Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi

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. – Joe (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-PROD'd today. Original PROD rationale was: Although her death was tragic, the fact that it was briefly a news piece does not make her encyclopedically notable. I did not find any indication that her death prompted any WP:LASTING changes, or coverage long beyond the event.

Post-PROD, only one source (this book) has been located, and it's no more than a two-sentence mention.

Participants should take note of two discussions: the talk page discussion, where de-PRODder Bookku made a suggestion to merge to Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)#Children and women, which I believe is WP:UNDUE prominence. (They also left some remarks about an AfD discussion being biased, stonewalling, and a waste of time, which I find to be in bad faith.)

Secondly, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Amat al-Aleem al-Asbahi is relevant; SusunW advised not being able to find any substantial sources in Arabic, which should help with concerns of English-language bias. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Thanks to PMC for raising the question: I'm generally less deletionist than PMC, but the project benefits from diversity of perspectives. I created the stub. In doing so, I was consciously trying to push against systemic bias. Geographically, Yemen is among many countries which are under-represented in Wikipedia. It's also among the 10 countries with the lowest proportion of women on Wikipedia: women are ~8% of Yemeni biographies. So, though Yemen has a population of 28 million, en-WP has pages for under 100 Yemeni women. A general paucity of sources makes this bias hard to address. When it occurred, Al-Asbahi's death was unusually widely reported around the world, but as PMC says there's been little subsequent attention, excepting a paragraph about her (I count it as 6 sentences rather than 2, incidentally) in an encyclopedia page summarizing women's political participation in Yemen. I agree this is borderline, but hope we can keep the page. Dsp13 (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I counted it as two since the rest of it was more about the fatwa impacting her area of work in general, but IMO even if you count it as six sentences, that's still not in-depth coverage. I appreciate your dedication to pushing against systemic bias, I just don't think it should come at the expense of notability standards. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just for record With due respect. Basically my statement about bias is not personal accusation but contextual. When it is possible to redirect article to Yemeni women's human rights article not doing so but single minded focusing on deletion is continuation of internalized multi-layer 'systemic bias'. (Read word 'multi-layer systemic bias' once again) and hence stone walling. In the time one spends on a deletion discussion could have been used to create a article for human rights of Yemeni women and killings of their activists could have been covered. The time which could have been used more productively not doing so is waste of time. (Read again The time which could have been used more productively not doing so is waste of time.)

Until conflicts continue many times journalists are unable to publish in local news under pressure or threat in such cases news are handed over to English language press. So coverage in prominent sources trickles slowly And that adds to additional layer of systemic bias against active women in conflict areas Bookku (talk) 00:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Accusing me of wasting my time on AfD is a bit rich, especially since you took the time to comment here after insisting you wouldn't, and to type it out twice for some reason. Discussing the removal of articles which do not meet our notability standards is as productive a use of time as creating new articles which do. I'm sorry that that upsets you, but it's been a part of the Wikipedia process since the beginning. Approaching the process with bad-faith accusations of bias, stonewalling, and now time-wasting only undercuts your own point, since it quickly becomes obvious you don't have a policy-based argument to make. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If some one misunderstands and misquotes the other has no option but to reply it. When redirection is possible insisting on deletion is waste of time of one's own and others too; And Wikipedia has unemployed army of administrative hopeful deletionists - interpreting Wikipedia rules in tiger's fossilized stripes fashion sans logical imagination, like the ultra conservative Maulans interpreting scriptures as if Wikipedia has no rule for flexibility denying room with multi-layer barriers - 'when 10 deletion votes are enough for democratic majority they vote in hundreds' is waste of time. Read again, 'when 10 deletion votes are enough for democratic majority they vote in hundreds'. Bookku (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection to where? I already explained on the talk page that your proposed target is not suitable. Unfortunately, repeating yourself does not magically make your point stronger, and resorting to name-calling only exposes the fact that you don't have a policy-based argument. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Arabic page indicates she was one of the most prominent women activists in Yemen (a country of 28 million) as does the Arabic language article. Patapsco913 (talk) 10:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage (including the Arabic-language article you added) is about her death, circa the date of her death. In other words, it is news coverage about her death. No one yet has located any coverage of her life prior to death, and no one has located any from after her death indicating that it had any significant lasting impact. We are not a newspaper bound to create an article on every incident that makes the news, and not a memorial for everyone who has died tragically. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for procedural reasons. I don't see any attempt has been made to include content and sources from the Arabic language article. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, did you not read the comments right above yours? Patapsco913 mentions the Arabic-language article, and my response to him notes that the single source from that article has been added to the English article (and that it's more news coverage of her death). There aren't any other sources on the Arabic article except that one (which leads me to believe that maybe you didn't read that either?) And just to forestall any other complaints about Arabic sources, please re-read the nom statement, which links a WiR discussion about this article where SusunW specifically notes that she looked for Arabic sources and found nothing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying the information, Premeditated Chaos, although "Death of AB" articles do exist, this does not fit into the same category based on lack of WP:SIGCOV. Delete away. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, unfortunately nothing wikisignificant has been found beyond this person's tragic death. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. NavjotSR (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no significant coverage about the organization and there is barely any mention unrelated to Yemen civil war. Subject does not pass WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the person lacks multiple significant reliable secondary sources about them. Plus, everything about them seems to be in relation to a single event and Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.