Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zara Kay

• Delete Keep: This article and it's citations give off a strong PR vibe and it looks like that the subject might have had some say in the contents of the article. There isn't sufficient long time coverage to establish notability; fails GNG. Regarding additional sources provided by Ylleknivek, Youth Ki Awaaz is not considered to be a reliable source (RSN discussion) and neither is Times of India (RSN RFC). Times of India is specially notorious for taking money for publishing bullshit. I don't know much about the non-Indian sources but they also seem unreliable on a glance. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Normal Op has presented a good keep argument keep argument, I think I agree with them. But someone should still look into the PR thing though, PR and advocacy like this does incredible amounts of damage to Wikipedia. Too many new accounts coming out of woodworks on this AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: As mentioned this article lacks neutrality, notability and trusted sources. All the sources provided by Ylleknivek are unreliable and self-serving. YKA (Pakistan) is noted as non-reliable source. DDS (Netherlands) is right winged blog again not reliable. The CFI (USA) is from a non-profit news release, again a non-neutral source - a non-profit will publish releases that further their cause and not from a NPOV. Explanation for Times of India has been explained by
  WP:AVOIDVICTIM in addition to this article having 0 primary sources, disputed secondary sources, non-verifiable content, being self-promoted, and promoting propaganda. Tahadharamsi (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Duplicate vote struck. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are some more keep comments in the article's talk page so any closer might want to look at them. Also, I've notified the creator of the article about this discussion, which it seems wasn't done. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I still stand with my stance, the discussion on the talk page further enhances my point that this article is a PR piece and is not What Wikipedia Is -
  WP:ADVOCACY in order to understand why I have proposed the AfD. Tahadharamsi (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This was brought to my notice in my talk page hence will not vote but could find some coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

• Weak delete Neutral Wikipedia is not the place to
  WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." However, while there are a lot of sources that mention her in passing, quote her while covering somebody else, only two actually are in-depth, and one is more like an interview than in-depth coverage. That being said, if there were a few more sources, she might be notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Striking my vote as Normal Op has some valid analysis. Combined, all the sourcing makes this a very borderline case, so for what it's worth I'll register a neutral vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The 'passing mentions' to which
  talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  reliable sources, the number of subscribers and viewers don't matter. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @

  talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Continued: Now to counter the delete-side... The nomination is seriously flawed. The nominator called every source a non-reliable source or a tabloid (including

wikilawyer

. I would like to know under which other username nom has been editing so I can see their edit history. But I digress. As demonstrated above, nom has failed to present in good faith a logical argument for "lack of notability", and has failed to prove his case for the deletion of the article. (NPOV, V & OR issues can always be corrected, if they even exist here, but are not a reason for article deletion.) Therefore keep the article.

— Normal Op (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like other human beings she deserves the rights of free speech and to choose her religion, but that does not make her notable.
  talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No real coverage, so fails
  WP:THREE. They should be rock solid, but they are not. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: There are enough news-related sources, and the coverage is significant there. The Google book source, published by
  WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment

1) I wonder why women related article deletion notice has not been listed on most active women related projects Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green

2) Personally I do not doubt notability. Availability of references valid to Wikipedian norms and actual notability are different aspects.

3) Article creation seems to be of 2019, If at all any advocacy happened in May 2020 then simply control & ignore it. We can not say Donald Trump to be not notable because he does advocacy of himself. Notabilty is independent aspect.

4) I came across this article deletion notice from creators talk page, and it seems I am already late here otherwise I could have taken a chance to improve it.- And if article remains in article namespace or in draft namespace I will spend time on it.

5) I still feel you list this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green . And if at all admins don't find it satisfactory enough - I don't say so- send it to draft.

6) I suppose two scholarly references are behind pay restricted walls which I cant access Google scholar, "Humanists in the Hood," by Dr. Sikivu Hutchins

Bookku (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your (1) item: By adding an article to Deletion sorting/Women, it is picked up by Women in Red, and this AfD is listed there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#AfD. Looks like the Women in Green project doesn't have a place where they list AfDs. Normal Op (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this update. IMHO. As I said above notability is not issue. The issue is formal media has not covered her as much. Even if deletion succeeds for time being -her notability for other ex-Muslim related articles going to remain. Wiping out her notability in entirety going to be difficult. Eventually she is going to find much more place in books and memoirs of Ex-Muslims and eventually article about her will make a come back at some point, if at all gets deleted. Thanks again. Bookku (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Normal Op and recent article enhancement. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.