Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dahlia Wasfi (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There is general consensus that the sources provided are not sufficient to establish notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Dahlia Wasfi
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

First deletion discussion in 2010 closed as no consensus. Although there are no hits on Google Newspapers, ~8 items come up across a couple versions of Google News, including: a MintPress News article primarily covering a somewhat-viral activist speech she made on facebook, another MNP article that briefly cites her, a post on HackRead about a hacker who left one of her youtube videos on a Uganda government site, a Middle East Eye article written by her, an MEE article briefly quoting her, and an Institute for Public Accuracy piece that quotes her. She is also occasionally cited as an expert in other news reports that weren't curated by Google News for whatever reason, and seems to speak at some conferences. The first MPN article provides the most coverage of her by far, however it is a deprecated source. Do these establish general notability? JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I think notability is established by those sources. But am not sure either. Balle010 (talk) 05:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is this which promotes her tour, but non-Google searches of my own didn't bring up anything else/more than passing mentions or quotes. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable activist with insufficient coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I have added some more references including two books that refer to her, as well as two of her own publications, which I think enable her to meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 08:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding more refs. I do want to ask if a single paragraph in a book is sufficient coverage for notability? My interpretation of GNG is that the citations to her Congressional testimony, LiberateThis site, personal publications, and conference speech announcement shouldn't be used to assess notability (details sourced solely to those refs are also probably UNDUE in the article itself). It's also hard to say whether news articles and books citing her opinion on a topic–and inserting the requisite brief blurb of her background for context–actually satisfies the requirements, as these pieces of information are not generally about her any more than an article on a disease that quotes a research professor is about the professor. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Here is a run-down of the refs so far (minus the understandingdeeppolitics.org one that I just removed since it's a conspiracy site):
 * 1) A speech by Wasfi on YouTube.
 * 2) An interview of her in a news aggregator site conducted by an anonymous "Newsmaster". This site doesn't seem to have a distinct editorial team, although it says the articles it aggregates are hand-picked. It doesn't say anything about editorial oversight for its original contributions.
 * 3) Bio of Wasfi from her website (LiberateThis.com).
 * 4) YouTube video of her Congressional testimony.
 * 5) A single quote from one of her speeches in a Christian book.
 * 6) A short guest opinion piece on EngagingPeace.com by a teenager who was inspired by a series of articles by Wasfi published on the same site.
 * 7) A Siasat article rehosting her YouTube video and its transcription, along with an almost word-for-word copy of an old version of her wiki page.
 * 8) Six sentences in a book of "censored news stories" from 2009, the first three basically a summary of her bio on wiki.
 * 9) An article by Wasfi on informationliberation.com.
 * 10) A history memoir that mentions Wasfi's conference speech running overtime, causing the author's panel to start late.
 * 11) NYU's announcement of the conference she spoke at.
 * 12) A journal article containing selected quotes from interviews of 14 North American activists who had lived in Iraq. Of the 14, only Wasfi and Kathy Kelly have wiki articles or are even mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. I know this isn't a good barometer of reliability, but it does demonstrate the criteria used for choosing interviewees was unrelated to being high-profile.

I think currently the refs are fairly extensive, but I'm not really convinced the coverage is truly non-trivial or significant. JoelleJay (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because there are a few references doesn't mean someone is necessarily notable - as I've previously noted, there's some coverage, but it doesn't seem to rise to the level of notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:29, 13 November 2020 (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.