Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raseef22


 * 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. While the votes were split relatively evenly, nearly all of the delete votes had no policy-based rationale. The thorough analysis of available sources by User:Alsee was convincing and was not refuted by anyone. ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 07:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Raseef22

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable news site, used for xwiki spam and deleted on arwiki as well. No coverage in arabic or English sufficient to meet inclusion criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * the article deleted on arwiki as non-notable website under arwiki WP:WEB, also undeletion request rejected (enwiki content already translated from arwiki version). Also per Alexa it's ranked #73,132 globally, and there's no RSs about it, so I don't see it notable per enwiki WP:WEB. Delete -- Alaa )..! 13:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails to WP:WEB.-- Faisal  talk 15:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, these are the reasons I believe the subject of this article is notable:
 * Raseef22 was the subject of the following articles:
 * - this article in Al-Quds Al-Arabi
 * - this article in The Washington Post
 * - this article from Radio Monte Carlo
 * - this article from the independent Lebanese online newspaper al-Mudun (المدن)
 * - this article from Mada Masr


 * It has been mentioned in the following media sources:
 * - this article in The New York Times
 * - this article from Qantara.de
 * - this article from Deutsche Welle in Arabic
 * - this article from An-Nahar
 * - this article from Al-Shorouk

I don't deny that the article needs work; I threw it together quickly. All are welcome to edit it as they see fit or suggest ways it can be improved. إيان (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Raseef22 has been censored by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as covered by some of the sources above, and Jamal Khashoggi was a regular contributor.
 * According to this statistic, it gets over 500,000 hits monthly, which means over 6 million hits annually.
 * Weak keep. Most of the sources cited above are passing mentions, but I think several things sum up to a keep:
 * The Alquds piece easily qualifies as one piece of significant coverage.
 * The Almodons piece is more than passing mention, but I consider it marginal to fully count as a "significant coverage".
 * I found a new source, which I added to the article. This Lorientlejour piece I also consider the coverage-quantity to be marginal, but significantly they are reporting on Raseef22 winning a journalism award from a Paris LGBT-journalist association. I think that adds some additional weight.
 * Courrierinternational provides a solid profile of Raseef22, but it's a "source notes" page that they link when republishing stories from Raseef22 rather than an independent article. To be honest I'd generally be reluctant to give much weight to that kind of thing.
 * The Washingtonpost published an opinion piece by the publisher of Raseef22, because he's the publisher of Raseef22, with significant coverage of Raseef22. The fact that the content isn't independent undermines the weight, and the fact that it's an opinion piece undermines the weight, but I think the Washingtonpost's decision to dedicate a sizeable item to Raseef22 carries some weight.
 * While searching for sources, I found many sources either quoting/citing Raseef22 or republishing entire articles. I consider this to carry limited weight in itself, but more significantly this along with the evidence above and my broader impression from everything I searched leads me to believe there is more coverage out there. The standard for Notability is whether sufficient sources exist, even if they have not yet been cited. I consider the cited evidence to be borderline (I would really like another solid piece of significant coverage), but I am persuaded that more exists that would make this a comfortable keep. Alsee (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks إيان for starting the article. Definitely needs some work, but I found a another reference that could be useful:
 * - This report by the CPJ references reporting by Raseef22 journalists. --Majdal.cc (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I would like to bring up the possible issues here.
 * about Khashoggi point> "No inherited notability" per WP:INHERITWEB -- Alaa )..! 20:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm a fan of Raseef22 since 5 years, but honestly I think it doesn't meet criteria of WP:WEB and just a normal website like others, there are many websites banned in Egypt (546) and Saudi Arabia (over 1M) this is not something special, I read all link above and it's Trivial mentions and some "doubtful testimony", because some editors in Raseef22 wrote in other places (like Washington post opinion), then we found (almodon.com - arabi21.com - alquds.co.uk) republished the same story! that are not (independent sources), also the website describes itself as "Liberal", and the others praise it because of ideology not because of quality of works (example) --Ibrahim.ID ✪  06:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm an occaisional reader to Raseef22, been so for a couple of years, and its not unique or special in anyway that makes it show up among other similar websites--باسم (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It's possible that this is a case of Canvassing, as 4/7 commenters on this thread so far are Admins on Arabic Wikipedia. They are, in order of comments here:, , , and )—many of whom are curiously not active contributors on English Wikipedia ordinarily.
 * It's possible that these users might have Conflict of interest in this discussion, as the subject of this AfD recently published this article critical of their decision to delete the Arabic Wikipedia article سارة حجازي (Sarah Hegazi).
 * This is also possibly part of a case of Harassment and specifically Hounding, as a the nominator of this AfD,, also nominated Zineb Rachid for deletion; while this is a legitimate AfD, it is curious that this user, who is not at all active on Arabic Wikipedia, cited the deletion of the article there in the AfD. It furthered my perception of being targeted when this user also coincidentally happened to edit the relatively untouched article Le Desk, which I also started.
 * At the same time, —another Admin from Arabic Wikipedia—nominated two more articles I started: Sidi Moumen Cultural Center and Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah for deletion. This all comes in addition to a recent barrage of potentially retribution-driven deletions of my work on Arabic Wikipedia.
 * While it is incumbent upon me to Assume good faith, the evidence seems to indicate Disruptive editing and that I am being targeted, perhaps as revenge for challenging the Arabic Wikipedia admins or as an attempt to discredit my contribution history and characterize it as promotional. This is frustrating and demoralizing because I generally have great respect for these users for their tremendous contributions elsewhere. I invite those involved to please clarify any misunderstandings that may I have. إيان (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually do frequently edit Arabic projects, including arwiki. Take a look at my central auth. I am also a global sysop and monitor spam lists and filters on IRC. I also patrol new pages and review them or nominate them for deletion. Your accusations of hounding are ridiculous. When I find a highly problematic article from a newish user, I look at their recent creations since people tend to make the same mistakes in assuming notability. There is no hounding, there is certainly no harassment that I know of, but you'll need to provide a diff for that if you still believe this to be the case, otherwise please strike that comment. Praxidicae (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And actually, I have a significant amount of edits on ar wiki, which you can see here, not including the many deleted edits I have due to my anti-spam work. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the clarification. I apologize for my misunderstanding; I hope you can understand why I felt that it was possible that I was being targeted. I am striking out the portion that mentions you, but could you please explain what "diff" means? إيان (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello إيان (Ian), I am sorry to read this WP:CAN accusation. It's normal that ar-N users comments on Arabic topics RfD. I don't know what you mean by "not active contributors", if you can please explain the activity measure that you use? About above users comments, I see this comments are normal thing, as 3 of them comments on "your" undeletion request on arwiki, so of course they see that you translated the arwiki content to enwiki. About COI point, I don't see it correct, for example it's my first time to see Raseef22 article that you mentioned. About Praxidicae point, I'd say that Praxidicae is one of the most active non-ar-N users on arwiki, and you can see that Praxidicae have abusefilter and editor flag on arwiki! About other RfDs made in your articles, Wikipedia versions are complementary to each others, so if I found non-notable article on arwiki with dewiki version, of course I'll nominate it for deletion on dewiki also (of course per there policies of notability).

Finally, please remember that most decisions on Wikipedia are not made by popular vote, but rather through discussions to achieve consensus, so all above users put comments not only vote! And I'm sorry again to read all of this accusations! Why you only mentioned "Delete" comments as WP:CAN, as I noticed that (Majdal.cc) made only 33 edits on enwiki, comments on Sarah RfD on arwiki, important element on Raseef22 article you mentioned above (can consider as COI)? or conspiracy theory applied here on "delete" votes only? -- Alaa )..! 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey (Alaa), thank you for your response. I'm sorry I have to get back to work for a couple of hours, but I'll respond as soon as I can. Just quickly, though: I don't know for sure if it's a case of WP:CAN or WP:COI but I felt it was a possibility (I hope you understand how) and I wanted to get some clarification. إيان (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey (Alaa), thanks for your patience.
 * About COI point, I don't see it correct, for example it's my first time to see Raseef22 article that you mentioned.
 * I find this surprising. I know you're no longer on Facebook, but the article was posted multiple times to the arwiki Facebook group and it generated quite a bit of discussion. Other commenters have definitely seen it.
 * as 3 of them comments on "your" undeletion request on arwiki
 * I just double checked, and it looks like—of the 4 arwiki admins in this discussion—only and  participated in that discussion in Arabic.
 * Why you only mentioned "Delete" comments as WP:CAN
 * Because all the arwiki admins in this discussion happen to have voted for its deletion.
 * I noticed that (Majdal.cc) made only 33 edits on enwiki, comments on Sarah RfD on arwiki,
 * This discussion was the first time I saw this user. As far as I know, this user is not an Admin on arwiki, but if this user has some other conflict of interest then this user should be held to the same standard. إيان (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm active user here in EnWiki and I have created/participated in many AFDs and I'm member of WP:WDS also, this is (ar-n) topic and I know Raseef22 well, so why not? there is no conspiracy theory or WP:CONFLICT, I don't know anything about deletion of Arabic version. --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Although it may have coverage online, it doesn’t seem significant enough to qualify for a full article. Besides, there’s insufficient coverage in English for justification. KaitoNkmra23 (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary for the coverage to be in English to justify notability, but there is plenty. There is also plenty of coverage offline.
 * * These books (most of which appear to be in English) appear to either cite Raseef22 or mention it.
 * * Furthermore, these books mostly in Arabic appear to cite or mention it.
 * * Also in English: Washington Post, Internews, also cited or mentioned in the New York Times and by International Media Support, for example. Is this coverage not significant? إيان (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No, WaPo op-eds and other opinion pieces are not coverage in the slightest. Not to mention it's literally written by someone affiliated with Raseef22. Praxidicae (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Washington Post is a newspaper of record—don't you see how the choice of a publication of this magnitude to reserve space for this piece gives the topic serious weight? Besides, it's the only opinion piece mentioned. In addition to all of the WP:Reliable sources previously mentioned, look at all of these academic publications citing or mentioning Raseef22. Also, you'll need to provide a diff for that—I still don't understand what you meant. Could you please explain? إيان (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You accused me of harassment. As per WP:NPA, WP:ASPERSIONS, you need to provide evidence of this in the form of a WP:DIFF. As far as WaPo goes - no, an opinion piece written by the publisher of Raseef22 is not an independent reliable source. WaPo is reliable, no one is saying it isn't. I'm saying that an opinion piece is not an IRS in the context of establishing notability. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining what WP:DIFF means. Please note that I brought up some possible issues citing the relevant pages, but I did not formally accuse anyone of harassment, and I invited those involved to please clarify any misunderstandings that may I have. Please also note that I tried to contact you privately by email, but you—perfectly legitimately—explained that you would not respond. When I resorted to raising my concerns here, you graciously explained how I was mistaken on your behalf, and I struck-through the portion concerning you.
 * However, I am still concerned about the other possible issues. I hope it is abundantly clear and understandable why I feel I am being targeted, with 5 articles I started on enwiki recently nominated for deletion, each with the extensive involvement of at least 1 of 5 arwiki administrators, coincidentally, after a barrage of quick deletions on arwiki in the immediate aftermath of a massive controversy in which I challenged arwiki administrators.
 * As for the Washington Post piece: according to WP:RSEDITORIAL, "editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." This is exactly how the source is used in the article. Is there a hard rule that says an opinion piece in this kind of context should not be considered in establishing a subject's notability? Also, the notability of Raseef22 should be clear in consideration of the volume of citations/mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar. إيان (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For the final time, it is not an acceptable source in the context of notability. No one is debating whether it works as a primary source. It does not contribute to notability which is the purpose of an AFD. As far as your articles being nominated, I explained very clearly why and how I nominated your articles and it is a direct result of NPP. I am sorry you feel targeted but you're insistent aspersions that you are still continuing to cast (as you did here) need to stop, though it is somewhat ironic since you're also complaining about canvassing by attempting to canvas an admin to your dispute, who as far as I can tell, has nothing to do with this article. There is no conspiracy here and I'd encourage you to drop that stick. And finally, you are aware that Wikidata exists, right? When an article is deleted, it is also removed, generally by the deleting admin from whichever project. It is completely reasonable that that is also how they ended up here but you're focusing far too much on assigning a made up motive to editors instead of making cogent arguments for why this should be kept. Praxidicae (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't do anything wrong. I expressed my concerns and sought the advice of a fair, respected, and WP:uninvolved user who has nothing to do with this article (exactly the point). I explicitly asked that this user share the advice with me—maybe this user would tell me I'm wrong here; maybe not. That's legitimate and clearly not canvassing.
 * I've struckthrough the WaPo source, as its not essential to establishing the subject's notability, though I haven't been provided with a hard rule or policy against it. gave a nuanced appraisal of the source above.
 * The explanation you provide is plausible for some of it, but it doesn't address it all in its larger context. Those users are still welcome to clarify any misunderstandings I might have about their activities.
 * As far as other cogent arguments go, I've made a number: Google Books, Google Scholar, and every single other source mentioned. Please don't cast aspersions yourself. إيان (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * KaitoNkmra23 please note that your argument "there’s insufficient coverage in English" is invalid under policy. See WP:NONENG, non-English sources are absolutely valid. (English sources are merely preferred if English versions are available and contain all needed info.) Alsee (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Few mentions here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1749975519856241, but mostly trivial. Jklamo (talk) 13:24, 1 July 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.