Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sameera Aziz (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. Randykitty (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sameera Aziz
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So slavishly promotional (possibly autobio) that it must be blown up and rebuilt from scratch. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  01:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  94rain  Talk 01:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Delete. It's a shame, because the article within itself is a well-written autobiography. The original editor referred to Aziz as "princess" in every subsequent mention of her, hinting at having a connection with the source. There is a clear bias in the article, even though the target is not too notable. Definitely reads as if it were written from an inner circle, at the minimum.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment- I removed most of the fluff, do you think the article is savable now?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep the subject’s publicist will probably keep editing the page but I think they meet WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep being slavishly promotional isn't actually a reason to delete, so long as the individual nevertheless meets WP:GNG, which in this case I think they do. Also if an article needs rebuilding from scratch, that can and should be done without deleting it. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * DELETE - I looked through a couple dozen of the references and then did some external searches and I can't really match the references with the text or notability. For example, the reference for becoming the first Urdu-language novelist in Saudi Arabia points to an online Russian replica handbag store. One of the post-grad educational references merely points to an institute's home page (which doesn't appear to offer post-graduate studies). The reference to being an editor (which is not notable anyway) points to the BBC's country profile. Many of the claims with references to newspapers worked at simply point to the newspaper's home page, not all of which actually exist. The references related to books or films do not actually point to said books or films. I can't really figure out what the Global Sports Federation is either. I don't really see anything that points to clearcut notability and the page would need some really aggressive editing regardless as the article as written is not encyclopedic. I hope that those favouring keep will take a closer look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 19:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as PROMO suffering not only with Citation overkill, but with unreliable sources.  Take that last paragraph of eh 1st subhead, about her dowry.  It is sourced to Marriage & Divorce: All you need to know about Muslim marriages nothing abut her at all, the other source for the dramatic dowry claims is  a blog post that no longer exists.  Teh next paragraph had two links, both to pages that made no mention of her.   Every paragraph I checked was like that.  Links that led to articles that were not about this person at all.  OK, I only checked 4 paragraphs.  Nevertheles... this page is so overstuffed with links ot nowehere that it almost feels like a hoax. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2019 (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.