Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bissan Rafe

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bissan Rafe[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The only SIGCOV article I can find is this one. There are a couple smaller items mentioned in the article under references, but overall I think this is WP:TOOSOON to meet our GNG guideline. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I managed to scrape together an article that should demonstrate WP:GNG. It'd be easier to get sources on the subject if she didn't have like five different names she's used at various times. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I merged two of the sources in the version you mention as meeting GNG. There were three sources written by Frederico Cao; of these two had identical content but slightly different titles. Merged. It's worth noting Frederico Cao's two articles, which are largely similar, are the only instances of real SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even the author doesn't care to keep it. See [1] Vexations (talk) 18:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Vexations. The input in AfD discussions of the subject of the article (be it an organisation, or a person) or its creator does not enjoy any kind of privilege over other editors'. The AfD is decided on the merit of policy-based arguments. (There are cases of potentially harmful BLPs, of course.) -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vexations comment, but even more so, I think this would be eligible for a WP:G5 speedy delete. Hopefully MJL didnt spend too much on the improvements after bringing this to attention... sorry... -2pou (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. NOT G5 eligible since author ban came after creation, but still voting this way per author not caring. -2pou (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2019 (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.