Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zunera Mazhar


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Zunera

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

she has not received significant coverage in reliable sources.fails Notability_(people). she was the winner of non-notable "Mrs. Pakistan International USA". most of the cited sources are unreliable. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - the pageant may not have its own page, but it looks like it passes GNG or comes close . That aside, there is also sufficient coverage of Zunera alone:,  , ,  . I know articles focused on fashion and beauty pageants are often looked down on (subtle sexism, in my opinion), but if the publications are sound, the articles are still considered significant and reliable GNG-friendly sources. Yvarta (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Some quick Googling shows there is no such thing as the "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant", and that's a problem.  --Lockley (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete suggests that she did enter such a pageant; but it's clearly not sufficient for notability.  I have absolutely no idea what the case for the mononym would be. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment At the original editor's request, I have been helping them to make improvements to the article, but not being knowledgeable about Mrs Mazher, my additions are extremely limited. I think there is notability there, but whether or not it is sufficient to make the notability requirements is too close for me to call. The earlier (less neutrally worded article) that was nominated for speedy deletion showed more notability, but unfortunately did not include references for those potentially more notable bits. If references for those parts that were removed could be found, added to the current article along with better phrasing, then maybe the article will definitely demonstrate notability. What I would suggest is that if the article is deleted, it be userfied for 's benefit. If it is kept, I would recommend a page rename to Zunera Mazher. Stephen! Coming... 10:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - A quick Google Search yields quite significant results. Definitely passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. The article itself is adequately referenced and I can see popular medica coverage in her home country and the US. Featured in top media outlets like CNN and the Express Tribune. The nominator should have a look over the references and their quality before nomination for deletion. Bellayelps (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * — Bellayelps (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 3.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 07:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I am responding to every single user who left their response. Please don't consider this disruption, all the concerns you have raised are addressed one by one below.WP:GF


 * Hi ,
 * Thanks for your input! I didn't know the procedure, I was under the impression that a person like you will be the final authority & will be the ultimate decider but to my surprise, even you didn't take a decision after seeing that there is no apparent consensus :)


 * I don't know how we're going to reach a consensus, I guess we can begin by addressing the concerns raised by some other honorable members. I have responded to some members on their respective talk sections & tried to advocate my case to why the discrepancy was there in the first place. The core reason was only my ignorance for which I constantly sought their guidance but very few were kind enough to lend their wisdom. I rendered some member's help in rectifying some shortcomings, but I guess they are busy, I had to spend hours googling & incorporated those changes myself & some other members were very kind enough to help with the edits.


 * As for 's objection, "most of the cited sources are unreliable" - Currently the article has citations from CNN ABC Express Tribune & Pakistan Today - these are mainstream media publication of two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). Some of these were missing in the beginning but now they are incorporated. So Saqib bhai kindly review the page WP:EDITCONSENSUS & let us know what you think.In its current state it clearly passes WP:RELIABLE


 * said there is no such thing as "Mrs. Pakistan International USA pageant" - the name of the title was entered incorrectly in the first draft which is rectified after indicationWP:EDITCONSENSUS. Now it is changed to "Mrs. Pakistan International" - Mrs. International a pageant which is around for more than 30 years.


 * According to - a mononym 'Zunera' was used as the page name, again due to my ignorance I didn't use the correct format. An issue which is currently fixed and now the page loads as Zunera_Mazhar WP:EDITCONSENSUS


 * Sir in the above comment your only concern was addressed WP:EDITCONSENSUS, I was going to do this right away but I didn't know how. I am thankful to  who incorporated some important changes.


