Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaa Najjar

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Some of the "keep" voters have demonstrated that the subject is good enough to pass WP:GNG aside from being the Wikimedian of the Year. Additional concerns regarding the person can take place in the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Najjar

[edit]

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

Alaa Najjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly admirable, being the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 does not automatically confer encyclopedic notability; we still require significant coverage in reliable sources. In web searches, I only found [1], as well as a passing mention in [2]. These are insufficient for notability. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 05:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus many others, I could add them to the article.--Sandra Hanbo (talk) 07:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are a sources in Arabic (How does Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, work? Some principles of digital advocacy) and (The Wikipedia Education Program, in its second edition, is an imprint of An-Najah University students in cyberspace)in Arabic and this [4] but is not centered for him --Nehaoua (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the Wikimedian Prize of the Year out of thousands of people is notable, also everyone who won this award has an article on Wikipedia.
    I think that Alaa deserves an article on Wikipedia. By looking at the references in Arabic, we see that Alaa deserves an article. --Osps7 (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do want to push back against some of the arguments being made here. While WP:GNG is indeed "a guideline only", we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance. As far as the specific sources that are required for the GNG, we need nontrivial coverage, not just an article that mentions the subject in passing. Of all the sources presented so far, it seems like the nontrivial ones are the UltraSawt article and the The National News article (I mentioned the latter in the nomination)—at this time, I would maintain the view that this isn't enough nontrivial coverage to justify a standalone biography, although I appreciate that perhaps a couple more sources in the same vein as these two might change my mind. Mz7 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think another relevant angle to this is WP:BLP1E. A part of the motivation for this AfD, which I wish I made clear from the start, was a desire to be respectful of this Wikipedia editor’s privacy. I don’t see Alaa as a particularly high-profile individual, and if sources primarily discuss Alaa only in the context of winning the WotY award, I think our BLP1E policy requires us to err on the side of privacy. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "While WP:GNG is indeed 'a guideline only', we shouldn't disregard it in favor of personal standards of importance." And nor did I: I explicitly stated "Being made WotY confers notability, and we allow article creation to complete a set, as in this case.". I also predicted "Media coverage will undoubtedly follow in the coming week"; QED: [5], [6], [7]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentI agree with you, and article should be deleted @Mz7: Should the Arabic language Admin and steward be rewarded with an article on Wikipedia? And there is no reliable sources coverage about him? Just because he won the wiki award and so on, Arab voters are editors on the Arabic wiki and so they vote for their admin, who created the article, is an editor on the Arabic wiki. Is this fair?
    He does not have a page in Arabic because the administrators do not consider him a notable person     Qatar Lover QA (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of علي أبو عمر (talk · contribs). Pahunkat (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG and most important the subject is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award for 2021. Abishe (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proposal to delete this page for the Wikimedian of the Year 2021 is a tragic but classic example of systemic bias on Wikipedia. @Jesswade88: @Deb: @Jimbo Wales: @Rosiestep: @Discott:
    Ear-phone (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the preceding comments that the article is above the line of sufficiency. This person is the winner of the Wikimedian of the Year award in its main category and there's evidently growing coverage in reliable sources. Even if we have to be strict for some reason, this is at least a borderline case. In such cases, we usually err on the side of inclusion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even in the sources presented above for keep votes, there is only a passing mention and largely focused on the Wikimedia side. It would be suitable to include details of Najjar at the Wikimedian of the Year article in this instance. I also think this is not a borderline case unless more suitable sources appear, but even if it was, we should err on the side of deletion so as to not see WMF be accused of naval-gazing (topics relevant to Wikimedia being given articles when equivalent unrelated ones are not). I'm also concerned that there's some CANVASSing. Kingsif (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the last sentence of Andy Mabbett's message of 15:06 on 18 August 2021. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Wikimedians of the Year have articles, article Wikimedian of the Year is a Featured List. The award is aimed at promoting Wikimedia ideas and values among people, creating article is a way to promote, and deleting it is a way to topple. --ssr (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lot of the arguments in favor of "Keep" seem to be on the basis of WotY providing notability, and BLP does provide for this, with WP:ANYBIO #1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or". However, I haven't seen any arguments for how this is met; can those in favor provide such arguments so that we can properly consider them?
    I would also like to echo Mz7 and pushback against the concept of "GNG" being just a guideline; I've always interpreted it in the opposite direction, that for something to be notable it has to pass GNG (or a subject-specific guideline), but it is a guideline because passing it doesn't guarantee notability, it just opens the possibility of it.
