Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Ali (actress)

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 keep. per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ali (actress)

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

Blp1e at best but fails pornbio and im not convinced this passes gng. Focus primarily on her being a muslim escort/porn performer is too unbalanced without additional notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the coverage of her status as a Muslim in porn does not fall under the WP:BLP1E exception. That porn unicorn status satisfies criteria 2 of WP:PORNBIO and coverage in Daily Beast [1], Broadly [2], International Business Times [3], India Today [4] and Daily Pakistan [5] satisfies the WP:GNG. The seeking of balance by the nomination is just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as user Morbidthoughts stated the coverage of her status as a Muslim in porn does not fall under the WP:BLP1E exception, and per the seeking of balance by the nomination is just another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Jobas (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google search shows that she passes the GNG. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not consider coverage to be significant and sufficiently independent. For example, the source providing the most citations is an interview: "Muslim Adult Performer Nadia Rani On Reconciling Her Job With Her Religion". I don't see encyclopedically relevant content here just yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created a dab page for the namesake of the subject last year. The article passes WP:GNG, with articles such as this one highlighting the fact that she "made headlines in February after critics from around the world levied death threats and other histrionic condemnations at her". I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Initial Google Search and Google News found enough sources to pass the notability criteria. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Elton-Rodrigues: Could you please list two or three sources that you'd consider particularly strong? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Yea sure. Here some of references I found related to Nadia Ali, I am listing

Daily Bhaskar - Click here
ABP News - Click here
Dailyo - Click here
International Business Times- Click here
Yibada - Click here
India Today - Click here
The Daily Beast - Click here
Indian Times - Click here
Daily Pakistan - Click here
Refinery29 - Click here
The Sun (United Kingdom) - Click here
Merinews - Click here
Broadly - Click here
International Business Times - Click here
Dainik Jagran - Click here

She has been extensively covered in international media. --Elton-Rodrigues (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I stand by my comment that these are not suitable. Most are retelling of the interview and some are just photo galleries. As in "look, a port actress wearing a hijab!!". I don't see this biography to be encyclopedically relevant; tabloid trivia at best. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as satisfying WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO; likelwise, whilst it is true that individually, some of the sources are weak, taken as a body they demonstrate a degree of WP:DEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE required by WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying all WP:PORNBIO, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG as explained above --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2017 (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.