Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Fasha

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 Keep – This is a borderline case. The nominator's rationale is reasonable, but the general consensus of those who have provided arguments is that the article should be kept based upon reliable Arabic sources. While there are a number of reliable sources that provide information about Sarah Fasha, most of these are in a passing, or minor way. However, based upon a couple of the sources I am reasonably confident that this person is notable in Egypt; the phrase "Ask any Egyptian, and you may hear that beauty queen Sarah Fasha has typically pharaoh-esque features." from Al Arabiya gives an indication of this. That said, the article does need further work to demonstrate that notability, and a future AfD is likely if no changes are made. Harrias talk 17:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Fasha[edit]

Sarah Fasha (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)

Non-notable person. Lacks significant number of reliable sources. Pageant won was minor and virtally unknown, as no major or reliable source actually reported on who won the pageant. All/most sources contained in the article are not high quality, and do not meet the standard for a reliable source. Additionally, Anyone can speak at TEDx independent speaking event, so if we had an article for every person that spoke at an independent (non-notable) TEDx event, we would have many more non-notable people on Wikipedia. As for the "YouTube" section, she is virtually non-existent on Youtube with a very low subscriber count (~2000) further proving her non-notability, and the article focuses on Youtube for a large part. Article as a whole is a clear and simple violation the Wikipedia notability policy. Megat503 (talk) 05:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree, she's bullied because of her Muslim background and skin color. I think her page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StePAhi (talk • contribs) 22:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any evidence to suggest there is any misconduct surrounding her article because of her religious or ethnic background? Also, do you have a policy based argument on why the article should be kept? Mkdwtalk 03:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I checked the references in the page and I can find Italian, American, Egyptian Magazines and even talk shows even her IMDB showed how many movies and TV series she worked in even if it was a small role. I'm not going to talk about religions or races because we shouldn't discuss this on Wikipedia all of volunteering her to spread the knowledge and face the raciest, I hope everyone in Wikipedia will understand our goals because some new users still need to stop being racist. Finally, I think her page should be kept. Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Highly agree, her "sources" are NOT reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelSanchez310 (talk • contribs) — JoelSanchez310 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
I have stricken the comment by Ahmed Mohi El din, as this account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Everymorning (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I see where the nominator made his reasoning, Sarah is not a notable person to have their own page on wikipedia as the sources are unreliable. Any person can speak at a TEDx event and that alone is not enough to where that person should have a wikipedia page. The beauty she won was minor and as well does not hold enough significance. AhmedWildooks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — AhmedWildooks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* Keep I disagree. Before we say sources are unreliable we have to read Wikipedia:Verifiability

