Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissami family

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kissami family

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

Short article, or long stub, about a Moroccan family, or about its name, or both. Notability of the subject isn't demonstrated. Sourcing of its content seems defective.

The equivalent article in fr:WP was deleted after an AfD. The very first delete !vote reads Suppression immédiate Je suis l'auteur de cet article. Je ne considère plus le sujet de l'article comme notoire et suggère sa suppression immédiate. (I.e. "Speedy deletion: I am the author of the article. I no longer consider the subject of the article noteworthy and suggest its immediate deletion.")

Category:Kissami family -- which I think equally unworthy of retention, though I suppose this isn't the right place for a deletion request -- has two members: this article, and Faysel Kasmi, a mere stub about a young Belgian footballer which, unsurprisingly, says nothing about the significance to him or anyone else of his surname.

This category has a French- and an Arabic-language equivalent. fr:Catégorie:Famille Kissami has just two members: fr:Sidi Ali ben Saïd (a mere stub) and fr:Mosquée Sidi Ali ben Saïd (a mere stub about a mosque named after him). ar:تصنيف:عائلة_قيسامي is empty (despite ar:قيسامي الحسين). -- Hoary (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 17:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources given do not appear to be significantly about this family, there are no members of the family blue-linked from the article, and there do not appear to be any WP:RS that would indicate passing WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Moreover, article suffers from WP:Orphan.Jeff5102 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2017 (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.