Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen 'Alik Shahadah

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 due to lack of reliable independent sources, a redirect to 500 Years Later may be appropriate at editors' discretion. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owen 'Alik Shahadah

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

The article fails WP:N, almost all the sources are primary self-published and advocacy sources written by himself, failing WP:BLPSPS. Right now the article is working as self-promotion and publicity WP:SPIP. Rupert Loup (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert is a dishonest agenda editor with a mission across all of wikipedia. Just check the contributions. I mean how can you put this tag on this page and be serious? And the CLAIMS oh my word. Self-published, where does it say that?--Inayity (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just on a factual note, quite a lot of the references in the article do appear to be written by the subject. Rather than attacking the nominator, you would be better advised to demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines, Inayity. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note this particular nominator has been sweeping across wikipedia deleting one website. Now are you saying this page is NOT notable? Or is the issue something else?--Inayity (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I am sure Wiki has numerous treatments for a lot of problems do you think this deletion is sincere?--Inayity (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not offering a view, since I haven't had chance to review the sources properly. My point is just that the best way to counter a claim that a subject is not notable is to demonstrate that it is! Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent a great deal of my time reverting sweeping removals By Rupert Loup, I think you should look into that. --Inayity (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest taking this to WP:AN/I if you think there's a problem. In the meantime, I highly recommend engaging with the substance of the nomination here if you don't want the article to be deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What substances? The article is working for self-promotion according to one detractor? Tell me the director of 500 Years Later and Motherland is not notable? What about the claim of Self-published sources? Does Shahadah own AHS, or Pamaburuka (spelling) or African Exe? The problem here is it seems the spirit of wikipedia is often destroyed over the technical letter. Just nominating a page you do not like means what? I must waste time!--Inayity (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No he doesn't own them, but he did write those articles, and articles written by Shahadah himself do not establish his notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue. Is Owen Alik Shahadah worthy of a wikipedia entry. And is this nomination done in Good faith? All of these issues of sources could be have been done with a tag like Runoko Rashidi, my sincere concern based upon the recent edit patterns of the person nominating these articles is an agenda. Now what is the problem with agendas? They are not in the best interest of anyone here, nor the people reading. We need to deal with that major problem first. This is the problem with this place. The rationale for the nomination is not even valid. --Inayity (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So there is a criteria that must be met even before you nominate an article. Has that been met? That is why I deleted the tag. Because If I wanted to I could just run around wikipedia deleting anyone I wanted (well not Chomsky or Obama). --Inayity (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No you couldn't - that's what this discussion is for. If someone maliciously nominates articles for deletion without good reason, then they will be kept following the discussion. Please do not remove an AfD tag from an article again. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat, has the criteria been met for the nomination in the 1st place? --Inayity (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And a flaw of wikipedia is NAMES See Jstor Alik not Owen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
The result of Jstor, "Europe Through Arab Eyes, 1578-1727", doesn't mention Shahadah at all. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alik Shahadah
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor Talk! 08:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see "Delete per Norm" is not a vote, rational needed--Inayity (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editor Rubbish was using common shorthand to say that deletion was proper because almost all the sources are either primary, self-published or advocacy sources written by Owen 'Alik Shahadah himself. It is a common shorthand. As you say, the Afd is not a voting process. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I second Bejnar's point. --Rubbish computer 08:20, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well your mission is to pretend this article is not notable. Did you meet him and he hurt your feelings? What is it with this crusade against one African editor? Tell us? So he is not mentioned anywhere in any books either? He is not mentioned on Al-Jazerra as a scholar either? And Al-Akram? Even in South Africa he is on SABC and here Poetry fights xenophobia. --Inayity (talk) 05:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing an additional citation to a source on Shahadah. The Official Website of the City of Johannesburg is a reliable, if often primary source, website. Unfortunately, an article about a school poetry and debate contest in which the sole mention of Shahadah is that the winners were given, inter alia, a copy of his documentary film 500 Years Later does not add very much coverage, nor contribute much to his notability. --Bejnar (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read more: http://www.joburg.org.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4566&Itemid=266#ixzz3nhUJEBs3

  • Delete for lack of significant coverage fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BLPNOTE, He is verifiably an international film producer whose films have won awards. However, does he meet any of the criteria at WP:CREATIVE? The answer unfortunately is no, and what it boils down to is lack of significant coverage. The only in depth coverage was an interview. See the essay at WP:Interviews. The reliable sources have one passing mention. The analysis of the sources currently in the article confirm the conclusion reached by the nominator, Rupert Loup, and others, namely the sources are mostly self-published or primary sources. The reliable sources do not contribute significantly toward notability. There is a noticible lack of in depth coverage.
  • FN1. a reliable source, Aljazeera, with one sentence about Shahadah. Good for verification, not much toward notability.
  • FN2. a self-published source, his film's website, not useful for verification, useful only for noncontroversial data, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN3. a self-published source, his film's website, as above
  • FN4. a cite to his own book, quite proper for a quotation, but add nothing to notability
  • FN5. his own website, not useful for verification, useful only for noncontroversial data, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN6. a reliable source, al-Akhbar. mention of his compilation and a quote not much toward coveerage or notability
  • FN7. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN8. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN9. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN10. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN11. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN12. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN13. an article by him, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN14. a reliable source, Catholic Information Service for Africa (Nairobi), verifies receipt of "UNESCO's Breaking the Chains Award", no coverage of Shahadah
  • FN15. a primary source, verifies that Motherland was an AMMA nominee, no coverage of Shahadah
  • FN16. a primary source, verifies that Motherland won award, no coverage of Shahadah
  • FN17. a primary source, verifies that Motherland won award, says: "From the director of the internationally acclaimed “500 Years Later” comes this gem of a film." which goes somewhat toward notability, but is not substantive.
  • FN18. an interview with Shahadah, consider a self-source, See WP:SELFSOURCE
  • FN19. an IMDB soundtrack listing, not a reliable source

--Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment re RFC: An inquiry has been made at the RFC procedure talk page whether the RFC filed here is improper. There's nothing in either the AfD process or the RFC process which necessarily makes it improper, but it would seem to me to at least be procedurally incompatible since AfD is a 7-day process and RFC is a 30-day process and the closing of the AfD is going to cut off the RFC before it can be completed. The AfD should not be extended to let the RFC play out, in my opinion; if the AfD is to be extended then it ought to be entirely for reasons other than the RFC. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, I removed the template. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was summoned via the RfC bot. Since I don't believe that's a proper use of the RfC template I am not going to express an opinion. I request that the user who utilized it in that fashion be given several severe lashes with an immense trout. Coretheapple (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ICommentThe subject won the UNICEF award @ ZIFF. The ZIFF site makes no mention of any affiliation w/ UNESCO. The use of UNESCO in the awards section borders on fabrication. Tapered (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:ANYBIO, this is an "additional criteria" section of the policy. As it states further below: "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria: If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria: Merge the article into a broader article providing context...". Therefore this does not appear to be an argument on its own for keeping this article. AndrewRT(Talk) 18:54, 7 October 2015 (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/Owen_%27Alik_Shahadah&oldid=1084327982"