Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romina Ashrafi

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 but rename. While Ashrafi is not notable, it appears consensus is her death was. Whether this should be titled killing/murder/death of.. is one for editorial discussion and so I have not moved it. Star Mississippi 12:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romina Ashrafi[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)

While tragic, no lasting effects, delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to have fallen out of the public eye as quickly as it came into it. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs major work, so much is not cited, but in the context of this still being discussed as recently as Jan 2023, it seems to satisfy the criteria to be kept "In 2020, there was similar outrage after 14-year-old Romina...." with reference to WP:SUSTAINED CT55555(talk) 15:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, changing to Murder of Romina Ashrafi or Killing of Romina Ashrafi would also be desirable, considering our "one event" guidelines and WP:DEATHS CT55555(talk) 15:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (replying to the comment below that people aren't making policy based decisions, for the record, I think it's OK to not make policy based decisions) Anyway, for the avoidance of doubt, I think she meets WP:GNG due to the multiple reliable sources with significant coverage, examples include:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-64319487 (mentions the event, not so much significant coverage, but WP:SUSTAINED)
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/romina-ashrafi-outcry-in-iran-over-so-called-honour-killing-of-14-year-old-girl
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2020/05/26/Iranian-girl-13-beheaded-by-father-in-reported-honor-killing
https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/lenient-sentence-for-father-who-murdered-daughter-provokes-outrage-in-iran-640425

CT55555(talk) 02:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And none of those address the NOTNEWS or BIO1E issue. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:01, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've adequately explained my keep vote, and while you are entitled to refute it, when the nomination to delete is 9 words long, you might want to consider where the onus lies. Nonetheless:

On WP:NOTNEWS

C1 - no original reporting. I asses this criteria as met

C2 - no "routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities". A father chopping his own daughter's head off is absolutely not routine. This criteria is met.

C3 - don't make it about the person. This criterion is probably not met. Which is why I suggested the page move.

C4 - Don't include "gossip" celebrity lifestyle stuff. This criteria is not relevant.

On WP:BIO1E

The guideline helps us decided between an event article or a biographical article. I think the current framing is incorrect. It should be an event article.

In conclusion

In summary, I consider that WP:GNG is met, and that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BIO1E guide us towards changing this to an event article, but provide no basis to delete it. CT55555(talk) 03:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you might want to consider the totality of the issues re: NOTNEWS and BIO1E:

Re NOTNEWS:

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events."
"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be."

Re BIO1E

glad to see you understand the BIO1E is not met. That means that NOTNEWS predominates, and as for that, see above.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both your WP:NOTNEWS quotes are relevant. The first one I answer by showing you how the topic is getting coverage a month ago, that's why I quoted WP:SUSTAINED. And I said many times now that this should be an event article, which means we should keep and rename. Likewise BIO1E does the same. I consider these guidelines support my position. Let's avoid getting into WP:BLUDGEON territory by repeating the same points further. CT55555(talk) 03:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (per CT55555's above reasons) or merge into another article that discusses honor killings more broadly and lists significant examples (such as this incident). Plenty of international coverage, which establishes notability. Also agree with changing the title to Murder of Romina Ashrafi. Thank you. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an article about her death/murder. She isn't notable as an individual, the event surrounding her passing might be. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the same as keep and rename? (which is what I think we should do) CT55555(talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename (to Murder of Romina Ashrafi or something like that). Fad Ariff (talk) 13:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep that is quite true that wikipedia is not a newspaper. but I believe that this young Lady's murder is well-known at least in Iran. even the former Iranian president Hassan Rouhani made a reaction on it: "Hassan Rouhani urged his cabinet to act after Romina Ashrafi was allegedly killed" report by The Guardian — NameGame (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments; WP:NOTNEWS is not a good enough reason to override the reasons for keeping. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the article certainly needs significant work, regardless. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - none of the keep !votes has any basis in WP policy.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. But the Wikipedian who closes this discussion will be the one to decide, not me or you, Onel5969. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:26, 17 February 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.