Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanya Ismail

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I've checked several of the Arab links listed below and they are indeed all copies of the same press release, not contributing anything to notability. Randykitty (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanya Ismail[edit]

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

Fanya Ismail (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)

One of 9 recipients of the 2019 "Women in Innovation" award which is given to the "UK’s most innovative female-led businesses|.[1] Sources in the article are a mix between the subject's own published work, fairly local/minor coverage of the award (often with others), and some routine PR (e.g. this has a blurb on Ismail giving a talk). Not close to meeting GNG or meeting NPROF. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep she's the only Kurdish woman to ever win the Women in Innovation award, which very few women win per year Jesswade88 (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)User:Jesswade88, It is customary to state that you are page creator when commenting at AfD.[reply]
    She's a UK resident since 1995, and ethnic origin has no bearing on notability. Multiple women are awarded the "Women in Innovation award" every year (9 in 2019), and this is a minor award that isn't close to meeting WP:ANYBIO(1).Icewhiz (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remind page creator, whose face page states: "I use wikipedia to upload the biographies of women, black and minority ethnic and LGBTQ+ scientists who are contributing/ have contributed hugely to science and engineering but haven't had the attention that they deserve... I try and make biography page a day." that we are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we not do that please? Focus on the merits of the article not the person who made the article. Great wrongs indeed. -- GreenC 16:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, struck. Just focus on the article content is it OK for Wikipedia. -- GreenC 16:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've searched, and I cannot find WP:SIGCOV for this product developer/scientist who was one of several persons to win an annual non-notable award.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I also contributed to this article, and I honestly cannot believe that we are having a deletion discussion on one of the few Kurdish female scientists who passes notability. I totally disagree with the idea that her ethnicity has no bearing on this discussion, because our community recognises that women, and especially ethnic minority women, tend to be overlooked by the media, and yet there are a ton of good references available in this case. The fact that this woman has won a prestigious award for her work despite being an ethnic minority woman scientist proves beyond reasonable doubt that she more than meets notability. Jwslubbock (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make an interesting point. And yet, of I wasn't aware that this article was written for the reasons you and page creator Jesswade88 have presented, I would assume that it was mere PROMO for a non-notable tech start up. We really do have an obligation to judge an article about an "ethnic minority woman" by the same standards we use to judge articles about other humans. In this case,, the claim to notability is winning the very minor "Women in Innovation" award given to 9 women in the year she won. A minor industry award does not make teh leader of a minor tech start-up notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well you would assume wrongly. I run a project as part of my work with Wikimedia UK called the Kurdish Wikipedia Project. I monitor press who are talking about notable Kurdish people, and then try and create articles for them. I improved or created 25 articles for Kurdish women as part of Women's History Month. I suggested to Jess to start this page because not only was she a Kurdish woman, but a scientist, and Jess works on improving and creating pages for women in STEM disciplines. Jess created the page and I improved it as part of both of our work to reduce the gender gap on Wikipedia. Neither of us is connected with the subject. However, deleting this page would be seriously discouraging to both of our hard work in trying to reduce gender bias on Wikipedia. It's such a shame that you assume that this page was created as promotion. Where in the text do you see NPoV language? Why are you assuming bad faith? I just don't understand this attitude, and I cannot tell you how damaging this kind of thing is for people like us who are working hard to improve Wikipedia. This woman is clearly notable, you can see by the coverage she has had. Jwslubbock (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that this oversourced page proves, on examination, to be extremely weakly sourced. It is WP:PROMO, but WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you are engaging in promotion and using WP as an advocacy platform. This is not a proper use of WP. For you to tell another editor that their objective assessment of notability is "damaging" is ludicrous. If there is a gender gap in science, that's a terrible thing, but WP is not and cannot be the place to ameliorate that discrepancy. If there is a gender gap in who deserves an article but does not have one, that can be addressed through legitimate means on WP, but not by promoting people who are not notable or extremely borderline. Frankly, I was sympathetic to this initially, but I'm turned off by your accusatory approach and I'm almost regarding it as slightly disruptive. This is probably a conversation that should take place on another page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The fact that someone is the first from a particular group to do something is interesting, but if the thing done is not itself notable, it cannot confer notability on the person. Melcous (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you concentrating on her ethnicity rather than addressing the large amount of independent, reliable coverage she has received as a result of winning a prestigious government award for science which is awarded to very few women? Given that her ethnicity is not relevant to you, it's suprising to me that this is the only thing you believe is worth mentioning in relation to deleting her article. What's your opinion of the significant press coverage she has received? Jwslubbock (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the WP:BLP1E nature of the coverage in relation to this minor entrepreneurship award for women, the coverage has been far from significant - local and industry coverage - often together with out recipients. This is run of the mill coverage, and we routinely delete startup founders with much more significant coverage (that still doesn't rise up to GNG). Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She's been covered by Kurdistan24 which is an international news service based in Iraq, and a reliable source. Why are you trying to minimise this? Jwslubbock (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person is clearly notable in Kurdistan, if Kurdistan24 is covering her work abroad. We have two Kurdish language Wikipedias already, and two more Kurdish Wikipedias in the Incubator. Howabout contacting a Kurdish speaker and getting more information on her, and getting the article translated? It would be a shame to delete useful, constructive content that could give people hope in a war-torn area of the world. Oliveleaf4 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete relatively trivial award; the standard in modern science and technology is worldwide and impersonal, unlike such things as politics which only expects notability in a particular country, or literature, in a particular language. By that standard the extent of the work is insufficient. If judged by the standards for a start up, the coverage is principally about initial funding, Press coverage for people in either technology or business without substantial accomplishment is essentially human interest tabloid journalism, which is not the sort of NPOV coverage necessary for an encyclopedia . In this case even that coverage is relatively localized., and there is no indication besides the assertion here that the award is significant. I should note that "but haven't had the attention that they deserve..." is essentially the same as "not yet notable but ought to be". I agree that we need to adjust standards for earlier periods, and have advocated for doing so for years, but not for the 21st century. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No WP:SIGCOV. I'm not seeing any significant secondary sources covering this person's body of scientific work. I'm all for greater diversity in Wikipedia's collection of BLPs, but we shouldn't be indiscriminate. WP is largely a reflection of what's covered in secondary sources, and I'm not seeing that this meets that threshold. I also don't like when editors purport that their off-Wiki experience supposedly makes them a better judge of notability than other editors. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Innovate Women UK award seems to be nationally significant, which would make the subject notable under #2 of WP:NACADEMIC: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. The organization that issues the award was established by a UK act of Parliament. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some evidence for this prize as "nationally significant," It is, AFAICS, given each year to each of several women by a minor British agency promoting technological innovation. Teh fact that it gets very, very little press coverage mark it as a minor prize. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My only inference on national significance was that the award was awarded by a government agency. I could be wrong. This seems really borderline. I don't know whether using Wikipedia as an advocacy platform is appropriate, and the user who created seems to create quite a few articles that end up promptly deleted. This is a waste of time & resources if the creating editor cannot be trusted to do their own WP:GNG verification. I also have WP:MEATPUPPET concerns about some of these other keep votes and whether they personally know the originator of this one. I honestly have to mull it over. The only one of the nine criteria under WP:NACADEMIC that the subject might possibly meet is #2, and the prestige of this award is not clear to me. I'm not even seeing any of the major UK publications like BBC or the Guardian covering it. Honestly I'm leaning back towards delete. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's my final vote. The appropriate guideline to look to is WP:NACADEMIC for notability. The subject fails eight of the nine criteria outright, and as for "winner of a national prestigious award," I'm not convinced. If they were to get a passing grade on #2, it wouldn't be above a D. I can't find a single major publication covering this. The examples given as "prestigious national awards" are ones that anyone would immediately recognize like a Guggenheim, and this isn't anywhere close. It also doesn't seem very competitive—there were a number of winners, so this seems more like a grant than anything. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The supplied sources seem adequate to pass WP:BASIC and it is easy to find more such as Women in chemistry: Reducing the UK’s 2.5 billion binned coffee cups. As plastic coffee cups are quite a nuisance, this seems like quite a big deal. Why on earth would we want to delete this when all our policies argue otherwise --- see WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. The latter seems especially appropriate in this context, geddit... :) Andrew D. (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. About us. Large circulation, associations with academia, editorial oversight. -- GreenC 19:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. -- GreenC 19:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make a mockery of WP:GNG. You can count the number of outlets covering this on one hand, and I haven't heard of any of them before today. She is not even the central focus of any of them—this "award" is basically a grant that does not seem enormously competitive. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required". I've been doing this AfD thing for over 10 years, I don't make a mockery of GNG do you? -- GreenC 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at two articles from obscure, technical sources that are basically saying the same thing: she's been working on X for a few years and received some funding. This does not notable make. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. Don't badger me for expressing mine. -- GreenC 21:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being asked to explain your vote is a normal part of the process. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are enough sources to pass GNG. Just as you think there are not enough. That is my opinion, and that is your opinion. There are no fixed number required, and obviously everyone will have different opinions about it. -- GreenC 21:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"No fixed number" does not mean "one" is acceptable. Because that's the number of sources that you've cited as supposedly being reliable & independent. The policy states: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "one", and even you said there were "two articles" though I think there are more than that and if you keep pushing the matter I will log into my paid library account and start doing deep searches of commercial databases and dumping the results into this page. -- GreenC 21:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are withholding sources that will establish the subject's notability, by all means, share them. If they're not relevant, that would be pretty classic WP:POINT behavior. I'm starting to believe you know this doesn't pass WP:GNG and you're voting "Keep" for all of the wrong reasons. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you little rascal you. -- GreenC 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources

