Imaan Zainab Mazari: The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Women ,  and Pakistan .  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating.  As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted.   The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV.  I'll leave it to the community to decide.  I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer.  The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events.  Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG , the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature.  Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance.  samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue.  She has consistently received press coverage-  both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 ( see this ) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT.  It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter.  Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications.  Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG.  The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014.  Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG.  With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here?  rspεεr ( talk ) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] off topic discussion @ Rspeer : personal disagreements.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It's ridiculous.  I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago.  If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] But I didn't even mention your name.  Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer , an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention.  This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM.  You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections .  Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search.  This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore.  --— Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Per WP:ANYBIO , award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News , a reliable source.  You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you.  I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist.  Sh eri ff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM.  However, the  WP:ANYBIO  also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability.  Regarding the citation of a Geo News video  as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source.  Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles.  Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking.  And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary.  I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me.  Following our disagreement on this BLP , you promptly nominated this for deletion.  Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith .  Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page.  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Meets GNG: BCC , TFT , etc.  Hameltion ( talk | contribs ) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/ WP:BASIC .  X ( talk ) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG).  The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions.  The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth , and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability .  War Wounded ( talk ) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't  demand individuals to have significant  achievements or unique contributions .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying.  After this prolong review before I ! vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keep ed.   My statement stands with War Wounded .  -- Twinkle1990 ( talk ) 16:45, 1 May 2024 (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