Shenaaz Nanji: She is a private person and no longer wants a wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oilers1982 ( talk • contribs ) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3 ).   I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 16 .   — cyberbot I Talk to my owner :Online 03:08, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Are saying that you are acting in behalf of author of this article?  Probably creator of this article Princelibra !  Then creator have to apply WP:G7 .  Alright, sorry for misunderstanding.  The subject is the author/writer.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) * Delete : The nomination was bit confusing but this article lacks WP:SIGCOV as I don't find any significant coverage subjecting this author and fails WP:GNG .  Keep : Satisfied with Bearcat 's explanation and improvements in the article.  Thank you.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Women , Medicine ,  and Canada .  Skynxnex ( talk ) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  We can certainly discuss what information should or shouldn't be included in the article, if the subject has privacy concerns, but the question of whether a person gets a Wikipedia article or not is not their own decision to make, it's our notability criteria 's decision to make.  The subject is a writer who has received a nomination for Canada's top-level national literary awards, which is precisely the kind of inherent notability claim where we have to have something — every single person whose name appears in either 2008 Governor General's Awards (the year she got the nomination in) or Governor General's Award for English-language children's literature (the category) has to be either already a bluelinked article or fair game to have an article created as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be absolutely nobody in either of those articles who is ever off limits for us to have an article about: the importance of the award is such that we need to have an article about everybody who was nominated for it, and cannot deem some nominees to be special no-go cases for some other reason outside of the criteria.  Further, I suspect that the subject's real problem was the WP:SPA who's been spending several months trying to insert and revert-war over claims that the subject is part owner of an abortion clinic, while providing neither valid sourcing nor a reason why it would be Wikipedia's job to even give a flying honk in the first place — but that's not a reason to delete the article, it's a reason to resort to the other mechanisms (such as the temporary page protection I've already applied to it, and blocking the offending editor) that we have in place to protect our articles from abuse.  And, for added bonus, I'm in the middle of repairing the sourcing problems right now, so there isn't even a GNG failure in the first place.  Bearcat ( talk ) 13:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : While I appreciate your observations, could you please clarify if being nominated for a notable award without winning it, and lacking coverage in accordance with Wikipedia's significant coverage WP:SIGCOV , meets the criteria outlined in the General notability guideline WP:GNG ?  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 14:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Firstly, look at the article again, because she doesn't lack for SIGCOV — I've already added a whole bunch of solid sourcing from GNG-compliant publications.  Secondly, winning an award is not the base requirement for "notable because award" — for top-level awards, such as the Oscars, the Grammys or the most prominent national literary awards, that curate a shortlist of finalists between the "evaluation of all valid submissions" and "announcement of the ultimate winner" phases of the process, even just the nomination itself is a valid notability claim, because the nomination itself already represents a significant distinction over and above the 100 other peers who didn't get nominated at all.  Obviously there can sometimes still be cases where there's no other valid sourcing at all besides the technical verification of the nomination itself, thus posing a problem actually writing a GNG-compliant article — but as I already pointed out, that isn't applicable here, because I've already added improved GNG-compliant sourcing .  Bearcat ( talk ) 14:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for this explanation; it has greatly expanded my knowledge base.  ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri ( ✍️ ) 15:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with Bearcat 's reasoning.  Author is notable.  I'll also keep an eye on this article going forward since there's a SPA attacking it. -- SouthernNights ( talk ) 18:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the coverage uncovered by Bearcat since the beginning of this AfD demonstrate that the subject is notable enough for a dedicated page.  Horse Eye's Back ( talk ) 00:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on wide coverage.  I concur with Bearcat .  Sourcing demonstrates notability.  Easily meets WP:GNG .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 02:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep as per Bearcat .  Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk ) 23:38, 22 September 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: keep