  • Notability is global and permanent.

Arabic language sources

There are sources in other languages which I could use help in finding. Kurds have their own language for example. -- GreenC 00:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All repeating the same thing - she was awarded a UK grant. Are any of these authoritative or reliable? Most importantly, I'm not seeing WP:SUSTAINED. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway I'm not too concerned with sustainability there are other sources that predate these and award winners are not usually treated as a single event. They don't all say the same thing even though they center on the award, Google Translate is a thing, there are some lengthy pieces here with content that can be used in the article. The sources demonstrate international coverage which is better than local or regional giving that extra weight. -- GreenC 05:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pile of URLs - not convincing - for starters some are blogs. However, all you've basically demonstrated is that a single PR release, in Arabic, on our subject receiving the innovated 2019 - got reprinted in oodles of online sources - the 17 are all more or less the same with some light editing/cutting/repackaging of the same content. CEOs of small startups don't become notable because they managed to get their PR release reprinted in multiple sites (Arabic nor English) - beyond RS and INDEPENDENT issues - the 17 URLs (which are duplicates, I believe, of the same PR in English which we have in our article) - are a single source. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First you complain there are not enough sources, then there are too many ("pile or urls"). I disagree with your sweeping characterizations of these sources as being unreliable, if they are how come these domains can be found on the Arabic Wikipedia as sources - who is more knowledgeable on Kurdish/Arabic sources, you or our fellow Arabic Wikipedia editors... CEOs don't tell news outlets what to publish that is their editorial decision and further evidence this is a notable subject. -- GreenC 14:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quality matters over quantity. A bunch of little-known local sources regurgitating a press release contributes absolutely nothing to notability, and WP:SUSTAINED is not a policy we can gloss over. A link dump is not the appropriate way to argue notability, either. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We use these sources (domains) on the Arab Wikipedia. They are good enough. Posting sources is how we determine notability. -- GreenC 15:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "good enough," they are all recycled content from obscure sources. This link dump adds nothing to the notability question. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly out of WP:PROF: h-index of 4 (Mendeley). So WP:GNG could be an option - but I do not see any "significant coverage". --FIFAukr (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above account has been permanently blocked because of a "vandalism pattern we've seen before of a brand new account popping up and immediately making numerous almost meaningless comments in random AfDs".[19] -- GreenC 01:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Maybe. She seems like she might barely meet WP:NPROF but her notability as far as WP:GNG is concerned is a little dubious. That said, she has some mentions in Gov.Uk's website [20][21] concerning her status as an award-winner. There is the case that because she represents a niche of Kurdistan-Born Women chemists her article should remain, but WP:TOOSOON could also be applying here. Userqio (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had it right with WP:TOOSOON. The award is not particularly competitive or prestigious, and subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. I would count the Arabic-language sources above as one example of SIGCOV combined, and then in English there's these: [22] [23] [24] [25], plus her publications ~150 GScholar cites (by my count), 55 ResearchGate cites. None of this is overwhelming, but it gets over the line for me. I agree the article, as written, is too promotional, but that can be fixed with copyediting. Leviv ich 00:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the URL dump all from obscure sources recycling the same press release? This contributes nothing to notability. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability, relatively trivial award as mentioned above. --Tataral (talk) 02:42, 13 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanya_Ismail&oldid=892301918"