Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (4th 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruzwana Bashir

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

Being an Oxford hack then later also being someone's girlfriend does not constitute notability. See Wikipedia:NOTNEWS & Wikipedia:BLP1E - it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event QC88 (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Articles about her were created, and deleted, years ago. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Ruzwana Bashir (final). Yes, this was so long ago (2004 and 2005) that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion was still called Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see much of a claim to notability here. She was president of the Oxford Union for one term (the Union elects a different president for each of the three terms each year), but being President of the Oxford Union is not enough to merit an article. We have articles about some past presidents, but that's because they went on to prominence in other fields, not just because they were presidents of the Union. We don't have articles about any of the other presidents from the last 17 years. The Oxford Union is, after all, just a student organization at a single university. She was the first British-born Asian female president of the Union, but there had been an Asian female president of the Union before Bashir herself was born. (That was Benazir Bhutto, who has a Wikipedia article, but because she was Prime Minister of Pakistan, not because she was president of the Union.) Adding the "British-born" qualification doesn't make this a breakthrough, because British-born students are not going to be at a disadvantage in running for president of a student organization at a British university. And reportedly she has dated an actor, but notability is not inherited and she has received little press coverage in regard to that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article feautres several RS discussing her. She is notable for three distinct events: the two Oxford Union elections and being the girlfriend of a notable actor. While each item in itself wouldn't be enough, all three together exclude BLP1E and make her notable. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only two, as "girlfriend of a notable actor" does not confer notability, unless there is significant amount of coverage (however, it could still be included in the article if the subject meets WP:BIO, as it can be verified by multiple sources). snigbrook (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said in fact that each item wouldn't be enough. The combination is pretty powerful however. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:N, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Moonraker2 (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Metropolitan90. Being girlfriend of some actor is pretty irrelevant, and presidency of Oxford Union doesn't look like position of sufficient notability.--Staberinde (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that presidency of Oxford Union would not result in inherent notability, but there is significant coverage from reliable sources. The fact that it was two similar events (although with different results), several months apart, may be enough to avoid WP:BLP1E. snigbrook (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC) Also the fact that coverage has continued, although less substantially, since 2004 also adds slightly to the notability. However, I don't have any strong opinions on whether articles such as this should be kept, merged or deleted (unless the subject requests deletion). snigbrook (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (again): since my comments above, I have added nore sources and also a note on Bashir's nomination for a Woman of the Year award. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90, the fact that she was British-born doesn't add anything to the fact that Benazir Bhutto was the first Asian woman before her, and that thwe citations are simply what you would expect for anyone who has held this position. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2009 (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.