Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shemayel (2nd nomination)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shemayel

[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)

Non notable singer. Earlier AfD resulted in Keep but with no reliable sources added to the article since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsourced BLP. Also there is nothing even remotely suggesting this article passes any of the musician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Without doing a wider search it’s clear from the sources in the ar.wiki article that she’s notable and has had sustained coverage in the mainstream press. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnpacklambert. fails wp:gng.Dtt1^Talk 19:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen: Does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people) nor WP:NMUSIC ("the article itself must document notability through the use of reliable sources"). This is a 2006 unsourced BLP that could have been BLP-prodded. WP:WHYN states: Editors apply notability standards to all subjects to determine whether the English language Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article on that subject., which means that any notability standards of ar.wiki are not applicable. WP:NRVE states: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability., added with WP:NEXIST: If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. This article has existed in contempt of policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 I agree with you, however this article is not eligible for PROD as it has previously been nominated for AFD. I have also had a number of PRODs declined in recent weeks for what I feel are bureaucratic technicalities, and I’m not prepared to go down that path with every article I try to cleanup or delete. Whether the PROD process is fit for purpose is a discussion for another time and place. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got you, and the reason I stated "could have been BLP-prodded". A BLP-prod is somewhat different concerning articles with "zero" (in any form) sourcing. The process is not so easy as just removing a prod with no reasoning. If such an article does not have at least one source provided it can be deleted in 7 days. At a minimum it is a help with articles that exist in disregard of policies and guidelines--- AND -- other editors may not be aware of this. Have a nice day, -- Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’m not “asserting that unspecified sources exist”. I’m directing you to the specific sources used in the ar.wiki article, which are from multiple RIS in several different countries over a period of years. I’m not making an argument that because there is an ar.wiki article we ought to have an en.wiki one. I’m pointing out that a very modest amount of WP:BEFORE would show show you that there are sources ready to hand that ought to be considered. I’d appreciate anyone taking the trouble to set out which of these sources is not sufficient to support this article. WP:BEFORE isn’t a ‘bureaucratic technicality’. If the sources I’ve pointed to aren’t good enough, say why not. Mccapra (talk) 20:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about “bureaucratic technicalities” is more to do with the PROD process than this article. It was not aimed at you. However, I did complete WP:BEFORE, as with every AFD nomination of mine, and did not find sufficient sourcing. If you disagree, it is your responsibility to bring sources to this page so that other editors can assess their suitability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK well I've found:
1. A 2001 feature on her (part interview) on Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah [1]
2. A 2003 story about her retirement from Saudi newspaper Ash-Sharq al-Awsat [2]
3. A 2003 story from Dubai newspaper Al-Bayyan about her venture into acting [3]
4. A 2007 news story about her retirement from performing from Palestinian newspaper Dunia El Watan [4]
5. A 2016 news story about her return from retirement in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba’ [5]
6. A 2016 summary of her career on the Kuwaiti news site CanNews [6]

There are others but I'm not familiar with the publications so haven't included them. They look more gossipy and less reliable than these. Mccapra (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mccapra's sources are quite adequate for the gng criteria. It's a pity no one else was able to find them (or, it seems, look at them here). Thincat (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that show that deletion is unnecessary as the subjext passesWP:GNG and should be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources cited by Mccapra. ~Styyx ^{Hi! ^-^} 17:47, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the new sourcing which indicates BLP is passed. ——Serial 11:18, 29 July 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.