Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maram Susli


 * 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. Welcome to Wikipedia everybody! We hope you like the place and decide to stay. I'm boldly closing after reading the discussion and seeing the four new keep assertions in the last few hours. Consensus of this discussion is that the subject meets WP:NBASIC, the article is not an attack page, and that sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources is present or otherwise exists. A SPI has been created to deal with any socking or coordination. Of the extended confirmed contributors, none asserted delete. By my reading, this is a clear consensus. BusterD (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Maram Susli

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

Article does not establish notability from reliable sources beyond some peripheral mentions of conspiracy theories, many of them second hand quoting of WP:DEPRECATED sources and social media. Does not meet the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST or WP:ANYBIO. This is a borderline WP:ATTACK page that exists primarily to disparage its subject. JeanPassepartout (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with this assessment, this has gone on for long enough. Most of the article is a WP:ATTACK. Xaeonx7 (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also concur with this assessment for the same reason.Jumpn jza (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC) — Jumpn jza (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete I also concur with this assessment; if libel-free biographical articles is an objective of Wiki editorial, this one is dangerously close to impeding it.Osaka-ali(talk) 14:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC) — Osaka-ali (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep Passes WP:NBASIC given there have been whole articles dedicated to her in Haaretz, news.com.au, the Daily Beast, Al Bawaba, Al Arabiya, and paragraphs at a time in other news sources. She gets mentioned in many news items and books on disinformation in the Syrian conflict and in connection with Kremlin-associated propaganda. She's not obscure. Regarding the issue of whether this is an "attack" page, two points: 1. NPOV does not require wikipedians to say equally nice and not-nice things about a subject. If the coverage of her in reliable sources isn't glowing, that's what the page should reflect. Attack pages typically consist of poorly sourced or unsourced negative material ie negative material that may very well not be true. 2. If the article even taking that into account is biased, then the solution is to tidy up the article, not delete it, given that sources are actually there. OsFish (talk) 06:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment adding links to RS sources: Regarding the claim, repeated by several redlink/SPA commenters here, that there is no proper RS coverage of the subject, that's just not true. Here are articles wholly or mainly about her.
 * The Best English-speaking Friend Assad Could Ask For, Front and Center on the Net in Haaretz
 * Australian blogger Syrian Girl posts views on ISIS, US airstrikes, Ebola from news.com.au
 * The Kardashian Look-Alike Trolling for Assad in The Daily Beast
 * Meet the YouTube Sensation Who Predicts Syria’s Future in Vice (magazine)
 * ‘Partisan Girl’ & the Online Battle for Syria in Al Bawaba
 * How Syrians Talk About Assad: Zaina Erhaim vs. Partisan Girl in Al Bawaba
 * The Kardashian wannabe trolling for Assad in Al Arabiya
 * She is mentioned in scholarly works, for example :
 * "Meanwhile, a source Postol had used for his Ghouta investigation had risen in prominence on social media, prompting some journal- ists to investigate her credibility and, by association, Postol’s. The Syrian-Australian blogger Maram Susli (also known as Syrian Girl and Partisan Girl) advocated a pro- regime stance on Syria and endorsed conspiracy theories about 9/11 Truth, the Holocaust, and the New World Order (Shachtman & Kennedy, 2017). She became a regular Infowars contributor and appeared on far-right media with white supremacists including the leader of the Ku Klux Klan (ibid)."
