Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noor Siddiqui


 * 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. I don't find the keep rationales persuasive - appearing in a documentary does not indicate notability. Having documentaries about you specifically is a different matter, but isn't what appears to have happened. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Noor Siddiqui

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. Coverage is of Beam, not of her; little to no coverage in WP:RS and the intent and tone of this page are promotional. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. FalconK (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  08:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete since subject does not meet WP:GNG. The legitimate sources found or already cited in the article do not amount to the required support for notability. Some forensics:
 * We have simple listings of events, lectures, etc, such as this, this, this or this; a report about the Thiel Fellowship that provided Siddiqui with a grant but not about Siddiqui; a listing in another article about the Thiel again; a link to her own website; a New York Times article about college drop-outs "pursuing their dreams" that name-drops Siddiqui once; nothing in the cited Times of India; passing mentions in the books Valley of the Gods: A Silicon Valley Story and Becoming a Social Entrepreneur: Starting Out, Scaling Up and Staying True; and so on. We could graciously call this a case of WP:TOOSOON and wish that an article will appropriately appear in the near future.
 * (Still, WP:ENTREPRENEUR turns out to be right once again!) -The Gnome (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the aforestated explanation by user The Gnome. ǁ ǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 10:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:BIO, a person is notable if they have "received a well-known and significant award or honor" of which the Thiel Fellowship certainly qualifies. Also, one of the links cited by The Gnome is actually a Stanford University course taught by the subject – it's not a simple lecture listing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Giving one lecture or teaching one course at Stanford does not make someone notable. Neither does the Thiel Fellowship - there are a lot of non-notable Thiel fellows, and for all the fanfare it is fundamentally a VC investment.  The awards and honours that qualify under that category are things like a Nobel Prize, that are awarded by committees of experts, or national honours.  FalconK (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An award/grant which is given to 20 individuals each year by a business expert and billionaire is notable. The award has been covered in the press numerous and times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 09:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The award by itself does not render a subject notable. Otherwise, we'd have an article for each and every recipient. We must "significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources" that work cumulatively towards the support of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Update I found more WP:RS and removed some WP:PROMO, so please per WP:HEY take a look at current article. I think it's improved a lot. In particular, I don't know why this in-depth profile of Siddiqui wasn't mentioned in earlier comments. I also found this, this, and this to help establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 09:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User 47.33.47.95's only contributions to Wikipedia have been on this page. -The Gnome (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. At the time you posted your comment, I had also contributed to the deletion discussion for the Product Hunt article. Also, friendly reminder that IPs are human too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.33.47.95 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time I posted my comment, your contributions amounted to only one, aside from your posts here on this RfC. I'd say this does not change in any significant way my description of your Wikipedia contributions so far. Your denial that there exists any kind of relation to the article's subject is noted and accepted. And I never mentioned anything about IPs as such, let alone deny that they are "human too". -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep since the subject was featured in two documentaries "Go Against the Flow" and "20 Under 20: Transforming Tomorrow" by CNBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.101.184 (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, we see fishing for exceptionality when all we have is groupings: The CNBC documentary is about the Thiel Fellowship and includes in its coverage, en passant, recipients, among whom is our subject; the other documentary, Go Against the Flow, by a director focused on "encouraging women to start their own businesses," contains portraits of more than a dozen females, among whom is our subject, on screen for a few minutes. We still don't have enough. -The Gnome (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Leaning towards a consensus existing for delete however further analysis of the sourcing vs. WP:N would be appreciated.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - while the Theil fellowship is nice, it doesn't automatically confer notability. Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough in-depth sourcing to pass WP:GNG for this BLP. Kolma8 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly notable. The subject was profiled in Washington Post, Mashable, CNBC, and her company's product was evaluated in the Surgical Innovation journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8806:4102:D600:CB6:66E6:DF08:68BD (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This contribution is the first by User 2600:8806:4102:D600:CB6:66E6:DF08:68BD in Wikipedia.
 * The paper cited is about the product Google Glass and not the article's subject. We've been through this so many times. -The Gnome (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Rename and retarget I don't think deletion is the answer here, but rather the article should be renamed to talk about Remedy and its relationship with Google Glass. That should give us enough information to be able to write a non-trivial article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:49, 2 February 2021 (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.