Shaheen Sayyed: All of the coverage provided is in relation to a group of southeast Asian fishermen stranded on a ship unable to dock in the UAE.  All that I can tell from the nine passing mentions is that Ms. Sayyed is a social worker acting as a spokesperson for the stranded workers.  I'm normally a critic of the "no claim of significance" speedy deletion criteria but I don't know why Ritchie333 declined this one.  It also was created by a sockpuppet known for repeatedly recreating biographies of non-notable people, who already reverted draftification.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women .  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just as a procedural note, I declined the A7 because the article had citations to multiple sources, some of which name-checked the subject in the title.  I don't have any strong views on whether the article should be kept or deleted; indeed AfD is probably the right thing to do.  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Fair point, I also noticed those name-checking sources when I was writing this up.  I had in my mind that it was more than one but the only one I see now is Unpaid Indian workers in Kuwait get help, thanks to social worker Shaheen Sayyed , and even that doesn't really go into much detail other than saying she supported the workers.  But here's something interesting: that article opens with text describing a government minister meeting with the workers, who were carrying placards saying that the only person helping them was Shaheen Sayyed.  Another article titled Kuwait social worker a messiah for scores opens with identical text, and also uses that text as a teaser, and that article still doesn't give her much significant coverage.  Were those two articles written from provided copy, i.e. a press release meant to promote the cause or raise the profile of the activist?  Did they hire this editor to write them a promotional Wikipedia bio?  I don't know, but it's certainly suspicious, especially given this sockfarm's history.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nomination.  Apart from the passing mentions noted, all I can find on her in English or Hindi (शाहीन सईद, hope I'm spelling that right) is a blog post [4] .  Wikishovel ( talk ) 15:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kuwait and Maharashtra .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  None of the cited references is substantial coverage of her.  (Incidentally, I can see that the presence of multiple references mentioning her name could perhaps be balanced against the lack of a claim of significance in the article, and that there may be a case for letting that be taken into consideration when reviewing an A7 nomination, but when none of those references does much more than barely mention her, I find " obvious decline A7" (my emphasis) a surprising edit summary. ) JBW ( talk ) 20:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Personally I'd cut Ritchie some slack on that.  A7 is perhaps the tag most frequently used inappropriately, and I'm probably guilty of similarly snarky removal summaries too.  Ivanvector ( Talk / Edits ) 21:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] JBW User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 has further information, including the reasons for creating the criteria in the first place.  Incidentally, those reasons, to stop unregistered users creating articles like " Joel Snodgrass is the principal of Podunk High School, Idaho. He specialises in teaching math. " were stopped anyway by preventing IPs from creating articles in late 2005 following the Wikipedia biography controversy , and the further when non-confirmed editors stopped being able to create them in 2018, following this RfC .  Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks, User:Ritchie333 .  I have some more thoughts about this, which I will post on your talk page.  JBW ( talk ) 14:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - Putting aside the sock and likely UPE activity, I evaluated for notability alone.  The references on the page simply mention here with others and do not go into depth.  I found this in a search which talks more about here in-depth, but it isn't independent as it is full of quotes and says in the intro "in a conversation with" which indicates the majority of the content was supplied by her.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 21:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : I can only find links to a site called the "Logical Indian" via Gnews, unsure if it's a RS.  That's about all there is for this person.  Unless the Logical Indian is a RS, it's a delete for me.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 23:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: per forementioned reasons above.  Tumbuka Arch ( talk ) 11:49, 30 November 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete