Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eshal Fayyaz

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. Michig (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eshal Fayyaz

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

This article was a mess of WP:FANCRUFT. I trimmed it down to actual cited information related to the article subject, but the problem that remains is that every single reference is a blog that fails WP:RS. It's entirely possible that it's a question of source language, but whoever started the article didn't even provide her name in Urdu. Other than that, one TV show doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. So no RS, and doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. MSJapan (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable living actress. The sources in the article do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have talked to MSJapan who has nominated it for deletion, I have also made some neutral contributions with some reliable Fashion, Modeling, TV industry websites. I think MSJapan did well by cleaning it, by nominating it for deletion would be unjust. As I am a native University Lecturer I know she is well known and now on anyone who is voting for this page first should do some work, and see the references. I don't have an army who would vote for keep, neither I am paid one. But I really think it would be illogical to delete this page, if you want to know more about her popularity you should invite some native editors from Pakistan they would be able to tell you whether is important or not. Sir MSJapan, please do consider these suggestions. Then you would know the exact position of her. The Reader Ahmed (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — The Reader Ahmed (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Awais Azad (talk • contribs). – Note: Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]

We need reliable sources and I don't see any at the moment. An example of reliable source would be coverage in Dawn or the Express Tribune. I searched but couldn't find anything except for this which is a list (and a bit of description) of 6 upcoming models. I couldn't find a single other reliable source for the subject. Also, there is a difference between notability and popularity. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was "spoken with" insofar as a message full of template boxes was left on my page and my edit to the article was reverted to add back in all the "she works very hard" fancruft. The editor does not understand what is required of an article here at WP, interestingly enough is not the creator of the article, and is nonetheless being disruptive. I'm AGFing insofar as I see SPAs already, but that is wearing thin. MSJapan (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock—UY Scuti ^Talk 07:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment

This is my closing argument, and I would not be the part of this conflict anymore. I think she is popular enough to have a Wikipedia page, as she has played lead role in Aabro, has been brand ambassador of dozens of brands, worked for many fashion designers in international shows and has more than hundred thousand followers on twitter, Facebook and instagram. Though there is less information and lack of some resources but my edits still have legitimate roots. MSjapan has been egoistic and reverted my well referenced edits three time, there was a reference for every sentence, the information was authentic and as WP says authentic information should not be removed. I tried to remind him the Wiki policies by sending him message and in return he doubted my neutrality. May be my tone was not as suitable as it was required then it was his duty to synchronize it as a good critique, reverting the entire edit is something that suggest something etc. So, I have fought enough for what I think is legitimate and right according to my research. I leave it to other senior editors who may research her and vote for keep or delete. The Reader Ahmed (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references of some magazines and fashion websites of Pakistan (Not blog, not personal gallery) you may find relevant to the subject after that I quit, do whatever is appropriate.

http://fashion360.pk/striped-snl-stylish-paris-shoot-in-she-magazine-2013/

http://fashion360.pk/contrast-fall-winter-collection-2013-for-girls/

http://www.dawn.com/news/1158018

http://images.dawn.com/news/1174324

http://tribune.com.pk/story/406734/the-sizzling-six/

https://www.ebuzztoday.com/tdaps-game-of-trends-tones-this-expo-2015/

http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/50-top-shining-and-emerging-female-models-of-pakistan-india-and-bangladesh

The Reader Ahmed (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd believe the above statement if this wasn't after the user posted another response on my talk page and reverted the article again. Since this behavior is apparently not going to stop until these "sources" are addressed, I'll do that, although I'm not entirely sure the behavior is going to stop at all. So here we go:

http://fashion360.pk/striped-snl-stylish-paris-shoot-in-she-magazine-2013/ - nothing but pictures, talks about Sofia Naveed the designer. Fayyaz is listed as the model. So the article is not about Fayyaz. Also, the byline says "posted by admin", which is a good indicator of a blog, whereas a magazine would have a writer.
http://fashion360.pk/contrast-fall-winter-collection-2013-for-girls/ - nothing but pictures, talks about the brand. Fayyaz is only named as the model, and also "posted by admin" as above.
http://www.dawn.com/news/1158018 - Fayyaz is mentioned once, along with three other models in the same sentence. That's all.
http://images.dawn.com/news/1174324 - "Behind the scenes" Q&A with 7 models. Fayyaz is the last. This isn't significantly about her, nor is it really about her as a person, it's about her beauty care. That is trivia and one of the reasons there are major problems with notability of models, because nobody asks questions that give insight into the person; they ask "how do you do your hair?"
http://tribune.com.pk/story/406734/the-sizzling-six/ - Another "bulk article" where there's a brief profile (somewhere on the page) along with five other people. Her fitness regime, favorite models, best feature, all that is again, trivia. We can use this for birthdate and location, and that's about it. The rest of it simply isn't useful.
https://www.ebuzztoday.com/tdaps-game-of-trends-tones-this-expo-2015/ - Her name is mentioned once in a list of models. That's trivial coverage.
http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/50-top-shining-and-emerging-female-models-of-pakistan-india-and-bangladesh - 50 people, each with three lines apiece and a bunch of photos. This is everything it says: "This young and enthusiastic Pakistani fashion model is becoming popular in shoots, ramps and walks quickly. Eshal Fayyaz was born on October 21, 1993. She is also regularly appearing in television commercials for different brands." Not only is the writing poor, all that's here is her birthday and that she does commercials. We already know that from other sources.

There is nothing here that establishes notability. Of the seven sources given, 6 do not even mention her or are trivial coverage, and the seventh doesn't have any material of value that we don't already have from some other source, and that's only her birthdate and place. MSJapan (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coordinated paid-editing to promote a model with no evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and is not notable for inclusion under WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. — Sam Sailor ^Talk! 07:22, 4 August 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.