 * I should point out that most if not all of these sources are used in the article. Claims from certain SPA editors, passionately editing the page, that there is no RS sourcing to provide notability are hard to fathom, and it would be great if some concrete explanation about why these sources don't establish notability could be put forward. Rather than incivility. OsFish (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Looks like a coordinate sock puppet or troll faction at work with three consecutive redletter accounts stating "I concur/I also concur/I also concur..." on the same day. Two said comments seven minutes apart. None provide substantial support or argumentation. Each have no user page, just talk pages with little or nothing but automated new-user information placed by Wikipedia bots. As to the sole point made by this person or persons, objecting that the content is "libel", there are many options for specific edits toning down the language and/or requiring sourcing. However, it is a long-standing Wikipedia approach every user learns their first year, ie., to strive for WP:NPV WP:NPOV. That is the remedy, not deletion. Provided that the minimal standard of notability is reached, the logical Wikiway here would be keep.Deletionism is a scourge upon WP and deletions should be done very judiciously as they tend towards whitewashing many situations where a bit of tidying would preserve important facts for the record. Wikidgood (talk) 07:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Wikidgood seems to be correct. Either there’s some off wiki coordination going on or all the new /sleeper SPA accounts (JeanPassepartout, Jumpn jza, Osaka-ali, Akashical, Xaeonx7, maybe one or two others) are all the same person. Their (very brief) editing histories are virtually indistinguishable.  Volunteer Marek   07:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, take a look at this, specifically on 15 October. edits the article and then 5 minutes later  makes two edits and is followed by  12 minutes later. Sockpuppetry, perhaps??? —  Nythar  (💬-🎃) 08:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Volunteer Marek, should I start an SPI? I have enough evidence. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 08:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did. here. It's the first time I've lodged one. I hope I haven't made too weak a case. OsFish (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OsFish, thanks for opening the case. I have added another possible sockpuppet to the case. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 08:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete It's pretty clear that this particular page is just run by a bunch of trolls who have too much time on their hands. Xaeonx7 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you move your "delete" to your initial comment? Thanks. Otherwise it looks like trying to !vote twice. OsFish (talk) 07:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons... No. Xaeonx7 (talk) 07:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Hopefully a relist will sort out the SPA accounts showing up to this AFD to weigh in. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Article is mostly a list of things that she has said and done that can be confirmed by checking her media pages. She has appeared on the shows listed.  She has said the things quoted.  Her influence has been the subject of government inquiry so she is not an obscure private citizen.  Libel requires that the items published are untrue. Any items that are incorrect or have no supporting proof can be edited out. The call for deletion is clearly an attempt to hide the history. Akashical (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So to be clear, you disagree with the request for deletion and you are for Keep. Or so it appears. Let us know if that is not the case. Thank you for your thoughts. Wikidgood (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This article should be deleted. First, the piece doesn't quote of impact and relevance beyond some very politicized media outlets. Secondly, most of the article is libel. It is clear from the edit history tha it is an AP:Attack page. Also, "volunteer Marek" and "Osfish" are some of the people in in the intent of Ms. Susli's defamation. Most of the contributors to the post have very few things to say about her other than negative issues. No effort is being made on this article to credit her with her trajectory, or to her personal achievements, or any biographical effort in hopes to light or guide the public on the positive aspects of her persona. Instead, what we get is a string of negative issues based on third party accounts. If Ms. Susli has a string of articles expressing her thoughts on a conflict that affects is a syrian citizen, that have some impact, is that enough to permanently scar her? Think about the effects that the unwarranted influence and impact has over a person who has a Wikipedia page dedicated to her and edited and written with the sole venomous intention of harming her private persona, and smearing her in front of everyone. Is Wikipedia becoming the vantage point for validating cancellation culture? I don't think so. Furthermore, can you point out to anyone in the realm of Ms. Susli's topics that has been the target of such institutionalized attacks? The progressive weaponization of content is something that we should consider in this forum. Because it can happen to Ms. Susli, but what prevents it from happening to anyone around the planet with a point of view that some people might find controversial. Is this Robespierrian train of thought and procedures in line with what WP represents? I think not. User:Psychonuts 10:58 UTC, 7 November 2022 — Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)  — Psychonuts (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The reason I believe this article should be deleted is because there are numerous examples of legitimate information about Susli being removed without legitimate reasons being given, which should suggest to any reasonable person that what is being presented is not a neutral account of Susli's activities, rather a one-sided account that portrays her in a negative light. For example: 1) Reference to notable appearance and interviews by Maram Susli, by neutral, mainstream and left wing news outlets such as France24 and Skynews are consistently removed, in favor of retaining only right wing outlets even if they are more obscure and not as notable. This can be seen in the edit On 07:24, 8 November 2022‎ by Osfish, and the edit on  07:37, 8 November 2022‎  by Volunteer Marek. 2) Volunteer Marek (on 04:52, 2 November 2022) added prejudicial terminology, including describing Susli as a "conspiracy theorist" even though there is no evidence that she identifies as one. Volunteer Marek also deleted reference to Susli as a "journalist", though doing so in the spirit of an attack, they have essentially agreed that the page does not meet the requirements of WP:JOURNALIST and hence should be deleted. 3) I have tried to remove "ParmesanGirl" from this account because there is no reference for it, and seems to be an insult that does not belong on this page - this was added by 118.211.229.153 who should be blocked. By Jumpn jza (talk)
 * Keep As per User:Wikidgood comments above, the answer to bias or libel is not deletion but judicious editing. Fundamentally, the page passes WP:NBASIC. Spinifex&#38;Sand (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The article should be deleted. Maram Susli is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. There are no reviews of Susli's videos or social media remarks that merit a serious and citable discussion. The subject's occasional articles in various, mostly obscure publications, do not constitute enough material for the subject to be a person of interest to the broad public. The article is a clear WP:ATTACK page that does not meet the relevant criteria of, nor serve any legitimate purpose of, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wootendw (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, an account that's made 25 edits over the last 9 years somehow finds this discussion and proceeds to call the article an "", mirroring the language used by other users above, which is surprising when you consider the fact that two accounts yesterday removed most controversial content from the article. Either there's coordinated editing involved or this is a bizarre coincidence. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 03:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat: Maram Susli is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page. There are no reviews of Susli's videos or social media remarks that merit a serious and citable discussion. The subject's occasional articles in various, mostly obscure publications, do not constitute enough material for the subject to be a person of interest to the broad public. Wootendw (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Either there's coordinated editing involved or this is a bizarre coincidence."
