Unzela Khan : The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG.  Does not satisfy WP:N — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism , Pakistan ,  and United Kingdom .  — Saqib ( talk | contribs ) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors , Television ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete the article is not noteworthy.  Crosji ( talk ) 05:00, 4 May 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!  21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet ( talk ) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I disagree with the nominator.  A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS .  Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST .  She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR .  What's then needed for an article?  Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Courtesy ping to @ Saqib , @ Crosji , and @ Kotebeet for the argument per se.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones.  See here and here .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost.  The policy doesn't say anything like this.  Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR?  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable.  But may not require a article.  However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM.  While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV .  Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed.  Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors:  1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate.  This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made.  2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, " User:Kotebeet ," [ contributed approximately 80% of the content ], is no longer active on the platform.  This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor. -- Crosji ( talk ) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crosji , you are wrong here.  I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout.  I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG .  If you have any issue with the creator, then face them.  I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy".  Meaning?  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Crosji , also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here.  I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them.  However, this is a process and you can't vote twice.  Do remove any of the votes.  Thanks!  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 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: no consensus