From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nosheen Ehtesham

Nosheen Ehtesham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This can't be a Snow Keep with some editors advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:NTENNIS. I acknowledge their importance in some circles but there's a reason the notability guidelines are like that, after all, this is Wikipedia, not Tennispedia Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 00:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the 4th relisting. It was an oversight on my part. But because of the nature of the AFD daily logs, I don't believe a relisting can be undone. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's apparently in the lowest tier of such awards, and the list of recipients in that page suggests not all of them are noteworthy. Also ANYBIO explicitly states that meeting one of its criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included", which is confirmed by the GNG and NTENNIS failure. Avilich ( talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbaised RS about the subject. I don't believe this passes GNG, NTENNIS, or NBASIC.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or redirect to Tennis in Pakistan. These kind of players are usually notable but due to media bias it is hard to find coverage. Pakistani media was mostly offline when she played tennis and as there is no digitalized archive of Pakistani newspaper so the best coverage we have is already mentioned above. 175.107.237.193 ( talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Unsubstantiated claims about media "bias" and "offline sources" don't change the fact that no SIGCOV is available, and SIGCOV is required per WP:SPORTBASIC. Avilich ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not just an excuse, but a considerable fact that Pakistani English and Urdu newspapers from the 1990s and earlier, have not been digitized. This is why we have "additional criteria" for such biographies. A player who participated in the international contests and received a state award must have had more press coverage than that we now find on internet. Insight 3 ( talk) 03:58, 4 March 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 03:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Nosheen Ehtesham

Nosheen Ehtesham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This can't be a Snow Keep with some editors advocating Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete - fails WP:NTENNIS. I acknowledge their importance in some circles but there's a reason the notability guidelines are like that, after all, this is Wikipedia, not Tennispedia Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 00:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd rather not close this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the 4th relisting. It was an oversight on my part. But because of the nature of the AFD daily logs, I don't believe a relisting can be undone. Liz Read! Talk! 20:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It's apparently in the lowest tier of such awards, and the list of recipients in that page suggests not all of them are noteworthy. Also ANYBIO explicitly states that meeting one of its criteria "does not guarantee that a subject should be included", which is confirmed by the GNG and NTENNIS failure. Avilich ( talk) 06:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: My main concern is this is a BLP and I think the sourcing is not there. I don't think it clears the independent RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth test. BLPs need to be completely based on clearly independent unbaised RS about the subject. I don't believe this passes GNG, NTENNIS, or NBASIC.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or redirect to Tennis in Pakistan. These kind of players are usually notable but due to media bias it is hard to find coverage. Pakistani media was mostly offline when she played tennis and as there is no digitalized archive of Pakistani newspaper so the best coverage we have is already mentioned above. 175.107.237.193 ( talk) 15:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Unsubstantiated claims about media "bias" and "offline sources" don't change the fact that no SIGCOV is available, and SIGCOV is required per WP:SPORTBASIC. Avilich ( talk) 21:24, 3 March 2023 (UTC) reply
This is not just an excuse, but a considerable fact that Pakistani English and Urdu newspapers from the 1990s and earlier, have not been digitized. This is why we have "additional criteria" for such biographies. A player who participated in the international contests and received a state award must have had more press coverage than that we now find on internet. Insight 3 ( talk) 03:58, 4 March 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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook