Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nur Amalina Che Bakri (2nd 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nur Amalina Che Bakri[edit]

Vanity article, has already been deleted twice. Annie D (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough references in the article to show notability, but if you want to see more you can find plenty with Google News]. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete again Madman (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Delete. No encyclopedic value, little information or context, poorly written tidbit of non notable information. You said it Dad (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I originally closed this as delete but am letting it run some more in hopes of getting more input. Wizardman 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this has BLP1E written all over it. Besides, good scores on a Malaysian high-school test probably wouldn't even make the Guinness book, and certainly not a general-interest encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no encyclopedia value at all here. WP:BLP1E and WP:N both apply. Someone being in the news does not make them auto-notable. Wizardman 22:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. This person set an impressive record, but that lone record is their only claim to fame. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Skomorokh, good detective work. I'm convinced enough that this isn't BLP1E. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 23:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As usual, the delete !votes appear irresponsibly under-researched. It is true that if the only non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources is purely in the context of a single news event (i.e. the 17 A1's win), the subject fails WP:BLP1E. However, the Google News results Phil Bridger alluded to—which no-one subsequently seems to have bothered to check—reveal that coverage of Nur Amalina has extended beyond her 17 A1 feat: "Nor Amalina appointed education ambassador.", Asia Africa Intelligence Wire, 18-MAR-05; "Top scorer keeps `A' streak in England", New Straits Times, 03-18-2005; "Information Department Holds Patriotism Exhibition", Malaysian National News Agency, August 30, 2007;"Top scorer Nur Amalina meets her idol" New Straits Times, 04-14-2005; "Getting the best of a British education", New Straits Times, 10-02-2005. Skomorokh 23:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources adduced do not demonstrate sufficient notability to suggest this is not a BLP1E case. As such it should go. Eusebeus (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability of the subject is not in issue; the issue is whether the individual has received non-trivial coverage independent of the event, or whether the article should be moved and re-written to focus on the event. In neither case is deletion is an option consistent with our policies. Regards, Skomorokh 00:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreation of a deleted page. This is a WP:BIO vanity article. Many students may receive offers to study at Edinburgh University but that doesn't establish notability for them. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recreation of a deleted page and vanity are WP:PROBLEMS irrelevant to the notability of the subject. No-one is claiming that she is notable due to being offered to study at a university; she is notable because of the multiple instances - before and after her initial 17 A1 achievement - of non-trivial coverage. Could you please address your arguments to why this coverage is insufficient to establishing notability? Thanks, Skomorokh 14:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are certainly multiple reliable sources writing about her, so the key issue for notability is whether she is notable only for a single event. Note that the WP:BLP1E guidelines state Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. There is no larger subject here. She is the event. And furthermore, a review of the dates on the news articles are spread from 2005 through 2007 indicating sustained coverage that certainly rises above a one shot news item. Any other issues with the article can be dealth with through editting and are not grounds for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2008 (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.