Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ummi Hafilda Ali

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 merge to Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials. Selective merging of content is encouraged here. Daniel (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ummi Hafilda Ali[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)

minor involvement in 1998 legal case. I don't think this meets our requirements for BLPO. I see no point in redirecting, as he;s not even mentioned in the major article (and I see so problem there also about including irrelevnt detail) DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - DGG, what sources did you look at during WP:BEFORE? I'm seeing tons of English-langauge coverage revolving around her involvement in politics, as you say mostly related to the 1998 legal case but also more recent activities, including defamation cases, candidacies, etc. She has seemingly stayed in the news until 2015 at least, which makes me wonder about the existence of extensive non-English Malaysian sources. The way she is discussed, including in the academic source I looked at, suggest she is widely perceived as an important Malaysian public figure. Here's some sources I looked at: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5, opinion, but seemingly useful context) (6) (7) Among others from The Star (Malaysia)... looks like other coverage in Sinar Harian as well, although I didn't dig deep into Google Translating much of that. Suriname0 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that I do not know how to evaluate these sources. Nor can I figure out how to write an article that would meet the BLP requirements, except that the present article does not. . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's tricky without more context. I left a note on WikiProject Malaysia. Suriname0 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to hopefully allow for further analysis of the sourcing and improvement to the article. As the article stands, my personal view is that it is a BLP violation, so I'm not happy to close as a weak no consensus or similar. Hopefully either the article can be improved based off these sources (once they are analyzed for reliability and significance), or alternatively a consensus forms to take some other affirmative action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Selective Merge and Redirect Based on my research in English-language sources (and review of and revisions to the article), it has been difficult to find much encyclopedic content that is more than WP:NOTSCANDAL about Ali or related to her various allegations against a variety of other people, which raises WP:BLP concerns, e.g. it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. While independent and reliable sources suggest she had a major role in the Anwar Ibrahim sodomy trials, due to making allegations that were key to the prosecution (e.g. CBS News, CNN/AsiaWeek, NYT, BBC News, The Guardian), (and then later retracting them, e.g. BBC News), it appears that her primary means of remaining high-profile since then is by continuing to make allegations against other people, or to have allegations raised against her, but WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:BLP weigh against inclusion of this content. Information from independent and reliable sources about her role in the trial could be merged into the article about the trial, and a redirect may be appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC) !vote and comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a Merge and Redirect. If someone wanted to tackle the challenge of writing a bio about her more recent activities without violating WP:BLP, they're welcome to do so. Suriname0 (talk) 04:08, 27 July 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.