Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farrah Sarafa (3rd 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. ✗ plicit  23:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Farrah Sarafa
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article was nominated at AfD in 2011, but never linked from a daily log page, never fully opened and never formally closed. Per the procedural close note yesterday recommending a new nomination be made, here is what that original nomination said:
 * The article 'Farrah Sarafa' was nominated for deletion in January 2011, but no consensus was reached. I strongly believe it should remain under consideration for deletion. Please note that I was not part of the original nomination or discussion.


 * Upon consideration of Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for biographies, I hold that the person in question does not adequately meet the standard.


 * For instance: According to the cited links, Farrah Sarafa is a graduate student who contributes to 'various publications'- sources include a link to several articles for a single website ( Green & Save.com) as well as a work released through "Shadowpoetry.com"- a self-publishing website. The article also claims that Ms. Sarafa has won 'a number of awards and prizes for her poetry.' The only awards cited are (1) a college poetry award (Hopwood) for a contest that is only open to University of Michigan students and (2) a "second place" poetry award in a competition by a small specialty publisher, Chistell Publishing (http://www.chistell.com/company.htm).


 * I feel that the article and its links establish that "Farrah Sarafa" is: an adjunct professor, a freelance writer and magazine contributor- but not that this person is particularly distinguished within any of these creative fields. This said, the subject does not adequately merit its own article.

This just isn't a very good article. It wasn't a very good one then, and it still isn't one. I do not see anything that passes WP:NPROF, and running a magazine that "underscores industry pioneers" is not WP:GNG. jp×g 23:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I did completely rewrite the article in the past 48 hours, so I just want to verify if you saw that. I'm not saying that my changes established notability, I'm undecided, but I think every aspect of it has been rewritten to cut the PROMO CT55555 (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * she is associate professor at pace university, not adjunct and published her thesis on Algerian women and colonialism in addition to a chapbook with shadow poetry. she won free publication by shadow, and did not self publish the chapbook. Her poems have also been extensively referenced, and have been published in various literary journals and anthologies as well.  Hope this helps ! some info in the rewrite is a bit limiting quite inaccurate George2 Hanawi (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree that the rewrite is poorly written... it was much better before George2 Hanawi (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please consider if the reason that you don't like my rewrite is that the pervious version was too promotional? CT55555 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Poetry,  and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not remotely near passing WP:GNG, WP:Prof or WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC).


 * Comment I could not find on the Pace website about the title given to Sarafa. Outside her own linkedin profile there is no evidence she is a full professor at Pace university. The reference used to justify she is a professor at Pace is not conclusive. JamesKH76 (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I've not had a proper look yet, but I'm leaning delete. Definitely doesn't pass WP:NPROF. Are there any significant independant reviews to warrant a pass under WP:NAUTHOR? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:AUTHOR is the only way I think she can pass. Some has suggested the book is self published. Anyway, here's the book reviews I could find, I put effort in to find them:
 * https://web.archive.org/web/20160814115848/http://www.arabesques-editions.com/journal/sarafa_farrah/index.html - brief mention
 * https://issuu.com/chaldeannews/docs/cn0906_0152 Interview, not a very well known source, just a few sentences
 * https://www.midwestbookreview.com/mbw/jun_06.htm Despite the website appearance, seems to be a credible reviewer of poetry, but not exactly the New York Times. Significant review, but not very significant.
 * My analysis: borderline . I think it's possible to argue that this all adds up to a total of two book reviews, and yet I have been told I'm wrong on stronger examples, so I'm left unsure on this one, hence the lack of opinion from me so far. CT55555 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that her book has just about enough reviews to pass WP:NBOOK.  A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say if the book is the only thing connected to her that has any notability, we do not need an article on her and on the book, so one article covering both would be enough. With a redirect from the other. Probably from her to the book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you had to chose between her most notable book, I'd suggest her:
 * BLP articles are held to a higher standard, which is a good thing
 * There is not a lot of info about the book, more about her CT55555 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Russ Woodroofe, NBOOK requires multiple reviews, but I see only the Midwest Book Review, with the other two links above not even close to counting (the first links to her own profile on a website; the second just promotes her book without any review, and anyway is discounted entirely since her father is the president of the association generating the newsletter, and furthermore appears to be in a submit-your-own-news section of a hyper-hyperlocal newsletter per the "share your news" box at the bottom). JoelleJay (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, nope, the MBR piece isn't a valid review either: it's in the "MBR Bookwatch" section which, unlike "The Bookwatch" and other MBR magazines, is run by "senior MBR volunteers", making it essentially UGS/SPS.
 * Book reviews in the MBR Bookwatch and the Reviewer's Bookwatch, and in the "Story Monsters Ink Shelf" of the Children's Bookwatch, are written by volunteer reviewers. Each volunteer retains copyright and full ownership of all his or her reviews. All other book review magazines, and all other columns of the Children's Bookwatch, are written "in-house" by the MBR and associates. JoelleJay (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet NPROF or any other notability guideline. JoelleJay (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little sign of WP:NPROF.  With only one book, WP:NAUTHOR is unlikely, and I agree with 's analysis of the reviews linked from the article.  It has been commented in past deletion discussions that NAUTHOR is difficult to establish for poets, but I'm not seeing much progress towards it.  Comment that many of the references that I can find appear to date to the subject's student years -- while notability is not temporary, I don't think these references add up to a pass of any of our criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Does not meet WP:NPROF, and whilst there is a bit of coverage, not convinced meets WP:NAUTHOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2022 (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.