 * I am requesting all the honorable members of this discussion who raised their concerns, to please review the changes made in light of their objections WP:EDITCONSENSUS and please help expedite this matter. There are references of at least 5 published sources WP:NEWSORG which quashes all the WP:GNG objections as there are multiple reliable sources WP:RELIABLE quoted & in presence of these sources notability exist WP:NEXIST.Clearly there is no dearth of notability & at the time of publishing this page I wasn't aware of the importance of citing reliable sources. The nominator being a senior editor should've fixed this mistake by a rookie & instead of nominating this page for deletion WP:NEWBIES should've cited reliable sources which are easily accessible on the first page of google but now that we have rectified most of the issues, I hope we will reach to some meaningful conclusion soon.    Thecapital15 (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment apparently we have too many SPA's here. likely sockpuppets. --Saqib (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is that this article was the subject of a recent job ad on Upwork hiring multiple editors to vote in this AfD. - Bilby (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * , could you link this Upwork ad or let us know the posting time? If there is a sockpuppet infestation, I don't want to be mistakenly associated. Yvarta (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the first job ad related to this AfD was placed well after you had !voted here. There is absolutely no reason to assume that there is any relationship between the two. - Bilby (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes please post links as to where you saw this & how is it associated to this page? I hope the discussion won't be derailed with dubious job posts, as the initial objections questioned the merits of notability which have been addressed over time.Thecapital15 (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There appear to have been three ads placed for this article. The first was placed around May 24 and was not related to this AfD - it was only to assist with formatting and editing, and no one was hired. The second was titled "Add Image to Wikipedia Article & Vote Keep in Deletion Discussion" and was placed on June 2. Two editors were hired and have since been paid, the jobs marked as completed, and they have been given positive feedback. The wording related to the AfD was "The page is also nominated for deletion because of notability, there is currently one keep vote because it is about a notable personality but some schmuck thought it isn't. I will need you to be able to vote Keep. Once you see the page you will know it does deserve to stay there." The third job ad was posted yesterday, and is titled "Wikipedia Vote Keep or Comment in Deletion Discussion" with the wording "The initial draft wasn't that impressive I guess, hence it got flagged. Over the week I have made significant changes but the stick in the mud kind of people at Wikipedia won't back off now. So I need a couple of Wikipedian's with 1000+ edits on their accounts to vote keep & throw some major shade". No one has been hired for the third job ad. - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment My response is for any new users who want to take part in the discussion and the administrator. I can clearly see where this discussion will steer if I partake in the slander. A simple Upwork search alone will show over 25+ jobs posted in the last 3 hours with over 8 jobs having AfD related requests. Are those job posts also related to this page? Casting unascertainable aspersions & slander is disruptive behavior & clearly in violation of good faith guideline. Apparently, sockpuppet is the Nuclear word in this community as it has clearly spooked Yvarta. This new development has completely jeopardized the possibility of any new user leaving any comment that advocates the case of this page's notability & reliability of its sources. I hope the administrator will take a decision after weighing the merits of notability & reliability. Because that's why this page was nominated in the first place. In my comment above with reliable sources & citing guidelines, I have explained in great detail how this page has reliability & notability.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are a number of current jobs on Upwork related to Wikipedia editing. However, as far as I am aware only those three relate to this AfD. The others presumably are for different articles. - Bilby (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the reliability & notability of this page is ascertained in great detail in my comment above with reliable sources & guidelines citations. Any other unascertainable aspersions are nothing but slander. Please don't consider my civility & respect a sign of weakness. I am just waiting for an objective administrator to take note of this very unbecoming & disruptive behavior.Thecapital15 (talk) 04:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct, and paid editing is certainly a problem. But yes, the closing admin will, I'm sure, be able to take this into account. I don't think we need to worry about acting on it at this time. - Bilby (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or rather Burn it Down. I'm not a paid editor and I did not come here from a job board. The subject does not pass WP:NMODEL which is the relevent criteria. Only the subject would hire people to vote on an AfD to protect her vanity article, so how about we WP:SALT so it can't be recreated by this person and her paid minions. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree totally.  I now think salting is appropriate.  Just to repeat the point above -- the dates and details of that second Upwork task match up to the !votes here and improvements made by WikiTimPedia and Bellayelps.  (And hey I match the description of "some schmuck".)  Whatever else is going on, this is pushy-pushy promotional activity with editors encouraged to "throw some major shade" to get this done.   --Lockley (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There are plenty of WP:RELIABLE WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY sources quoted on the page & most are mainstream WP:NEWSORG of not one but two different countries(U.S & Pakistan). According to this guideline -> WP:NEXIST the notability clearly exists as there are numerous WP:RELIABLE sources quoted. I am sure the administrators will take note of the crass language used in guise of unsubstantiated, unascertainable, mala fide & ridiculous claims. I will again exercise restraint & not invoke WP:HARASS but when my Talk page is littered with phony claims of Sock Puppetry which is a clear naked blatant violation of WP:HUSH I can't assume WP:GOODFAITH. I am glad that an investigation is requested to substantiate the sock puppetry claims & I can't wait for the results. Hope the discussion will be kept limited to merits of notability & reliability, now that the investigation re puppetry is ongoing.Thecapital15 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I requested an SPI based on the strange goings on here. Thecapital15 is claiming I'm harrassing them for informing them of the SPI and demanding I delete the SPI notice within three minutes. Of course they are free to delete such notices themselves from their own talkpage. I'm not impressed with all the policy linking and claims of harrassment here and on their talk. Legacypac (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If I knew I could remove your comments or notifications, I would remove them right away according to these guidelines WP:HUSH By the way I asked you very politely, as I was under the impression that I am not allowed to remove other peoples' comments & I had to give you 3 mins ultimatum because I asked 3 times before that citing these guidelines WP:HUSH which you refused to acknowledge. Just wanted to set the record straight as guidelines citations were not mentioned & I haven't yet cited WP:HARASS & i'm sure I won't because we're all professional people here. AND thank you very much for starting the investigation you did me a solid, as I had no way to refute the claims made re sockpuppets, it was my word against others & clearly I am at a disadvantage.Thecapital15 (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Sources do not seem reliable. Kazmi (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC+2)
 * Delete. Shenanigans such as sock puppetry point always leads me to believe the notability is in question. Ifnord (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the "contributions" of a confirmed sock puppet were removed from this AfD already. Legacypac (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I looked at all the citations. IMO none is WP:INDEPENDENT. A search turned up nothing better (although it did, perhaps unsurprisingly, turn up the usual pile of social sites). Fails WP:BIO, and I'll throw in WP:PROMO for good measure. Narky Blert (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2017 (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.