    Finally, I would like to ask if anyone has found any further sources? At the moment, the only source that I can see indisputably passes GNG is the National News source (the interview may also pass, depending on ones opinion of interviews in regards to GNG and independence.) BilledMammal (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BilledMammal: This article clearly meets the first two criteria of WP:ANYBIO. Wikimedian of the Year is a notable award not because we're biased Wikipedians but because it recognises the contributions by people to a project that attracts around 2 billion visits every day. If influencing billions of people is not notable, then I wonder what really is.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski: I don't think we can decide if an award is notable or significant based on what the award is for or who it covers; if we did, we would have to consider an award with ambitious scope but otherwise totally lacking in what we would normally term notability or significance, as notable and significant. I think we need actually evidence to prove an award meets ANYBIO #1 - just as we need evidence to prove an entity meets GNG, by the presentation of three sources that meet all five points. BilledMammal (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an award is not notable or significant based on what it is for, I presume it's the coverage in reliable sources and, in that case, Wikimedian of the Year clearly passes given the amount of sources already in the article. As for GNG, it's merely a guideline as stated above but, even if we take it as a rule, this article doesn't fail to meet its five criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I miscommunicated. Where I used the word "notable", I should have used the word "well-known". An award can be notable per wikipedia's criteria, but not sufficiently "well-known and significant" to confer notability on its recipients; we would need to establish that a given award does meet that criteria.
In regards to the five criteria, could you help me by providing the three articles that meet the five criteria? So far I've only be able to find one or two, depending on how one counts interviews? BilledMammal (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andy has already provided reliable sources that confirm notability above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first meets GNG, but I think two and three fail the "significant coverage" requirement, as while they mention Najjar, that is all they do, with their coverage focusing on winners or honorable mentions of other Wikimedian awards. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the person subject to the article thinks about it is completely irrelevant. Lionel Messi may wish not to have a Wikipedia article but that doesn't mean we should delete it. We add content based on what is in the reliable sources. Even if the person echoes the wish not to have an article and it appears in reliable sources as such, I assume that the opposition would end up in a separate section but it won't affect the article's existence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE would suggest its not "completely irrelevant." Alaa is a "relatively unknown, non-public person", he's not Lionel Messi. The article on him on ar.wiki w:ar:علاء نجار redirects to the page on Wikimedian of the year; presumably if he was an extremely notable person to the point where we shouldn't take his thoughts into consideration, the project in his native language would have an article on him. I'm not actually arguing to delete at this point: I think that we've established that Wikimedians of the Year get an article as a precedent. At the same time, most of them are relatively unknown, non-public people. Since we know who they are and they're familiar with Wikipedia, if an article is being considered for deletion, it is worth asking them the question if they have a preference, and there is a policy justification for that. Basically I only commented above because I think from a human angle, we owe him the courtesy of pinging him and asking the question.TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bad idea to judge the notability of a "relatively unknown, non-public person" by asking him whether he wants an article or not. Once again, we decide about notability based on coverage in reliable sources and someone's personal preference doesn't put weight if it's a borderline case. Also, this may set a precedent that other people may hang on to in the future in order to influence what information to be included in the articles about them (Note: We've already had cases on some Wikipedias in which people insisted information about them to be censored.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misunderstanding me: the policy says we can delete the article even if he's notable if he doesn't want it in cases like this. It doesn't say we have to, but it is a factor we can consider. I'm not saying we should judge notability based on it. I think it is clear from our standards that Wikimedians of the Year meet the inclusion criteria. Just because someone is notable doesn't mean we have to have an article, though, and yes, the privacy preferences of an relatively unknown person is something we should consider when its very easy to ask. If he doesn't respond, it'll obviously be kept, but I do think we at least owed him the ping. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see it exists as a possibility in our policies but, in my opinion, that's not something we should invoke in such cases unless the person is threatened because of the availability of some information in public and censoring that information is necessary for safety reasons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, based on the discussion above; there have been no arguments presented for the Wikimedian of the Year award being a "well-known and significant award", per the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. I am also not satisfied that GNG has been passed, as no editor has been able to list three articles that meet all the requirements. I recognize this goes against the developing consensus, but it is important to note that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies. If it turns out that either of these two bars are met, please ping me and we can have a discussion about WP:BLP1E. BilledMammal (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alaa_Najjar&oldid=1040201846"