Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shireen Ahmed


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Shireen Ahmed

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a writer and speaker, whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Of the 15 footnotes here, three are brief namechecks of her existence in academic papers that aren't about her; two are her own contributor profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers; two are podcasts; one is a university student newspaper; one is a user-generated list of people and their contact information in a Google Docs file; one is an Instagram post; and one is a non-notable organization's own self-published listicle. None of these are notability-supporting sources at all. And of the four that are to some form of media coverage, one is a Q&A interview in which she's speaking about herself (as opposed to being spoken about in the third person by other people, which is what a source has to be before it counts as a data point toward notability), and the other three are all to webmedia startups whose status as reliable or notability-supporting sources is questionable at best -- so these sources would be fine for additional verification of details if the other 11 sources were better than they are, but they don't get her over WP:GNG all by themselves if they are the best sources on offer. As always, the notability test for people is not just that their work verifies its own existence: it requires journalism to be done about her in reliable publications, not social media posts or Google Docs files or podcasts or contributor/staff profiles on the websites of her own employers. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

*On the fence The OZY reference is passing mention only. The academic reference at ref 8 might establish notability, but Ahmed isn't mentioned in the abstract and I don't have access to the full article. Most of the rest of the refs look like padding. I think a lot hinges on whether she got any sort of in-depth coverage at ref 8. Anyone able to confirm? Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Actually I went through the article again and there's the article from Sociology of Sport Journal, which does actually talk about her at length. In addition, the PRI article is not under her byline, which would make it an interview, which is in-depth coverage. The McGill Daily is a student newspaper, which wouldn't be enough to confer notability alone, but it does help to reinforce that she is notable that she popped up there too. So while the article needs work - I do think there's actually enough here to get her over the WP:GNG bar. Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An interview is not WP:GNG-passing coverage: it represents her speaking about herself, not her being written about in the third person by other people, so it's subject to the exact same problems as any self-published source. Interviews are okay for supplementary verification of stray facts that they support, if notability has already been adequately covered off by enough third party journalism, but interviews don't count as data points toward passage of GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:47, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:48, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete perhaps it is just WP:TOOSOON, but I have to second User:Bearcat here, the sourcing is just too thin pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree that the Sociology of Sport Journal reference has substantial discussion of Ahmed - and more information than is in the article, including the name of her blog (Footybedsheets), and where she has had articles published. I am unable to read the Griffith REVIEW or the Feminist Media Studies articles, so I can't see how much they have about her. An article in Canadian Journal of Women & the Law, 'Minimizing and Denying Racial Violence: Insights from the Québec Mosque Shooting', discusses a radio program on which Ahmed was a guest, and her contribution to it . An article in USA TODAY, 'Headgear ban derails hoops dream', quotes Ahmed and describes her as "a former University of Toronto soccer player and sports activist who has written about headgear bans for Vice.com" . An article in the Gazette, Montreal, about a panel discussion she was on, to be held at Concordia University, gives the other name for her blog, Tales from a Hijabi Footballer, and explains how she got interested in writing about sport . This book on Women's Sports: What Everyone Needs to Know from Oxford University Press has a substantial paragraph summarising and quoting her views . This New York Times article 'World Cup Reporters Find Huge Audiences and Familiar Challenges' has a para about her criticism of a global media company for "including a presenter with a history of sexist social media postings in its Women’s World Cup promotion video" and subsequent internet trolling of her (it's also been published internationally, eg in the Irish Times ). I think there is just enough to meet WP:BASIC, so Weak Keep, at least until someone can describe what the two other journals say about her - if substantial, then it would be just Keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources don't help to get a person over WP:GNG by quoting her as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else — she has to be the subject of a source, not just a person who gets namechecked as an expressor of an opinion about the actual subject — so a lot of what you're describing fails to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources I mentioned don't quote her - they talk about her contributions to debate. That's why I wrote "has a para about her criticism" and "has a substantial paragraph summarising and quoting her views" - they are not just sound bites. I also think it's significant that writing in the NYT and published by OUP discusses the work of a Canadian blogger - that is not just local coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sociology of Sport Journal is a study of the activity of several activists and bloggers on sport, it tells us that she blogs and publishes an occassional op-ed. She has a podcast and is quoted  on the subject she blogs/podcasts about.   I do not see that she passes WP:BASIC, WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST.  Article creator, a new editor whose first article this is, seems to have jumped the gun out of enthusiasm for an activist who may become notable at some future point.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The article in Feminist Media Studies is an examination of the fact that on "On April 25 2016, the sports podcast Just Not Sports posted a video on YouTube titled “#MoreThanMean,” which addressed online harassment directed at women sports journalists." This  brief article mentions or briefly discusses and cites several dozen responses. Ahmed is mentioned here: ("In numerous interviews women journalists problematized the widespread “don’t feed the trolls” and “ignore it” advice, and emphasized that responses to harassment need to come via institutional and legal change (e.g., Ahmed 2016a Ahmed, Shireen. 2016a. “#MoreThanMean Video Highlights Daily Harassment Women in Sports Endure.”)  and here: (Other women sports writers connected online harassment to gender discrimination in sport and media, citing the low percentage of women in the sports journalism industry and giving examples of sexism in international sport federations (Ahmed 2016a Ahmed, Shireen. 2016a.) This is  NOT  SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:33, 8 July 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.