Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rebecca Masterton


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rebecca Masterton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, unsourced BLP that claims notability but nothing found in google search thus failing WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I found some things, but I'm having some trouble with them. I found some links to where she was shown as being on TV, ( for example]), but they're not on official channels, meaning we can't link to them. I don't know if she'd pass WP:EDUCATOR as of yet, but there are some sources. I briefly thought of speedying it, but there's just enough here to bring the question of whether more sources exist in other languages. She's certainly someone that could be used to source other articles, but being an authority doesn't always translate into notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I would say that if notability isn't easily shown by the end of the AfD, I have no problem with the original editor userfying it. They seem to genuinely want to improve the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I defintely agree they are acting in good faith for sure! The main thing about this is that the person is at least right now not notable. I might suggest userfication if the author agrees then they can flesh it out on a slower time frame. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have found the links to her TV channels (official), I have also found the website of her book and the college she works for. I think there are enough proofs to show her notability. Thank you both the ladies for helping me out. Lubnarivi(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.200.243 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great but make sure that the sources you provide are independant from the source and that they are inline with the policies WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also fyi I'm not a lady 8) I'm a guy with long hair! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. LOL!( Sorry about the sex confusion) I have no idea. I have never made any page before. SO please take your deletion request back so that I can ask someone to work on it. I have to figure out how to put the resources. Thanks for your help anyways.Lubnarizvi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, th issues with the books being the key to notability, she hasn't won any awards and most of them are available through small independent or online avenues like Amazon where anyone can get their books published. Now is translating for others books enough to pass the Academics part of notability guidelines as a Academic, I'm not sure we have enough for that either. I have asked a editor who appears to be fluent in Farsi to pitch in as maybe there are more sources that we can use to establish notability in others languages. Still thinking overall though that for right now the person doesn't pass guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Morning, Give me a break! I am working on it. --Lubnarizvi (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: I have no problem with userification, but based on present sourcing and claims in article, subject appears to fall under the "competent professional" rule -- most competent professionals are not notable just by being competent professionals. This goes for many academics, doctors, executives, etc., because typically they don't meet WP:GNG, no matter how worthy they are.--Milowent • hasspoken  14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Being a prominent member of the society as well as a religious scholar, I do not see anything missing. I have provided with enough sources to prove her as an author, religious scholars and a TV presenter. She falls in the category of WP:GNG. You need to be open minded about it otherwise all the wikipages can be deleted since they do not match the category.--Lubnarizvi (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Find two profiles of her in mainstream newspapers and I'll do some magic and change my !vote. I'm an ardent inclusionist, I don't vote !delete lightly.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Press TV is a mainstream media not only in Iran but in West, for goodness sake do not blind yourself with the fact that she is revert Muslim. She had been interviewed by BBC Radio 4. If you do not watch or read foreign newspapers and TV, do not tell me that she is not a notable figure. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. She matches these criteria btw. --Lubna Rizvi 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)


 * I would try to use Milowent as your tool of help in this one. I believe in deletion more often then not, Milowent does not, he's part of a group that wants more things included then deleted I'd listen to what they are trying to say and try to help work with him. He may be able to get this article kept and he is clearly telling you hee wants to. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_36_mon_06.shtml I think BBC is a mainstream media and only interviews or takes opinion of a prominent figure. I have contacted her to forward me more of her work. Google is not father of all searches! --Lubna Rizvi 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)

http://www.economist.com/node/7950162 Here you go! her interview in economist. --Lubna Rizvi 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Both of you who have objected the page seemed to have forgotten. Can you please remove the tag now? Page meets all the categories in accordance with wikipedia rules.--Lubna Rizvi 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
 * I haven't forgotten. The deletion discussion will run for 7 days.  You cited some articles where she is mentioned, but I am looking for profiles-- meaning articles completely about her.  I am afraid to say that as things are going so far, the article is likely to be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken  15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I tried to explain on my talk page, in fact that we do have the discussion for 7 days works in the authors favor because more people can see the article and make a decision. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Mostly based on original research and a passing reference in the Economist. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep PressTV called her a "prominent academician". I'd rather error on the side of caution on this one. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Though an 82 word unsourced stub being actively when first nominated for deletion 21 minutes after first being contributed, some patience and an incredible amount of work by User:Lubnarizvi and many others, has given a sourced start-class article that enlightens our readers nicely. Yes, more work to be done on style and format, but the project is improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article lacks the non-trivial secondary references that would make her notable. Primary sources from the various Iranian-government-owned media outlets she is employed by doesnt count. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Press Tv is owned by Iranian Government only. Ahlulbayt TV is not owned by Iran. You sound pretty biased, no matter who owns who, she is a notable person and is well known all over the world. --Lubna Rizvi 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
 * Careful of WP:ADHOM. But another consideration is that for a female, even an England-born and later-turned-Muslim Islamic scholar, educator, public speaker, Qur'anic interpreter,and television presenter, any coverage in Iranian media is worth our consideration. Were she an Iranian citizen, we might never have heard of her and they might never have written about her.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no beef with her. The point I was making is that the sources are not independent of her and fail WP:BASIC criteria. Leaving not enough to establish notability. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Understand your opinion, but surprisingly, just enough ARE independent. For who she is and what she does, Wikipedia is improved by our enlightening readers with this information.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised to learn that a mention in a 2006 Economist article and an interview in 2005 for BBC Radio are even enough for WP:GNG especially when they do not establish her notability, but report on the phenomenon of western converts to Islam in general. -- Phazakerley  (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The viewership of the TV she works for is global, Notability is not reliant on BBC, CNN, ABC and NBC only. She has an audience of millions around the world. I have read and seen the biographies on Wikipedia quite similar to that one. She is a living person and there are new horizons waiting for her. --Lubna Rizvi 12:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
 * Keep this article. A stub tag could be added instead of directly deleting the article to discourage users. -- SMS Let's talk   09:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Technically this subject is WP:TOOSOON as the references are all blogs and self publishing etc, but I think it is one reference away from a solid entry. I'm inclined to give the enthusiastic editor and subject, both in weak areas of WP, a few months to develop.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 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.