Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainab Abbas


 * 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. Seems like the claim of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG being met don't hold up insofar as all the sources are contested on the grounds of non-independence or non-substantiveness, and these contestations have not been rebutted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Zainab Abbas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails to meet WP:JOURNALIST. no in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. many of the cited sources are either non-independent of the subject or are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 06:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep she has significant coverage in many sources, so passes WP:GNG. Frankly, if she was male then no-one would be questioning her notability. Another example of the systematic anti-female bias of Wikipedians. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * she has got significant coverage in affiliated sources such as dunyanews - the news channel she works for. --Saqib (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there are nine sources about her in the article not from her company. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but many of which are unreliable sources. --Saqib (talk) 06:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete This is the only in-depth coverage where Zainab Abbas is the primary subject, and it is is not an independent source. This is a press release. The other sources are trivial brief articles, mostly reactions to twitter posts, gossip, etc, many focused on her being a "hottie" or "crush", with no substance. The weakly-sourced gossip, vague blogging and social media about family connections with politicians and controversial events add a compelling reason not to keep an article like this around, attracting edits with more dubious claims. The risk of defamatory content appearing and not being removed is high, while the benefit of covering a notable person is hard to identify. At least one in-depth, reputable source, independent of the subject, that was primarily about Abbas would change my mind. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: She is widely recognized in Pakistan, especially as a cricket expert, and is frequently cited or interviewed in the Pakistani press, both in English and Urdu.--Ipigott (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Which source says "she is widely recognized in Pakistan" ? Please establish notability by providing sources. --Saqib (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, Zainab is a sports journalist and is notable enough as a journalist. On the other hand, she is also a well known Pakistani cricket journalist in her nation. Abishe (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * She clearly fails WP:JOURNALIST.. which source says she is "well known Pakistani cricket journalist" ? --Saqib (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. PROMO and likely fanpage. Arguments by Dennis Bratland seem apt. Agricola44 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - not at this stage. Nothing accomplished yet. We can't give free-entry to women because they're journalist, professor etc. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST. Störm   (talk)  08:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: Subject has received significant press coverage in Pakistan and abroad. Also received significant media coverage in India especially after subject commented on Indian cricketers. See these Hindi news articles from mainstream Indian news media CNN-News18 (in 2018), NDTV (in 2017), and AajTak/IndiaToday (in 2015). However, most likely fails GNG as per WP:JOURNALIST guidelines. Sahrudayan (talk) 12:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to read the language to see how trivially brief those linked stories are. The first link is a story about somebody else that happens to mention Zainab Abbas halfway down. The second link is just that "selfie curse" joke that went around Twitter. "Significant" coverage means real journalism that tells us something in depth about the subject, and why they are so important, not bloggers who gossip about people because they're easy on the eyes. Keep in mind that any significant coverage is sufficient to pass WP:GNG; failing WP:JOURNALIST isn't really a problem. The problem is that the subject hasn't had enough coverage for anything, not just journalism. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if Abbas was male then we wouldn't even be having an AfD discussion. This is an example of the problems with systematic anti-female bias on Wikipedia. She clearly passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly passes how? Can you cite one example of significant coverage in an independent source? We've seen brief personal profiles written by her employer to promote her. She is their TV presenter. That's not independent. We've seen sub-50 word blog posts about guys who got bad luck form a selfie with her. A post saying she's related to a politician, less than 50 words. I began with the intention of saving this article because it did look like a biased nomination, and I searched the best I could to find anything. I will change my mind if anyone can cite substantial coverage. This subject does not pass GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:12, 21 February 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.