Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saarah Hameed Ahmed (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. This AFD debate has received very high levels of participation, including some very detailed and well researched arguments. I cannot, however, established a clear consensus to delete nor to keep. Given the substantial input that there has already been, and given a previous AFD debate that went to a keep in 2015 (albeit one with very minimal participation and nowhere near this level of analysis), I am not convinced that relisting at this time would yield any more of an actionable outcome. As such, I am closing this as a no consensus. (Finally, I note that the issue of paid editing is not in and of itself an issue for AFD, and this taking place on any article does make it any more or less eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. As such, I have discounted these concerns.) KaisaL (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saarah Hameed Ahmed

AfDs for this article:
Saarah Hameed Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. for (;;) (talk) 12:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As I pointed out in the first AfD on this subject, she already passes GNG. She is significantly covered by several major news sources. That's all that has to happen in order to pass GNG. This 2nd AfD feels like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Megalibrarygirl, I didn't see the previous nomination 'til after I'd posted, so not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I did reconsider once I saw it, but the maths of 500+ religions * 2 genders * 200+ nationalities suggests that there would be over 200000 notable airline pilots. That's not notability. for (;;) (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For (;;), it is notable if she's been covered by several reliable sources, making her pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unquestioned coverage in third party sources, more than adequate indicia of notability, significant ground-breaking role. Snow keep, this is a WP:POINTy nom and should not have been made. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, if there's any "POINT" it's that the contributions of sockpuppets merit reconsideration in the full context of the author's behaviour. The article may escape G5 by virtue of timing, but that doesn't mean it should get a free pass. Happy editing, for (;;) (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The editor can have their account blocked for bad behavior, but the article should stand on its own merits. Montanabw(talk) 00:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be an undisclosed paid editing case. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject has merits, sourcing. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:BLP1E, fails WP:V (see below for disputed claims of being the "first") and undisclosed paid editing. I deliberated over this for a while but I do not see a claim of notability nor that this is something "groundbreaking".
  1. I can understand if the subject was the first woman commercial pilot in India, but she is not (there were 600 of them before her in India). It should be noted that compared to other countries, India already has a higher proportion of female pilots at 11.6% In contrast, the US has less then 6% female pilots and the global average is 3%. Just because she is a Muslim doesn't give her a claim of notability. Had she done something more, like establishing a foundation or scholarship or fought for some rights, I might have considered. This is essentially BLP1E territory. If you take away the fact that she is Muslim, the person just wouldn't have a claim of significance. I do not see any other claims of significance either.
  2. Disputed claim. I'm not sure if she is actually the first. There is another claim which states "Capt. Syeda Salva Fatima, the only Muslim woman in India to hold the commercial pilot’s licence" (See also [1]). There are other news sites which state Saarah Hameed Ahmed is the only Muslim women pilot from Karnataka, a state in India.
  3. I have to agree with User:For (;;)'s statement that FOUR selectors (religion, gender, nationality and occupation) to establish her qualification as a "first person" is not notability at all. Had it been "race/ethnicity" instead of religion, I may have been more sympathetic as race is something a person cannot choose. But religion is an ideology and person's choice; so I don't see why a person should be notable simply because of their affiliation with a religion. Even in cases of religion, I may have been sympathetic if there was some evidence of institutional discrimination against people of a certain religion from taking up a particular occupation or if it was a persecuted religious minority. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.
  4. This is an undisclosed paid editing article and I am not sympathetic to it, particularly when notability is shaky.
Overall, this is a delete for me. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read this article to say she is the first muslim woman pilot, which, in mostly-Hindu India seems like a big deal as there is both a gender and and an ethnic barrier. But anyway, what proof do we have that this is a paid editing article? Let's not throw out these accusations without proof. Montanabw(talk) 21:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree to that. There is no evidence of an institutional "religious barrier" and "gender" barrier. 600 other woman plots were already serving before her. And while India is a Hindu majority, there is no evidence that it denies Muslims from becoming commercial pilots. Should there be evidence, I might change my mind. But till now I have not found any. I would also be cautious at looking at the Islamophobic angle - it is incorrect to assume that just because the West suffers from it, the whole of the world suffers as well. The situation is much more nuanced. As an example, over here in Singapore, Muslims are 15% of the population, but we live together in harmony and Muslim women are not barred from any occupation. Our neighbouring countries are Malaysia and Indonesia which are significant Muslim majorities, so we don't really see our local Muslims as "disadvantaged" or "oppressed" as some people in the West think all Muslims are. Which is why, unless it can be shown that the subject suffered from some kind of institutional barrier, I am not very sympathetic to this single claim.
