Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shehnaz Khan

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. —Cryptic 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shehnaz Khan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist. Notability for the Happy Birthday video is a class BLP1E single even of no lasting importance. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG. Out of interest, what would you deem to be "notable" in terms of Journalism? Despite the Happy Birthday video, which to my understanding allowed the journalist in question to receive job offers, as well as internet fame and publicity - The person in question gained significance and notability after targeting the Urban genre of music and entertainment, for a mainstream publication that is of course, Yahoo. Yahoo Celebrity does not usually target that genre, as proven with a simple search of its website. The journalist has also previously written and conducted high profile interviews for national newspapers (such as the Daily Mirror) and two of the top five most visited news websites in the world, both Yahoo News and The Huffington Post. Please do let me know what can be done to consider this article of a higher importance. Apologies for any mistakes thus far, this is the first time I have submitted a piece for Wikipedia. James2370 00:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous2370 (talk • contribs)

What our notability guidelines require is media coverage in which the article topic is the subject of the coverage. None of our inclusion rules confer any notability freebies on people who are the bylined authors of media coverage — for her to qualify for an article on Wikipedia, she would need to be the subject, not the author, of sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that she has accomplished something that would get her past WP:CREATIVE. As written, that hasn't been demonstrated here in the slightest — so being able to say "she's written for X, Y and Z publications" has no bearing on her notability. If other people haven't written about her writing for X, Y and Z, then she doesn't get over the bar just because she's the bylined author of media coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also in regards to "non-notable journalist" there are many in the category of British Journalist stubs which also fit into that same description.James2370 00:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider neither Yahoo nor the Huffigton Post as reliable for establishing notability, searately or together. Neither has adequatre editorial control. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Web Ranking websites such as Alexa would disagree, see the ranking section of both Yahoo! News and The Huffington Post, the Wikipedia page for Alexa's most popular websites also suggests otherwise. The statement that neither has 'adequate editorial control' is purely opinion and not a fact backed up with evidence or references, both sites are hugely popular news aggregators with many experienced editors working to review work editorially.James2370 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous2370 (talk • contribs)

The Huffington Post is actually a problem, but not for the reason DGG suggested — rather, the issue here is that she has not been covered in The Huffington Post (which is what it would take for that publication to be in any way relevant to her notability), but is a contributor to The Huffington Post (which does not confer a notability freebie on a person who hasn't garnered media coverage about that fact). Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 20:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we need coverage of the subject, not by the subject. For the record, I think The Huffington Post is a problem for both reasons. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.