Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massinissa of the Rif

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 have ignored the SPAs wihich appear to have an interest outside of Wikipedia policy in this article remaining. Courcelles (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massinissa of the Rif[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)

Possible autobiography. The page is constructed as a series of credits and has already been pruned of a lot of dead wood. The page seems to be supported by a series of ip editors and the pagecreator. The infobox image was uploaded by the pagecreator and incorrectly (or improperly) credited to "Unknown." There are a number of statements about this BLP subject which the applied sources do not seem to support, that is, the page is detailed separately from applied sources. I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Royalty and nobility, and Morocco. BusterD (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vaguely promo for a "social engineer". No coverage found, even in French, the name is common enough that you get plenty of hits for his father/someone with a similar name who was a freedom fighter. Oaktree b (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think what you mean in the first sentence where is said that the subject is a social entrepreneur which I believe (and please do correct me if I am wrong) is different from being an actual social engineer. Also, the fact that he is related to the freedom fighter Mohammed Ameziane makes this subject even more notable. Barcelona12345 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My web-search hasn't found anything good. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage. Subject is notable not just because of his animal rights, environmental and Amazigh activism and advocacy, but received coverage regarding his philanthropic work as well as notability in social media platforms. The international media coverage is in Catalan, Spanish and English, including widely respected and influential outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab and others; [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. As to one of the points made in this discussion, his notability, does not have to do with certain members of his family like Mohammed Ameziane and Salima Ziani although it is impossible to deny that having as a great-great-grandfather Mohammed Ameziane who has been widely covered by historians and journalists helps. The real issue I find is that most of the articles appear to use various different names like Massin Riggs, Massin Akandouch, Massinissa Akandouch, Massinissa or Massinissa of the Rif. If we adhere to what the subject calls himself on social media sites, the correct one would be Massinissa of the Rif; [25][26] as also shown in recent media coverage: [27][28].

Subject has also gained certain notoriety within the fashion world, having being featured in the fashion magazine GQ as well as attending fashion shows at Paris Fashion Week [29][30] which makes it likely that there could be even more notoriety in the future. Although it isn't the most important information that should be reflected in this article.

I have added a Template:BLP sources and a Wikipedia:Manual of Style to continue improving this article. I suggest adding "[Citation needed]" on unsourced sections or where the source of the information may not be fully clear. Barcelona12345 (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage. I do not think the Subject lacks notoriety nor media coverage. Especially within the field of activism as well as per his family role in anti-colonialism in Morocco. I suggest that the page is restricted from being allowed to be edited by non-Wikipedia editors. MariadeEuropa (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC) — MariadeEuropa (talk has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Comment I have nominated this page for deletion. I believe it is the result of connected editing (a policy violation) and have placed evidence in my nomination. I will not make undue effort to help others keep it. The burden is on those adding material to anchor it with appropriate reliable sourcing and obey copyright policies in so doing. Nobody is restricting anyone from editing this page. IMHO the page was written and supported by non-Wikipedia editors. But that's not my rationale for deletion. Adding a list of gsearch bare mentions neither improves the article nor contributes meaningfully to a keep outcome in this process. Wikipedians must build a page from sources, not write the page and then go back later for proof. BusterD (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe there has been more than enough proof of notoriety for to subject have this Wikipedia article. Having been covered as the main headline or mentioned in the article in outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab and dozens of other international media outlets. I have edited multiple articles related to titular royalty and nobility and the subject not only has enough notoriety for his own activism, philanthropic and fashion work but also because of him being the great-great-grandson of Mohammed Ameziane, one of the first anti-colonial leaders in African history who was and still is highly covered by historians and journalists who also held noble the tribal royal of Amghar and Prince of the Rif .

Following this logic, articles from "titular" royalty, such as Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Clotilde Courau, Mafalda (British singer) and hundreds more should not have their own Wikipedia articles, yet these are kept as the subjects are relevant in current history due to their ancestors. Why should not this be the case for the subject, who's notoriety does not even come from his noble ancestry.

One of the biggest issues of this article is that majority of the sources are written in English, although there are English sources from famous outlets like GQ Magazine, The New Arab, Hespress and UNILAD. The best solution in my humble opinion is for to article to include a Template:Expand language and perhaps another template as this discussion would not happen in the subject's Spanish article since notoriety would not need to be discussed yet even in English it is important for the article itself to be kept for non-english readers who are interested in the subject. Barcelona12345 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another of the issues is that User:Barcelona12345 has !voted keep twice and only two single-purpose accounts have so far supported their assertions. So it appears to be four keeps, when it's actually just one rambling keep, spread out all over the process. BusterD (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is enough proof of notoriety that justifies the existence of this article, especially looking at the sources having dozens of media articles from different countries where the subject is mentioned. Although I see there is a large amount of vandalism and there is a lot to be improved, especially typos and unsourced statements. I am going to request for the article to be semi-protected to avoid any further vandalism.PharaohWakanda (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2023 (CET) — PharaohWakanda (talk has made few or no other edits outside this topic. BusterD (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Weak delete. I've long thought that royalty are not automatically notable, absent significant coverage of such items as scandals and charity work. This instance is really marginal. Willing to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello Bearian, the subject’s notability does not nearly at all come from his royal great-great-grandfather Mohammed Ameziane, one of the first anti-colonial leaders of Morocco.[31] The subject gained mainstream notability around 2019 due to his environmental, animal rights and Berber-rights activism, for which he gained media coverage from international outlets such as GQ Magazine, La Vanguardia, ABC, EL País, The New Arab..., the activism also caused mainstream controversy, mainly in Spain, which made large corporations and government attack him. [32][33][34][35]The subject's notability is currently mostly due to his charity work and collaboration and work with luxury fashion brands and in the fashion world.

As I previously argued, in my humble opinion, the subject’s notability is not only due to his royal lineage, but due to his own achievements in activism, charity-philanthropy and fashion work which is significantly higher notability than other “titular” royals whose little coverage only stems from being members of non-reigning families. The only “problem” is that most of the subject’s mainstream coverage has been written in Spanish and Catalan, although still holds a lot of coverage from international English outlets such as GQ Magazine, The New Arab, Hespress, UNILAD...

Following this logic, articles from "titular" royalty, such as Prince Achileas-Andreas of Greece and Denmark, Clotilde Courau, Mafalda (British singer), Princess Alexandra of Hanover (born 1999) and hundreds more should not have their own Wikipedia articles yet they do for similar achievements/level of notoriety. Why should not this be the case for this subject, whose notoriety does not even come from his royal ancestry?

The best solution in my humble opinion is for the to article to include a Template: Expand language and perhaps other templates as this discussion would not happen in the subject's Spanish article since notoriety would not need to be discussed yet even in English it is important for the article itself to be kept for non-English readers who are interested in the subject.

For the previously explained reasons, I believe there is more than enough proof of notability for the subject to have its own Wikipedia article due to popular interest, mainly in countries like Spain and Morocco. Thank you for everyone’s time. Barcelona12345 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many sock votes. I checked sources above and most of coverages are passing in mention. Clearly non notable and seems like a promotion article with not formal photo. The creator is related with WP:COI. The article photo was personally taken by the article creator...so clearly a COI issue. 2001:44C8:4877:384F:6063:98E9:657C:D317 (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin CU is really needed on keep vote accounts which has made few or no other edits outside this topic, and new acoounts. @BusterD: the nominator do something on keep vote accounts that may related to the creator. I suspect sock.2001:44C8:4877:384F:6063:98E9:657C:D317 (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2023 (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.