 * The subject of Wikipedia editors gone awry is making more and more news. I read some things about Max Blumenthal's and Kari Lake's problems just two days ago. But they are indisputably, public persons. Maram Susli is not. Wikipedia editors are making a public person out of a private one. Wootendw (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wootendw, "" <-- that makes no sense and there is no guideline that says there can't be an article about a person with many reliable sources available online. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 05:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This article, including a long History of edits, amounts to harassment. Wootendw (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How are we harassing her? This is a rather neutral article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - The issues that the delete comments present are all surmountable problems and do not warrant deletion of the article. The notability of the article's subject does not appear to be in question, as it appears well-established via the sources in the article. Saying it's an WP:ATTACK page doesn't hold up past an initial glance at the article and the wording of what WP:ATTACK actually is. If Maram Susli is problematic, that can be resolved via editing and discussion (which has not been attempted afaik) rather than deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maram Susli should a private person like millions other persons with Twitter and YouTube accounts that some like you don't agree with. Just because you've invested you life in this project, doesn't make the subject noteworthy for Wikipedia. Wootendw (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "that some like you don't agree with" I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, but "noteworthy" is not a standard for deletion, notability is and has a specific meaning on Wikipedia. The notability of this individual seems fairly well established. - Aoidh (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Including the History, there has been far, far more written about Maram Susli in this Wikipedia article than every in everything else written on the Maram Susli put together. That's not normal. Wootendw (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if true, that's still not cause for deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Even if true, that's still not cause for deletion"
 * It should not have been entered in the first place. Wootendw (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are free to edit the article, but any attempt at vandalism or bad-faith edits will be removed. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A private person that pots much public content, is a public figure. Your argument doesn't hold water. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course as soon as I say the notability isn't in question the very next comment in this AfD does exactly that, but the article's subject meeting WP:GNG is easily demonstrated just by the sources already in the article; given that we use Wikipedia's criteria for determining notability, concerns that the subject is not notable do not hold up to that standard. - Aoidh (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's WP:ATTACK because it has been in defamation for years. At least one Wikipedia editor has been topic-banned from this and now Wikipedia-banned for another person's 'bio'. Wootendw (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If true, none of that warrants the deletion of the article. Deletion is not cleanup. The problems you're citing are problems fixed via editing. - Aoidh (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should never have been inserted in the first place. Wootendw (talk) 05:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why? It's amply sourced, using a neutral point of view. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Easily passes WP:NBASIC given coverage in multiple news sources. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 05:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, as said, the article easily clears NBASIC. The nomination itself is pretty sus, considering the single-purpose accounts.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 06:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep What conspiracy theories? It's saying her account is not a bot controlled by the Kremlin; the conspiracy is that people are claiming it's not a bot? It could a bit of a re-write but it's mostly NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete this article should be deleted, I’ve seen enough evidence in the recent days to see that it is an WP:attack page on a non-noteable, better editing will not stop the defemation as there are too many trolls — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorExistential (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)  — ProfessorExistential (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment to Closer Along with many of the other SPA accounts, this is an account that took part in an editing flurry in September 2021 and has done very little since. I shall note it in the current SPI. OsFish (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OsFish, I already did that :) — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 06:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah - you got there first! Should I delete my comment there?OsFish (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You could -- both of our comments say about the same thing anyway. — Nythar  (💬-🎃) 06:17, 10 November 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.