  1. Magazines
  2. Journals
  3. Mainstream newspapers
completely reliable as a sources for Wikipedia. Any person can speak at a TEDx event this completely not true Bill Clinton and Bill Gates were not any person. Finally the main idea of the page that she is Actress and Miss Egypt not about YouTube or TEDx so this should be kept.Davidwiki12 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying To Davidwiki12: Bill Clinton and Bill Gates spoke at TED, not a TEDx event. TEDx events are non-notable independent events (which is what Sarah spoke at). Her TEDx talk (as most TEDx talks) did not receive strong coverage from multiple notable/reliable sources. TEDx and TED are completely different and mutually exclusive events. Literally anyone can set up a TEDx event (not a TED event). Furthermore, Wikipedias guidelines for notable people ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria ) require SIGNIFICANT coverage from multiple reliable strong sources. Sarah does not have this. Simply being covered by 1 or 2 unknown magazines/websites is not enough to be an entry on Wikipedia. The references/sources in this article are very incredibly weak with no notable/known magazine reporting on anything about her. Doing my own research and still could not find any notable/reliable source reporting about her. Also to note, Ahmed Mohi El din (person who made strong keep vote above) created the article and made the vast majority of edits to the article, and is most likely a Wikipedia Conflict of Interest to keep the article. Megat503 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC) — Megat503 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Megat503 First of all please don't start talk about other users in a bad way if Ahmed Mohi El din is the creator of the page and want to keep it this make sense as usual, you have to discuss with him as we all do not attacking him. X=independently organized event but it's still TED event and it's not true that anyone can talk at the event. Davidwiki12 (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment you're all joking, right? A perfunctory journal search has returned more than 1000 citations, thus easily passing WP:GNG. No question here whatsoever as to whether this should be kept. Does nobody perform WP:BEFORE anymore? no reasonable substantive arguments for deletion, and the article includes significant indicators of notability and I think
  1. Italian magazines/websites are reliable
  2. American websites and talk show are reliable
  3. Egyptian websites/ magazines and talk shows are reliable
standard searching shows good case that Mrs.Fasha meets criteria for WP:GNG. But it's very ironic that all the users here are new except two and all the new user all their edits about the deletion of this page for example Megat503 the first 10 edits he made just to remove this page / user AhmedWildooks just 1 edit to remove the page and user JoelSanchez310 just 1 edit to remove this page. Ahmed Mohi El din (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- WP:PROF is measurement of academic achievements. She truly fails on that. Technically, the subject is the winner on Queen of the Universe Pageant 2013. I guess she fails on WP:GNG, otherwise we gotta establish notability of the pageant that she won. Nominator's point and comments within the discussion are valid. Hitro talk 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have refactored the above discussion for readability. The discussion previously looked like this. Others have also refactored some discussions, as a number of SPA editors (some whom clearly are not familiar with how RFA discussions are formatted), have participated in this discussion. Mkdwtalk 22:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator. Ahmed Mohi El din and Davidwiki12 are  Confirmed socks. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed Mohi El din.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Clearly this person does not meet any notability criteria. Onel5969 TT me 16:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the links appear to meet WP:RS guidelines for establishing notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources you can add to the article that would alleviate burden of proof required? Notability is not regional therefore if she's notable through WP:SIGCOV in Arabic publications then the article should be kept. Both sources you cite, especially the second one, appear to be very short. Using those two sources alone, I wouldn't say SIGCOV has been met. Mkdwtalk 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Mohamed Ouda: I'm relisting this to give you a chance to reply. If not, it'll likely be deleted in seven days. Also semi-protecting the AFD Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Courcelles for the relist , I added another reliable references to the article now --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe I'm not the best one to talk about her notability in the US as I live in Egypt, but I can say that for example, the Arabic article for this person is very unlikely to be deleted. A similar discussion about the notability of this person or deleting this page on Ar Wikipedia would get closed in the same day. The newspapers cited on this page are the most prominent ones in the Arab World. I hope the administrator's decision here doesn't get affected by the sock puppet issue of Ahmed. Thank you! --Samir (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many of the !votes expressed up till now are not policy-based. I would encourage participants to review their !votes and expand where possible. Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm inclined to agree with Samir I Sharbaty. Sources are indeed reasonably reliable. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough sources for WP:N, sources are reliable.Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. First, good luck to whomever closes this SPA/sockfest. I will go with a soft endorsement of notability based primarily on this Al Arabiya article - which I think is unquestionably a reliable source with significant coverage. The other Al Arabiya is more of a passing mention, although since it uses the subject an example intended to exemplify a group I suppose its nontrival. There a fair breadth of hits in Arabic sources, which per Google translate seem to report minor film roles and her online show. The Italian link is interesting, and I'm not sure what to make of it. The fact that it exists at all would be, for me, a pretty good indication of notability. However, as best I can determine the sight is an online blog, and I can not determine whether there are editorial standards to speak of. Normally on this level of evidence I'd come down delete, but I do think its reasonable allow for a cultural bias effect - fewer arabic sources are likely to be found and understood by the typical en.wiki editor, and there are actual arab language sources out there. So, on the whole, I think she just to the right side of the notability divide. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 21 September 2015 (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/Sarah_Fasha&oldid=1142609738"