Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sahar Zaman (journalist)


 * 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 (non-admin closure). Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sahar Zaman (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this article at DYK. The article is written in a very promotional tone, almost like a CV. All the images in the article are claimed as CC 4.0 with no evidence of ownership by the article creator indicating a perhaps close alignment with the article subject or potentially copyright violation. My main concern is whether the article topic is notable enough i.e. meets WP:GNG. Ref 1 is a video of an independently organised TED talk so is a primary source. Ref 2 basically states that she's a news anchor. Ref 3, 4 are interviews by the article subject, Ref 5 basically states she's written two articles for Tehelka. Ref 6 is a Dawn article covering an event she attended. Ref 7 states she's a correspondent for IBNLive,Ref 8 is a case study where Radical Reflex describes the work they did for her on a website. Ref 9 is a blog, Ref 10 is an article written by the article subject, Ref 11 is the article subject's facebook page. I don't think there is enough evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Cowlibob (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Also it seems the creator is indef blocked as a sockpuppet per this investigation: [] Cowlibob (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Articles does most certainly need improvement. However, I think the coverage Zaman has received in various media meets WP:GNG AusLondonder (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. First off, I getting sick of editors and deletion nominators labeling interviews like the two sourced in the article as primary sources "by the article subject". They're independent sources like nearly every other interview, so stop it. Second, the journalist actually has garnered coverage to meet WP:GNG, as this search would also find that she has been covered in some reliable sources that do a fair amount more that just mention her. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I do have a concern about her jewellry project, which looks promotional, but clearly notable as art journalist and curator. So, keep and clean. I would remove the gallery of her jewellery, since as work of art it had not been exhibited in any museum or gallery and all mention of eat started with "A journalist she also started her own jewellery brand". Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the promotional images and statements from jewelry and design part. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft and userfy perhaps as a compromise even if the article is not as solid as it could be because unless better coverage is found, all of this is still questionable for the applicable notability. At best, I'm willing to say keep only if this can be improved. SwisterTwister   talk  02:38, 16 March 2016 (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.