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. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Kay[edit]

Zara Kay (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)

• delete: Due to significant issues. The below points are an overview on why this article needs to be deleted

WP:NPOV – this article has not been written with a neutral point of view. It sounds like a PR firm has written it as noted by Deacon Vorbis in May 2020. WP:VERIFY – This articles lacks enough verifiable sources, citations are from three tabloid Australian tabloid outlets with sensationalized headlines. Moreover the reliability of the other two sources can be disputed, Armin Navabi's personal podcast is not at all a reliable source as per Wikipedia Standards. We have placed insufficient source tags for over 7 months and there have not been any additions or better sources added to this article. WP:WWIN and WP:ORIGINAL – This article does not have any substantial biography or notability. It is not what Wikipedia is, the biography of this living person should not be on Wikipedia due to the lack of notability. The person has NOT received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. The person has NOT made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, although this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field"

Tahadharamsi (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tanzania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 03:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

*Delete Coverage is very one-off and fails to thoroughly establish the notability of the subject. If subject receives as much coverage again without depending on any other similar subject's coverage then the article can be recreated. Orientls (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per lengthy explanation provided by Normal Op. Orientls (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is a terrible place for such articles, and they shouldn't be included. -- John Larsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.134.17 (talk) 06:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC) — 212.237.134.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep: This article is vital to the open pursuit of Free Speech & Inquiry, and must be kept.
  Zara Kay, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, is a courageous heroine of great notability and repute in the Atheist community. She rescues asylum seekers, campaigns tirelessly as a voice for the voiceless, and her work is published/referenced/featured all over the world, with five quick examples coming from India, Netherlands, Bulgaria, USA, and the United Kingdom. She is the founder of a support group for dissenting voices that speak out against sectarian militias hellbent on silencing dissent. Removing this article gives them exactly that. The arguments for deletion say the article is not "what Wikipedia is", but as Wikipedia is a general reference work, I would argue the article is precisely "what Wikipedia is". Keep it. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep: This article and it's citations give off a strong PR vibe and it looks like that the subject might have had some say in the contents of the article. There isn't sufficient long time coverage to establish notability; fails GNG. Regarding additional sources provided by Ylleknivek, Youth Ki Awaaz is not considered to be a reliable source (RSN discussion) and neither is Times of India (RSN RFC). Times of India is specially notorious for taking money for publishing bullshit. I don't know much about the non-Indian sources but they also seem unreliable on a glance. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC) Normal Op has presented a good keep argument keep argument, I think I agree with them. But someone should still look into the PR thing though, PR and advocacy like this does incredible amounts of damage to Wikipedia. Too many new accounts coming out of woodworks on this AfD. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete: As mentioned this article lacks neutrality, notability and trusted sources. All the sources provided by Ylleknivek are unreliable and self-serving. YKA (Pakistan) is noted as non-reliable source. DDS (Netherlands) is right winged blog again not reliable. The CFI (USA) is from a non-profit news release, again a non-neutral source - a non-profit will publish releases that further their cause and not from a NPOV. Explanation for Times of India has been explained by TryKid. As for this article being "What Wikipedia is" - it most definitely is not what Wikipedia is. This person does not meet the standards for a biography on Wikipedia, their contributions to the cause are not significant or notable. The use of this article has come acroos as a PR gimmick. Having a couple of citations and a small social media following does not make one notable, I tried to look for the subjects "support group" but have not come across any tangible effects of her works. I refer Ylleknivek to the policy WP:NPF, WP:AVOIDVICTIM in addition to this article having 0 primary sources, disputed secondary sources, non-verifiable content, being self-promoted, and promoting propaganda. Tahadharamsi (talk) 08:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Duplicate vote struck. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are some more keep comments in the article's talk page so any closer might want to look at them. Also, I've notified the creator of the article about this discussion, which it seems wasn't done. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 08:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I still stand with my stance, the discussion on the talk page further enhances my point that this article is a PR piece and is not What Wikipedia Is - "Zara is awesome and deserves her own Wikipedia article in order to spread awareness of who she is and what she does" the talk page comments are opinions and not a defense to the points of this debate. Moreover, they seem to have appeared due to the article's subject rallying support on Twitter. Furthermore admits to "being interviewed" for their Wikipedia Article^[1] I have reminded the talk page contributors to review WP:ADVOCACY in order to understand why I have proposed the AfD. Tahadharamsi (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was brought to my notice in my talk page hence will not vote but could find some coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]}

