Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heba Aly (journalist)


 * 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. Article has been edited during the AFD, and the consensus appears to be that the current sourcing is sufficient to establish notability. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Heba Aly (journalist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for journalists. As always, the notability test for journalists is not passed just by verifying that her work exists, and requires third party coverage and analysis about her and her work in sources independent of herself to verify that her work has been externally validated as significant. But the references here are entirely to primary sources (staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers and/or directly affiliated organizations, Q&A interviews in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a video clip of her giving a speech) that are not support for notability at all, with absolutely no evidence shown whatsoever of any notability-building coverage about her in real media. Additionally, this was started in draftspace and then moved into mainspace without proper WP:AFC approval, by an editor who appears to be on a personal campaign of bypassing AFC review by just automatically mainspacing any draft they can find about a woman journalist, regardless of whether the sourcing is actually up to snuff or not. That's not how draftspace works, however -- it is not a free "take what you want" table of stuff for non-AFC reviewers to just pick and move articles themselves, and rather drafts must be properly assessed through the AFC review process (which is to say that I have to see the exact phrase "Publishing accepted Articles for creation submission (AFCH 0.9.1)" in the edit summary of the move, because the move was properly done through the AFC reviewer module. If that isn't there, you're doing it wrong.) Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not very familiar with AFC, and I agree that this user may not be following conventions, but there doesn't seem to be any rule prohibiting established editors from moving pages to article space from draft space without using some special AFC reviewer module. pburka (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - two sources I have found so far reporting on her career: Sudan expels a Canadian contributor to the Monitor (CS Monitor, 2009), Freed from UN, a 20-year-old news network embraces independence (CJR, 2016). Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for adding sources. IRIN, now The New Humanitarian, is a long-standing and large, global news organization. I moved this draft into main space because there were several citations (thank you for adding more!) and because of her prominent leading role. I do work on a project to help add women journalists to Wikipedia, but I only move articles to main space when I think they are notable and have good citations. I didn't know anything about AFC so thanks for sharing it. I'm reading up. Can anyone point me to the module you're referring to? Thanks a lot.--Angshah (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , you can review WikiProject Articles for creation for more information about the AFC review process, which includes the reviewing instructions. Beccaynr (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you may also need to familiarize yourself a bit more with what constitutes "good sourcing" for an article about a journalist, if you think the sourcing here was good enough. A journalist's notability cannot be sourced to staff profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers, pieces of her own writing, interviews in which she's talking about herself or something else, or content on the websites of directly affiliated organizations. Notability hinges on her being the subject of third party media coverage, written in the third person and published by media outlets (magazines, newspapers, television or radio stations, etc.) that are not simultaneously employing her as a content creator. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I have drawn up a source assessment table to help assess whether support exists for WP:BASIC notability, i.e. significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject (footnotes omitted), and If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, based on sources that are not profiles or otherwise written by Aly. Beccaynr (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC) table entry updated Beccaynr (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - One should also be reminded that Articles for Creation (AFC) is an entirely optional exercise and bypassing it without "proper" AFC "approval" should not be portrayed as some type of breach of policy. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Interviews in which the subject is speaking in the first person don't help to build GNG, and advocacy organizations aren't GNG-eligible media outlets. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Geneva Solutions commentary on Aly as a 'thought leader', in a report that otherwise appears to reprint her standard profile and her statements, is from my view, not as significant a support as other sources that interview her for her expertise, and I should have made this more clear - from my view, when a subject is interviewed as an expert, this is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports notability, and additional reporting and context beyond what she says also adds support for WP:BASIC. As to the CPJ, I think you raise a good concern about their neutrality, although I had been thinking of the journalistic aspect of the organization as a boost to its reliability. The CPJ is also a research organization. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Geneva Solutions commentary on Aly as a 'thought leader', in a report that otherwise appears to reprint her standard profile and her statements, is from my view, not as significant a support as other sources that interview her for her expertise, and I should have made this more clear - from my view, when a subject is interviewed as an expert, this is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that supports notability, and additional reporting and context beyond what she says also adds support for WP:BASIC. As to the CPJ, I think you raise a good concern about their neutrality, although I had been thinking of the journalistic aspect of the organization as a boost to its reliability. The CPJ is also a research organization. Beccaynr (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep After also adding sources to The New Humanitarian article, which I think would benefit from expansion and revision based on those sources, I think there is sufficient support for notability per WP:JOURNALIST#3, because in her work as Director of TNH, she has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work, and specifically the collective body of work at TNH during her tenure, and per the guideline, it has been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles, and as noted above in the source assessment table, there is additional support for her WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - Clearly notable given the independent sources from CJR and Journalism.co.uk, as head of a prominent UN-connected organization. I've also rewritten a lot to be more consistent with Wikipedia style, which seems to have been a factor in the nomination. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beccaynr and Fuzheado. Passes WP:JOURNALIST.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: As per Bearcat. Non-notable journalist who has never been written about in any detail by an independent source. BexBlack314 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Keep By sources of article, notability has been established per WP:JOURNALIST.Brayan ocaner (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources indicate that the WP:JOURNALIST threshold is achieved. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)