Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saman Hasnain (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. Particularly per OTR500. The coverage is either trivial or unreliable, and we can't support a BLP on that level of shaky sourcing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Saman Hasnain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unremarkable pageant contestant and winner of nn Mrs. Pakistan World; significant RS coverage for pageant career not found. There's minor notability due to an alleged scam the subject participated in link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add this to the article. For lack of notability and due to BLP concerns, I believe that the article is best deleted.

First AfD closed as "Keep", based in part on the rationale that the pageant is notable. The article on the pageant has since been deleted, and I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Nik ol ai Ho ☎️ 02:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. She had a well-sourced article here in 2011 (created in 2008) - version as of 2011 - prior to the scam scandal, and she was covered for her competition in various followup pageants. The alleged scam does not detract from her prior notability.Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While the standalone Mrs Pakistan World page has been deleted, it is mentioned in the main Miss Pakistan World article and so remains notable. She also participated in Mrs Globe (definitely a notable pageant) in which she won several prizes. Well-sourced article. Easily passes WP:GNG. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nom's comment -- the extend of coverage is the parent pageant is as follows (Miss_Pakistan_World):
 * "In 2007 Mrs. Pakistan World, for married women, was created as a spin-off. Both the Miss Pakistan World and the Mrs. Pakistan World pageant were created on the basis of issues faced by women in Pakistan.The pageant is running successfully since 2007."


 * The link is dead, but I'd venture a guess that it was the org's own press release. This does not seem like a notable pageant; "Mrs"-named pageants are generally the lowest tier in the pageant world. Miss_Pakistan_World is tagged for notability itself. I don't believe that this meets WP:ANYBIO and the pageantry coverage is routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and what we look for here is WP:What Wikipedia is not, examining spam each on different occasion isn't helping us but instead netting the blatant ones is what makes a difference. Both votes here aren't proposing anything differently than that it must be notable and that's not what makes a difference in any other AfD where a similar comment could be made. Our priority here is that we're not a discriminate collection of information or other trivia, and that's WP:Indiscriminate policy. SwisterTwister   talk  17:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment No, we are citing policy. As long as the subject meets WP:GNG, the article is adequately sourced and not a WP:BLP violation there is no reason to delete it. The subject is notable (just) beyond the Mrs Pakistan World involvement. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- what's being argued is that there's no depth of coverage (WP:SIGCOV) to satisfy GNG. Besides, what else is the subject notable for? That she was "awarded $15,000 in a "Smile Competition" in Mrs. Globe 2008"? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS. I'd say being a fugitive from justice is an indication of notability. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've addressed this point in the nomination: "Former Mrs Pakistan Used her Striking Appearance to Scam California Ramilies" link, but this does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. There have been attempts to add such material into the article, and there were rightfully removed, per BLP. So Plenty of coverage of her legal problems in multiple RS does not help this specific article. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article seems to fail any policy based criteria for inclusion per WP:NOT or pass the notability criteria for a stand alone article mentioned in WP:N including WP:GNG. This article doesn't come close to passing WP:NOT on several levels, most notably WP:NOTEVERYTHING (aka: Encyclopedic content) and WP:IINFO. Both WP:N and WP:GNG require an article to pass WP:NOT as having coverage alone is not enough to merit an article. Also both require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. None of the sources in the article meet this requirement. Current sources:
 * Sources 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 are from mrspakistan.com which is hardly independent.
 * Sources 8, 9 reference that the subject was charged with a crime. I am unaware of any policy that suggests that small time, local, "alleged" scammers qualify for a stand alone article and the guidelines under WP:CRIME are not met.
 * A review of the previous sources in the article was of no help in establishing notability, mostly PR, blogs, or other non-independent sources.  CBS 527 Talk 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - this article is within WP:GNG. Sources are good but needs formatting. The article overall needs c/e but AfD is not a clean-up service. Several of the Delete !votes above are mistaken, the references are mostly indepth and third party, both national, international and pageant related sources independent from each other are available.BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am certainly open to amend my !vote if such sources exist. I have been unable to find any in the article or G-searches that meet the requirements for notability. "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive". Where are these in depth and third party references? It would be helpful if you would point us to a couple that are verifiable and meet the requirements to establish notability.  CBS 527 Talk 11:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete weak sources do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: There are multiple severe issues with this BLP. The subject is not even close to satisfying any guidelines of notability or Notability (people) or the BLP policy. Nine references and 7 are primary sources to Miss Pakistan World (not attributed in the referencing), one primary court document that redirected me to a County of Santa Clara search site, and one reliable source. I am sure it did not go unnoticed this is a BLP and the standards are to be far higher. Primary sources do not count towards notability. The subject is reportedly a "former" Mrs Pakistan World 2008 winner, and she reportedly (I can't tell because there is no actual reliable souce) was arrested. This is another issue of "throwing dirt" without evidence and possibly justification for BLP violation article blanking. The use of primary sources has led to Puffery words such as "most beautiful Mrs. Pakistan World", "Expressions of doubt" (prosecutors alleged), and other weasel words. Even if there were more reliable sources we are talking about a "one time wonder" that is best covered under a parent article. However, some major confusion is that on a horribly referenced and tagged article titled Miss Pakistan World (is this "not" the same pageant?) I didn't see her name in 2008. There is listed a "Natasha Paracha" and a Representatives to Miss Earth 2008 "Nosheen Idrees". This article, and any BLP's like this (a drive to "just" make BLP articles regardless of policies and guidelines) have no place in this encyclopedia. Otr500 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - summed up nicely.  Störm   (talk)  13:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Participating in the Mrs. Globe pageant might not be enough to establish notability here.  And the same might be true for being the subject of criminal charges.  But there's something unique about the combination of the two that makes for an interesting story.  I imagine that the "delete" votes will say that the story might be of some interest, but not of  interest.  And perhaps they're right; but perhaps they're not.  I myself see it as a borderline case -- so much so that I'm not able to weigh in with an opinion one way or the other.  But I'm posting here anyway just to address a few inaccuracies that have been put forward by the "delete" votes.
 * 1. The court site that reports the filing of criminal charges is a primary source.  The court did not make the allegations of criminal behavior -- the county's district attorney did.  And the court site is a reliable third-party source for the fact that those charges were made.  But more to the point, once the charges had been filed, there was press coverage of them, including reliable reporting of the fact that the subject left the jurisdiction of the court.  There are no BLP violations here. 2. Although there is common ownership of the Miss Pakistan World and Mrs. Pakistan World pageants, they are indeed separate pageants.  There is no reason to expect that the subject's name would appear in a list of the "Miss" winners and no negative inference should be drawn from the fact that it does not appear there. 3. The administrator who closed the first nomination did not cite notability of the pageant as a reason for "keeping" the article.  The only cited reason was the nominator's own statement that the article should be kept, so long as discussion of the criminal charges was removed.
 * NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'm going to echo NY Actuary in that the crime and beauty pageant nexus makes this notable. The media agrees.  International and US coverage includes: Mercury News [], Daily Mail [], The Express Tribune (Pakistan) [], NY Daily News [], ABC News [], LA Times, DNA India [], Business Insider , and on and on. There are several articles about her and that she won the pageant, pre-crime. Passes WP:GNG.
 * Delete. The beauty pageant coverage is superficial or not independent, and the scam coverage is WP:BLP1E.  Sandstein   20:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ’’’delete’’’ blp1e when the other event is non-notable. Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 10 January 2018 (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.