Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Jaff

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Jaff

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

I've tried to cleanup this promotional bio/. I think it's hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, I came across this article some time ago and it was full of promotional material and reduced it to this. I also considered sending to AfD back then, but concluded that there were sufficient reliable sources to establish notability, though I can see no compelling reason to keep it other than it technically meets our criteria for notability once the promotional stuff is removed. One possibility is to revert the article back to the article I cleaned up (linked above). I'm neutral on whether to keep or delete it.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:NOTADVERT violation, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something more neutral and less dependent on primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things than this version is. The one thing that jumped out at me from the sources as the most seemingly compelling evidence of notability, the notion that a Mexican political figure was getting media coverage in Kurdistan per footnote #26, actually turned out to be a press release (in English, no less, which makes organically independent coverage of her an implausible explanation as virtually all of the site's other content is in Kurdish) — basically, it's a user-generated public relations blog that will "publish" absolutely anything that gets submitted to it at all, not a real media outlet. But self-promoting wannabes routinely try to game our sourcing rules by creating and distributing their own self-published "sourcing" for themselves on user-generated content and "citizen journalism" sites, and then trying to use that self-created "coverage" as proof that they pass WP:GNG. So if that's happening here, then I have less inclination to give any of the other questionable sources the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not seeing enough non-questionable sources to vote "keep with cleanup". If somebody can write and source a new article much better than this, that's another story — but this as written is so bad that it qualifies for the blow it up and start over treatment regardless of her potential notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Yes, this article in its current state is promotional, and that should be changed, but I don't think it's to the point that it should be deleted. For example, several of the references cited, such as Kurdistan24 and Rudaw Media Network, seem reliable, and I found this article on her, which seems like a good one to cite (though I'm not familiar with Mexican media sources). It's not the strongest sourcing, but it works for me. The article definitely should be changed and improved, and it should be condensed even more than DGG did (and we don't need so many headers), but ultimately it should be kept. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, when I say the article should be "changed," I mainly mean trimming to get rid of the promotional info so only independent sources (such as the ones I mentioned) are cited. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with 1990'sguy. Article could use cleanup, expansion, improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 01:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article about Hanna Jaff as it stands now already has several reliable source across multiple languages, e.g. the Forbes article. WP:PROMOTIONALISM is not a reason to delete an article in and of itself if it already passes WP:GNG. Carajou (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is complete self-promotion of a person without political relevance, the person in question does not represent any important group or organization, has not exercised any public office at the federal or local level, nor has she been a candidate or participated in constitutional elections in Mexico. Its main references are to a supposed Kurdish genealogy, and to social and business magazines where there is no journalistic rigor. Checking the sources it is clear that it is a self-promotion article, most of these, are completely invalid. Number 4 is related to a business website but has no author or context, number 5 has no relevance, number 6 leads to a website where nothing related is mentioned, number 7 does not work, number 8 leads to a directory of a private company, the number 11 leads to a pdf that does not clarify if it was published in any means of communication, the number 12 directs to an article in a generic sports blog, the 13 and 14 direct to the official site of the Institutional Revolutionary Party but there is no mention of it anywhere, number 15 directs to a homepage of a lifestyle blog where there is no mention of it either, number 18 does not work, number 20 directs to a multimedia homepage , a means of communication where there is no mention of she, number 21 goes to the homepage of the OEM, a means of communication where there is no mention of she, the number 24 addresses a news of candidacy in Mexico in a Kurdish medium or but it has no references in Mexican media, where for obvious reasons it should appear, the number 28 does not show any mention of she. andreszavalas (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does appear to have several reliable sources across multiple languages (for example, Forbes Kurdistan24 and Rudaw Media Network). Jaff has also held notable enough political offices and she also has a well-rounded life of accomplishment in several areas (politician, philanthropist, etc.).Knox490 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GLOBAL should be invoked here. Many of the citations in the article are in other languages besides English, but that does not mean that Wikipedia should discriminate against these. The abundance of sources in the article testify to Jaff's notability. desmay (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2018 (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.