• Weak delete Neutral Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and no matter how much she may support free speech, she may not meet WP:GNG. Looking at the sources presented by Ylleknivek, #1 is a passing mention in an interview ("many notable people such as Armin Navabi, Troy Garnaut, Zara Kay helped me to rescue. The process took over a year to complete"), #2 is referencing her, quoting something she said, but it isn't about her. It's coverage of Rahaf Mohammed. #3 calls her one of the most "visible ex-Muslim women" (or at least google translate does), but it's again only a passing mention. Further, the nlwiki article on the website calls it a "right weblog" and says it is " regularly accused of bringing fake news and writing articles to provoke outrage"-- not exactly inspiring confidence in its reliability. #4 is a 115 word article on her in a source I can find nothing on in English, suggesting it's not all that well known. #5 publishes an essay by her, so by definition it isn't independent. #6 is again just a passing mention. If notability is to be established, she must be clearly shown to have in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, see WP:GNG. In the article, the article in The Australian seems to be rather in-depth, though it's closer to an interview then news. News.com.au is actually decent towards notability. #s three and four are generally unreliable sources per WP:RSP, and the last source is briefly quoting her. WP:BASIC states that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." However, while there are a lot of sources that mention her in passing, quote her while covering somebody else, only two actually are in-depth, and one is more like an interview than in-depth coverage. That being said, if there were a few more sources, she might be notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Striking my vote as Normal Op has some valid analysis. Combined, all the sourcing makes this a very borderline case, so for what it's worth I'll register a neutral vote. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The 'passing mentions' to which Eddie891 refers are valid under WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY source policy and serve to establish the merits of notability. Attacking the examples as "publishing bullshit", as TryKid libels above, is logical fallacy Ad Hominem, and as such the argument falls. Tahadharamsi's claim 'the article lacks enough verifiable sources' is specifically listed by Wikipedia as an Argument to Avoid in Deletion Discussions (WP:RUBBISH), from Surmountable Problems: "Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." (WP:SURMOUNTABLE) Furthermore, saying there "aren't enough examples" moves the goalposts back, for how many are enough? This is an informal fallacy and shows an error in reasoning. That said, while my previous examples were all print media, here is one from broadcast media, coming from a channel with millions of views and over 440,000 YouTube subscribers, looking to Zara Kay's voice precisely because this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field of Dissent, successfully refuting the initial point. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ylleknivek:, commenting on the veracity of the sources isn't "libel" or ad hominem. If you're actually interested in why Times of India has such bad reputation, you can read more at User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media and User:Ms Sarah Welch/sandbox/Paid news and private treaties. Also, your Facebook video link is broken and note that we need reliable sources, the number of subscribers and viewers don't matter. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @TryKid: the link to Sky News Australia is a reliable source, and Sky News is one of the least biased and most reliable media organizations according to comprehensive media bias resources. The link --embedded in Facebook-- works fine on my end, tested with 4 different browsers on both mobile and desktop. --Ylleknivek (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The citations are reliable sources, the article has been enhanced, it was never lacking for citations, and the subject (Zara Kay) is notable. The appropriate policy for guidance of notability for an article about a person is Wikipedia:Notability (people), not WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right", which would be Wikipedia:Notability (people) (NBIO). See WP:BASIC for a short paragraph on NBIO criteria. This article, and its subject Zara Kay, meet that criteria. There is "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". And if you don't agree it's substantial then I point you to there being "multiple independent sources combined to demonstrate notability." Those primary source citations, such as podcasts, have been used in the article solely to support simple biographical information such as religion of upbringing, nationality of father, university attended, age and date of immigration to Australia, participation in religious activity, and community backlash after stopping wearing a hijab. None of those facts are controversial, nor are needed to establish notability. The subject meets NBIO's notability criteria. For these reasons, we should keep the article.

