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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 00:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadiya Hussain (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)

does not meet notability requirements Knights365 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per nom though she is conceivably a notable cook, which doesn't sound very notable overall. Curro2 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Disagree vehemently with deletion! Hussain won the The Great British Bake Off (series 6), which is a HUGELY popular show in England this past year -- to the point where she was so popular the Prime Minister David Cameron publicly weighed in to say he was supporting her in the competition. I think the nomination is a big mistake and reflects a possible bias towards American popular culture. Hussain is also notable because she is an observant Muslim who competed in a traditional British baking competition, wore a head scarf throughout, and made legendarily unflappable cook Mary Berry cry on public television. She is VERY notable and deserves an entry. Because of her popularity, she was the subject of anti-Muslim death threats. I could add more citations if that would be helpful. -- BrillLyle (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable. Lots of sources.--Ipigott (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In addition to being a wildly popular contestant on a wildly popular show, her appearance and post-show work has been noted as impacting cultural stereotypes about the Muslim community - I've just added in refs to the page indicating as much. The page has plenty of sources and is an important contribution to diversifying content about non-White women. Deleting it would be a mistake. Dnllnd (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: multicultural icon and all-round nice person. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If her only notability were winning a reality show, this should be merged into the article about the show. But her role as a columnist for a notable publication should qualify her for a separate BLP. Netrogeractor (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Her only notability is for winning a reality show, she should be merged into the article about the show. Inclusion will surely mean that all GBBO and reality TV winners are worthy of inclusion. (Knights365 (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)))— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knights365 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't predict the future. And we don't know if future winners (if there are any) will get their own column in The Sunday Times, make many appearances on wholly unrelated TV shows, and secure their own book-publishing deals, do we? Have you actually read the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You are the proposer and you're voting "weak delete"? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @Knights365: Your nomination itself implies a recommendation to delete. Per WP:AFDLIST "to avoid confusion nominators should refrain from explicitly indicating this recommendation again in the bulleted list of recommendations". Accordingly I've removed the bolded "delete" from the comment above, with the rest of the comment intact (nominators can certainly voice their opinions/arguments throughout the nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The nominator started this deletion request as a result of the CSD G4 deletion of their article Jo Wheatley (which was a recreation of the article deleted here). It appears to be a bit of a "tit-for-tat" nomination from an editor with a possible conflict of interest. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - sourcing satisfies WP:BIO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:57, 28 January 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.