Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somaya Faruqi

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. Going with keep on this for now - if you want to merge it into an article about the group of girls, go for it. Or, improve the Faruqi article with any sourcing. The article can always be renominated for deletion if desired. Missvain (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Somaya Faruqi[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)

[1] Non independent, [2], [3] These are not contributing much for notability based on many afd discussions, [4] This is self published, [5] Just a mentain, not indepth regarding her. Fails WP:GNG Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sonofstar (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC - The first source listed in the nom is a bylined article from Al Jazeera: The female Afghan tech entrepreneurs inspiring each other (2021) that includes facts, e.g. "Now 18, Somaya is the leader of the Afghan Girls Robotics Team – also known as the “Afghan Dreamers”, a name they gave themselves," and biographical information, e.g. "Somaya’s mother had to leave school when she was 10. It was 1996 and the Taliban had come to power and banned education for girls," as well as background context, e.g. "Somaya and the team first made headlines in 2017 when, despite displaying their remarkable ingenuity in robotics, they were denied visas to the United States to attend a robotics tournament." The second source is from BBC News: BBC 100 Women 2020: Who is on the list this year? (2020), "This year 100 Women is highlighting those who are leading change and making a difference during these turbulent times," and includes a profile of Faruqi that begins with: "When Afghanistan’s first case of Covid-19 was reported in her home province of Herat, Somaya and her all-female robotics team – the "Afghan Dreamers" – set to work on a low-cost ventilator to treat coronavirus patients." The third source is written by a Forbes staff writer: Get To Know The Youngest Members Of Forbes 30 Under 30 Asia 2021 (2021), which per WP:FORBES, Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable. Forbes also publishes various "top" lists which can be referenced in articles. The fourth source is published by UN Women, and even though it is written by Faruqi, she is being featured as part of what appears to be a "Generation Equality" campaign, I am Generation Equality: Somaya Faruqi, young Afghan innovator who led the development of a low-cost ventilator prototype (2021) e.g. the subhead states, "Billions of people across the world stand on the right side of history every day. They speak up, take a stand, mobilize, and take big and small actions to advance women’s rights. This is Generation Equality," so it appears the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women finds her worthy of notice and contributes to her notability. The fifth source is from NPR: Unique Robotic Team In Afghanistan Creates Affordable Ventilator Prototype (2020) and offers details about how Faruqi and her team developed the ventilator, as well as challenges they faced, and there is a reference to an award that needs further research. Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aljazeera. Yes, the byline is there but this is not independent, more than half are quotes and written by the girl. For BBC, Forbes As I shared please refer other afd discussions regarding such awards. They are generally reliable but not considered in such cases. Main reason, this is not worthy as Forbes gives 30 u 30 to around 700+ people per year due to so many niches and categories. All the members of Generation Equality" campaign are not considered notable, please read the language of Unwomen. Its written by herself there is nowhere written published by unwomen and last NPR hardly few lines(no indepth), describing her teamwork doesn't make notable to specifically to her. Sonofstar (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:BASIC, "independent of the subject" footnote 6, ...The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the subject notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it, and the Al Jazeera article is not written by the subject and it includes content about her that is WP:SECONDARY, e.g. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, including but not limited to the background context of the 2017 headlines and other facts reported in addition to the interview. A source does not lose its independence because it includes quotes from the subject - it gains independence from the additional reporting. For BBC News and articles by Forbes staff writers, I am unaware of any AfDs that suggest articles from independent and reliable sources offering profiles of a subject and recognition of their achievements do not contribute to their notability. The UNWomen source is not 'self-published' in the sense that it is simply written by Faruqi on social media or her own platform - she is clearly being featured by the organization on its website and she has not written all of the content of the article, i.e. the subheadline appears to be from UNWomen. (They also feature her as one of "Four stories to celebrate girls in ICT," and she was profiled by UNICEF, and UNWomen Australia). As to the NPR article, and per WP:CREATIVE, Faruqi has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work and such work has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles, e.g. also Reuters, BBC, News18, so her notability appears to be supported by these sources. The Al Jazeera article also includes a reference to '2017 headlines' and the BBC profile of Faruqi also includes a reference to a slew of awards that suggest additional sources supporting notability WP:NEXIST. It seems clear that Faruqi is often being singled out as the leader of the team and accorded additional notice from independent and reliable sources, which supports a standalone article for her, and adding information from those sources and other available sources can help develop this article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alright, at least you agreed that it fails WP:GNG. For WP:BASIC I don't think this is independent if you will read the language of content it's very clear that this is not independent without any doubt. I suggest lets others share their opinion, instead of us now. Sonofstar (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not agree there is a failure of WP:GNG, including because Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material and because I have only started to conduct a WP:BEFORE search to support revisions and improvements to the article. I referred to the WP:BASIC guideline for a definition of 'independent,' and this guideline also provides additional support for notability, because it states, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not entirely sure whether or not she's independently notable, but the Afghan Dreamers (the robotics team she leads) certainly seems to be: [6][7][8][9][10]. I do see some good coverage of her, but it's all in the context of the team. pburka (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's also good coverage (including of her) here and here NHCLS (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I made some revisions to the article, and from my view, it looks like her independent notability is supported by coverage and recognition after she became the leader of the team, including the Al Jazeera article that has a substantial focus on her and the context, the BBC 100 Women 2020 recognition of her, the UNICEF feature that focuses on her (and refers to itself as a 'documentary'), and her inclusion in the UN Women Generation Equality campaign. She seems to have become a notable role model independent of the team, and has been honored more individually and had more recent reporting on her, even when it is in the context of the team. There are additional sources that could further support an Afghan Dreamers article, including from when Faruqi was 14 and receiving less individual coverage (e.g. the visa problems, experiences traveling, challenges and extreme hardships experienced by the team) but that could be an effective complement for this article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage from independent, secondary reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after Beccaynr's expansion. I still think this content might be more suitable in a larger article about the whole team, but that can be discussed on the talk page. pburka (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC100 enough would have swayed me, but there's way more than WP:BASIC on offer here. Passes WP:ANYBIO; WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is not a BBC subsidiary website that just getting in BBC100 is enough. Please show 3-4 reliable, independent, in-depth coverage about the Somaya Faruqi. All the changes and new sources are related to Afgan Girls and that too one event. The notability of Afgarn Girl and Somaya Faruqi is different.Sonofstar (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see references from 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Can you explain how "one event" applies despite continuing coverage over five years? pburka (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to point. I appreciate it if you can show the top 3 sources here which are not passing maintain and makes Somaya Faruqi notable.Sonofstar (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In footnote 2 of WP:GNG (after "Sources"), it states Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals, which is why I noted the UNICEF feature of her refers to itself as a documentary; there is also the BBC profile of her, the UN Women feature of her, and the Al Jazeera coverage. These sources include WP:SECONDARY analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources, are not trivial, and help show that she is distinctly notable per WP:GNG, in addition to the WP:BASIC notability from the multiple independent and RS cited above that report and comment on her work as the captain of the Afghan Dreamers, and her membership on the team before she was captain. Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the content of these sources, This is not independent. All are quotes and words given by herself. For BBC I already shared my opinion. I am perfectly fine and happy to accept a different opinion, but for me getting even 3 good sources is difficult. Sonofstar (talk) 05:34, 31 May 2021 (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.