Continued: Now to counter the delete-side... The nomination is seriously flawed. The nominator called every source a non-reliable source or a tabloid (including The Australian, News Corp Australia, Youth Ki Awaaz and De Dagelijkse Standaard) when only one source (Daily Star) is tagged as such at WP:RSPSOURCES (and that citation could easily be swapped out with some other). Nom has used scare quotes and loaded language to express contempt of the subject (tabloid, "field", sensationalized headlines, gimmick, small social media following), expressed impatience at the length of time this article has been sitting unfinished (see WP:IMPATIENT), and tried to set the bar for notability higher than Wikipedia requires (no significant award, no nominations, no enduring historical record, their contributions to the cause are not significant). Nom expressed a negative opinion about the subject and her accomplishments ("this may be disputed but the fact of the matter is their contribution has not made an impact in their respective "field" "), and has scolded with WP:ADVOCACY no less than three times in the last two days. Nom complained about the two who posted on the Talk page and argued that it somehow proved "that this article is a PR piece", but neither of them have edited the article nor !voted here. It seems to me that nom has been manifesting advocacy behavior throughout this AfD process, and is a single-purpose account — with 18 of their 27 edits dedicated to the deletion of this article, including their second edit which was a PROD request (which failed), and the next 8 dedicated to reaching the 10-post threshold needed to obtain auto-confirmed status and edit the article themselves and re-submit the PROD on this semi-protected article as their (exactly) tenth post! For a wiki account with just 27 edits under its belt, the nom has exceeded all speed records for "0 to experienced" AfD debater and wikilawyer. I would like to know under which other username nom has been editing so I can see their edit history. But I digress. As demonstrated above, nom has failed to present in good faith a logical argument for "lack of notability", and has failed to prove his case for the deletion of the article. (NPOV, V & OR issues can always be corrected, if they even exist here, but are not a reason for article deletion.) Therefore keep the article.

— Normal Op (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Like other human beings she deserves the rights of free speech and to choose her religion, but that does not make her notable. Nika2020 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real coverage, so fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. There is a gbook ref but that is all. There is insufficient notability here to establish even WP:BASIC. The first three are primary, failing WP:THREE. They should be rock solid, but they are not. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are enough news-related sources, and the coverage is significant there. The Google book source, published by Springer Publishing, also helps establish WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment

1) I wonder why women related article deletion notice has not been listed on most active women related projects Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green

2) Personally I do not doubt notability. Availability of references valid to Wikipedian norms and actual notability are different aspects.

3) Article creation seems to be of 2019, If at all any advocacy happened in May 2020 then simply control & ignore it. We can not say Donald Trump to be not notable because he does advocacy of himself. Notabilty is independent aspect.

4) I came across this article deletion notice from creators talk page, and it seems I am already late here otherwise I could have taken a chance to improve it.- And if article remains in article namespace or in draft namespace I will spend time on it.

5) I still feel you list this article on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Green . And if at all admins don't find it satisfactory enough - I don't say so- send it to draft.

6) I suppose two scholarly references are behind pay restricted walls which I cant access Google scholar, "Humanists in the Hood," by Dr. Sikivu Hutchins

Bookku (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your (1) item: By adding an article to Deletion sorting/Women, it is picked up by Women in Red, and this AfD is listed there. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts#AfD. Looks like the Women in Green project doesn't have a place where they list AfDs. Normal Op (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this update. IMHO. As I said above notability is not issue. The issue is formal media has not covered her as much. Even if deletion succeeds for time being -her notability for other ex-Muslim related articles going to remain. Wiping out her notability in entirety going to be difficult. Eventually she is going to find much more place in books and memoirs of Ex-Muslims and eventually article about her will make a come back at some point, if at all gets deleted. Thanks again. Bookku (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Normal Op and recent article enhancement. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 1 June 2020 (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.