  • This is without doubt a paid editing work. You can have a look at the contributions of the author to verify. In addition, the article itself gives away that it is a paid editing work; certain details present in the article are not there in any citations I could find. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the editor blocked? If so, please link to block log. If the article has citation issues, that's different, but I see no reason not to try and improve the article. And seriously, discrimination against women exists EVERYWHERE, and a person has to have to have their head in the sand to think that any dominant culture does not discriminate against a minority culture. Singapore is not India. If a person thinks that institutional barriers are all that exist to prove discrimination, anywhere in the world, that is nonsense. Extremely oppressive governments can have a superficial "equality" policy while simultaneously never managing to hire anyone from a lower-prestige group. Montanabw(talk) 06:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per above arguments. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep The article subject passes WP:GNG because of all the sources mentioned above. Whoever created the article, whether a disclosed paid editor or not, does not keep the subject from being notable or from passing GNG. I agree with the Drover's Wife. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, and I'll note that something being the product of paid editing does not in and of itself make an article worthy of deletion. Keilana (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – based on the arguments of Lemongirl942 findings and for (;;) for the four reasons of religion, gender, nationality and occupation. It's easily a BLP1E. Adog104 Talk to me 00:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. This has nothing to do with paid editing. This level of cross-categorization does not establish notability. What's next, the first transgender Mormon plumber in Choa Chu Kang? SSTflyer 02:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reason given in previous AfD. The sources (karnatakamuslim.com, australianmuslimtimes.com, islamicvoice.com, iinanews.org, mvslim.com) which seemingly make her appear pass GNG are not "independent" because they promote a specific religion and their coverage of the subject for being associated with this religion should not be considered as independent. The currentaffairsonline.in is not even WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Please add "professional pilot" as the fifth selector. A certain Hijab Imtiaz Ali is noted to be the first Indian Muslim woman pilot dating to 1936. Women's studies in India: contours of change, Volume 2001, page 53 Of course, that was undivided India then and she was flying privately and not in commercial airlines; which probably were none in India then. The so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources I listed above should be gauged well in light of this information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Woah Dharmadhyaksha, thanks for digging that up! I just found more references [2],[3] that Hijab Imtiaz Ali was actually notable and that she may have been the first woman pilot (irrespective of religion) in South Asia. I'm probably going to write an article about her. I'm glad the claims were examined. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the translation. So Hijab Imtiaz Ali was the first Muslim woman pilot in the Indian subcontinent and Rabia Futehally was also another one. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Probably needs an edit to say that it newspapers have claimed her to be the first, but that other persons were the actual first. The articles on her provide the notability required - and frankly, if this was a case where a Christian newspaper was making a religious based claim about someone, this wouldn't be here. However, it has resulted in further information being brought to light that will be able to balance the article. Miyagawa (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miyagawa, this WOULD be here because it was created by a sockpuppeteer who had created several unrelated puff pieces for people of dubious notability. If you want to ignore WP:AGF and accuse me of religious bigotry please take it straight to WP:ANI. for (;;) (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I accuse you of nothing. I have no idea who you are, and have never interacted with you before. Nor were you the person whose comments I was referring to. That being said, I wasn't attempt to claim anyone was a religious bigot here either, just possibly some subconscious bias. I take umbrage at the suggestion that an Australian Muslim news source is not worthy as a reliable source because it is either a) Australian or b) Muslim (there would be obviously other valid reasons for a source to be unreliable, but that wasn't what was said). I was trying to state that if something had been published in the The Christian Post about an American Christian then we wouldn't question the authority of the source. Much like if something was published in any other specialist newspaper (whether religious or otherwise) that deals with a defined topic. For example, a Japanese magazine on plumbing would still be a reliable source when talking about Japanese plumbing. Concerns about the magazine promoting plumbing generally as employment, perhaps to the detriment of other forms of employment, would be irrelevant if we were discussing an AFD on Japanese toilet manufacturing. Miyagawa (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Miyagawa, the problem here is that the only claim to notability has been debunked here. What do you have to say to that? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to notability is no longer that she is the first. Now the notability is based in that the sources claimed she was the first, with the information that she wasn't presented as a counterpoint within the article. I worked on the Delaval Astley article a while ago, who you probably haven't heard of but he has been held up by several reliable sources as being the only person in the history of the Olympic Games to have won medals for two different countries. Complete rubbish as it turns out, and was a mistake due to a misunderstanding of how something was written in a report by the British Curling Association - he never even played at the Olympics. But he too remains notable for the claim that he won two medals, not because he won two medals. Miyagawa (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Miyagawa:. The problem here is that NO reliable source ever said she was the "first Muslim (even commercial) pilot from India" - only certain unreliable sources said so. Hence, there is no claim of notability here. This article fails WP:V and much of the content is being supported by unreliable sources. The Australian Muslim source that you are talking about - I tried opening the website and Google chrome says the site has malware. