Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afif Chaya


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Afif Chaya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 17:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - At least for now. There is nothing in English I can find to establish notability. I left a message on the project page for Lebanon and hopefully they can provide some direction. If not, there simply are not any sources to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep If you're using Google's Chrome browser it automatically translates the Arabic refs. If you're not, simply copypaste the links into Google Translate. English refs are not required, of course, and he seems to be a highly notable figure in Lebanese cinema. The refs do meet WP:GNG. 19:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Very aware. Also aware that non-English references can be used which is why I pinged the project. Can you tell me which of the references from the Arabic version are considered reliable sources; or, which ones amount to significant coverage? To me they all show he exists, but do not amount to anything more than IMDb type references. Notability still requires significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Refs 3/4, 5 and 6 seems like WP:RS to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And the depth? The one doesn't even mention his name, just has a picture. How does this suffice? These in no way meet any type of significant coverage, even if we can assume the source are reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, if you're referring to 3/4, the one with the big picture, it does mention him by name, rather prominently, both in the headline and body copy. It doesn't auto translate, for some reason, on my browser -- but I pasted the link into Google Translate. Again, I think the coverage is sufficient. We both understand we're dealing with Arabic media where finding refs is tricky for us. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to respectfully disagree. If those references were in English reliable sources they would not even be close to establishing notability based on their depth. Like you say, it may "mention," but mentions are not enough to establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, but one of them is the equivalent of a full page article on him. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, again let's assume. All sources will be assumed reliable and "one" will be assumed to be in depth. That gives us "one" which still does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. And, that's still under the assumption that the sources are reliable and the one can be considered in depth. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now unless it can actually be better improved. SwisterTwister   talk  08:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep If these references aren't enough I can search more Arabic references.--Ammar Alwaeli (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Anmar. I can only speak for me, but additional references is something I would like to see. You state to keep the article, but since AfD is note a !vote count, can you provide your rationale for keeping the article? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I think it would help the article a lot if it said something more substantive about the subject in the body of the text.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.