Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor Aftab (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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Noor Aftab
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not meet WP:BASIC WP:GNG. Originally a promo-only piece and copyvio provided by an editor associated with the subject. On its own terms, the BLP does not assert notability, nor does research yield significant coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources. JFHJr (㊟) 23:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom except I have no knowledge of any conflict between the subject and the WP:SPA who created the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – The COI with User:Raana.rizwan is not particularly relevant in deciding whether to delete, but it does explain why the articles were created, and that editor's apparent WP:SPA behavior. A google search for "Rizwan" and "Noor Aftab" reveals he's involved in at least the facebook side of the Shahina Aftab Foundation. JFHJr (㊟) 01:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep. WP:BASIC and GNG are satisfied. Support rename to Shahina Aftab Foundation if necessary. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. First source is not really a secondary source. Second source about her helping people is hardly "significant coverage" and doesn't satisfy "Multiple sources are generally expected".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * are we saying that international womens days is a subsiduary or controlled by Shahina Aftab Foundation? If not, it looks like a legit indepth secondary source to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete JoopersCoopers presents one weak RS (the second one). Weak, because of BLP1E. I'd want to see at least one strong source to go with it, if not two. Happy to return here and opt for keep if such sources exist. Please do drop me a line at my user talk if I don't notice. --Dweller (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC) NB I find the lack of media coverage of the award suspicious, and the citation looks to me like it's promotional material penned by the organisation, not the awarding body. All in all, very weak evidence of notability. A significant award should generate a ton of coverage in the world's media. --Dweller (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – I agree with Dweller here. It's a non-notable award that could be mentioned within an article on a notable person, but the source is ill suited for underpinning notability in the first place because it's not a WP:RS. JFHJr (㊟) 22:48, 23 November 2011 (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.