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The australianmuslimtimes.com has been removed as stated above by Lemongirl1942. If Miyagawa thinks other mentioned sources are WP:RS, they will have to prove that individually. These sources are hardly being used on EnWiki as of now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for being notable enough to have own article. There are multiple in-depth coverage about her in mainstream media such as [4], [5], [6] etc and her struggle against odds have also been documented[7]. If we can have article on Prem Mathur, Nivedita Bhasin etc. then we can definitely have this article. Jiahimedluke (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But there is no enduring and persistent claim of notability and this is a BLP1E. She is NOT the first Muslim-woman-pilot in India. The claim got debunked. Just being the "only known Muslim among the 600-odd women pilots employed in the Indian aviation sector" at present is no claim of notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not convinced with Dharmadhyaksha's claim of so called first+indian+muslim+woman+pilot propaganda spread by pro-muslim sources unless he can establish this with reliable sources. I don't think the claim of first Muslim-woman-pilot in India got debunked because according to that source, Hijab Imtiaz Ali was first female muslim pilot during 1936 when India was not an independent nation and Pakistan and Bangladesh were not formed. Hijab Imtiaz Ali wasn't even a commercial pilot. Jiahimedluke (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims and descriptors
  • First Indian woman pilot in pre-independence India - Sarla Thakral
  • First Indian Muslim woman pilot in pre-independence India - Hijab Imtiaz Ali
  • First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India (employed in the aviation sector) - Prem Mathur
  • First Indian woman commercial pilot in post-independence India to command a plane (employed in the aviation sector)- Durba Banerjee
  • First Indian (Muslim) woman pilot in post-independence Indiato receive private pilot license - Rabia Futehally [8],[9]
  • First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot license - Syeda Salva Fatima
  • (Possible) First Indian Muslim woman pilot in post-independence India to receive commercial pilot licence and also be employed in the aviation sector - Saarah Hameed Ahmed
Sorry, but this is stretching the notability a bit too far for something which is a BLP1E. In addition, NO reliable source confirms that the subject was "first Indian muslim woman pilot employed in the aviation industry". I would like to see if someone can show me such a reliable source. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the first Indian film was made in pre-Independent India, we do not hail any film as first+indian+post-independence+film. We don't do such for first dam, first electricity plant, first female doctor, first female teacher, first railway line, etc. Such crappy senseless added adjectives of first post-independence are need for people who lack notability but still need publicity and internet coverage. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not fail WP:GNG. Article could use clean up and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BIO1E is not applicable here, that is the standard for people famous for a single incident (and that "rule" is inconsistently applied, else why does Lawnchair Larry still exist?). Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not make the argument any better than Lemongirl942 did above. 208.81.212.224 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there's still enough questionability about the depth and overall substance for this article, it's best deleted because, while the claim is convincing enough, the questionability still stays noticed. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:SwisterTwister, you fail to notice that WP:N presents a presumption of notability, not the other way around. Lack of notability is what needs to be established, and even though the "first Muslim woman pilot in India" has been debunked, we still need to look at general GNG... she has independent, third-party coverage that meets GNG. She doesn't have to leap tall buildings in a single bound! Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Independent? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to List of firsts in India. We cannot have articles for non-notable and trivial issues like this. In June, I marked page Veerath Bharathi for CSD who was "Bengaluru's first woman cab driver". What next, India's first female Bengali female plumber or India's first Hindu female break-dancer???? Where does this end. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Various sources, and those were far better and notable newspaper sources than the pro-muslim agenda sources I listed above, were mentioning a certain Raj Narayan Dube as notable. Post Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raj Narayan Dube, the article was proved to be a hoax and deleted for his notability was questioned and no actual reliable sources of his era were found to establish his notability. In similar case here, we should not allow a Wikipedia space for someone with whom some newspapers have been generous enough to not fact check but simple sprang to grab interviews based on her sole notability which has been refuted. Such hoaxes should not be promoted even though many sources provide GNG passage of the topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of above, but keep some content as per all of above. Replace with an article along the lines of History of Indian female aviation with all of the firsts listed by Lemongirl942 under claims and descriptors with a few paragraphs each. I think such would be an interesting encyclopedic article, easily with sufficient multiple RSS per paragraph. (Repeating myself again:) but if people put as much effort into arguing for and against and article into the article itself it might be well on the way to being a GA. There is a lot of good research above if someone would just pull it altogether into a fact consistent article. Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do like the idea of a list or history article, a better title that avoids "female" in favor of "women" would by History of women's aviation in India. Also avoids the confusion of Native American "Indians" with Asian "Indians." I also agree that the bandwidth spent here should go to improving articles; sadly, when one is confronting a herd of deletion advocates, the priority has to be to stop the bleeding with a few rough stitches before prettifying the article. Montanabw(talk) 06:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea but I'm very firm on deleting this article. Considering the fact that Wikipedia is a widely used source and WP:V is essential, I shudder to think the number of readers who have read and got the wrong info from this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Saarah_Hameed_Ahmed_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089521047"