/Redirect to Samdani Art Foundation upon creation of article. I did a news search and there doesn't seem to be any exhaustive previous coverage that I can find and in its current state, this is little more than a puff piece created by the Samdanis (or someone they hired) to gain publicity. (Checking out the edit history for the articles seems to confirm this.) Pretty much all I'm finding are sources that mention her in relation to the art summit she organized or to the company she runs. Now what I do recommend is that the articles for both of the Samdanis, their art summit, and their company are merged into one big article entitled "Samdani Art Foundation". Individually they all lack notability to have their own articles, but I believe that they have enough collected notability to squeak by. I'll try to get started on the article, but I will admit that school and work has me pretty busy. The only thing I'm really concerned with is that the coverage I'm finding is fairly recent, so it might still get dinged for lack of long term coverage. But individually? No. Neither of the Samdanis, their foundation, or their program has individual notability. (Other articles include Dhaka Art Summit and Rajeeb Samdani.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the (effective) merger solution. I see a total of 9010 Google hits for the Samdani Art Foundation, including on the first page one news article focused on it (and them) from a couple months after this art summit (June 2012). Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 19:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Bazuz (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Multiple merge as proposed by Tokyogirl79. That's a good analysis and a sensible solution. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, I think that Rajeeb Samdani, Nadia Samdani, Dhaka Art Summit should be merged into one combined article. They do not satisfy individual notability requirements. Gsingh (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the original author of the article (and so far sole real contributor) wants it to be deleted, from a message on my talk page - I advised him to put db-author at the top of the article. I have a local copy in order to use the references to come up with a merged article. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 11:26, 11 June 2012 (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.