Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haya Maraachli

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. Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Haya Maraachli

[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)

I wrote this explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haya_Maraachli&oldid=1095986395 but it's rejected and I don't really know why as it's clearly not notable. You can see it's created by a sock who's adding fake pages. This should provide all the context: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_Adel&oldid=1095987208 Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Syria. Shellwood (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are not making this easy to understand: rather than explain here (the normal thing to do) you've sharing a link to a diff that contains a code (A7), that we have to look somewhere else to understand the reason to delete. I don't understand what A7 means. I request that you please just state clearly here why this should be deleted. Until then, I vote speedy keep, due to no clear rational given for deletion. CT55555 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:A7 refers to the speedy deletion criterion A7. It says this:

This applies to any article about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.

Basically, it means that an article can be speedily deleted if it does not make a credible claim of significance. Hope that helps you understand what the code means. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I now know what A7 means. It seems like clearly that does not apply. An actor who appeared in multiple TV shows has a credible claim of notability.

I'm still a bit confused about the nominator's reason, is it about a sock puppet (not relevant to notability)? Is it about there being no credible claim to notability (easily refuted in the context of this being an actor). I remain speedy keep until this is better explained. CT55555 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the nominator's concerns are about a combination of unreliable sourcing, promotional editing, and socking. The long explanation is a bit difficult to digest, but it doesn't seem like an obvious case where the article should be speedy deleted. The article should probably not be speedy kept either. We should simply wait until others look into the issue.

Note to User:Cantthinkausernamenow: Please do not use speedy deletion if an article does not obviously meet the criteria. If in doubt, take the article to WP:AFD. Please don't give long explanations to speedy deleters either. They are too long for the admins to read and make a speedy decision, so please put such explanations on AFD instead. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:81D5:6D64:11E:646B (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaning it for me, you are right, yes, it didn't look notable for me because of lack of reliable sources in article. I tried to find myself but couldn't. And seeing it was created by a banned paid editors sock network account who also creates fully fake pages like Ali Adel, got more suspicious, and it was almost exclusively edited by him and his socks, so I thought it may be eligible for speedy but I could be wrong, thanks for suggestions. I agree this does not look fully fake but I think notability is still questionable. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Notable person, she has participated in more than 36 TV series, also there's a lot of RS around here. This is in contrast to the fake article about Ali Adel. Best --Alaa :)..! 16:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, can you share some reliable sources that would establish notability? (I don't say there isn't but I'm bad at finding them myself)

Yes, I agree this is not fully fake like Ali Adel, I was one hundred percent sure Ali Adel was fake but here, my concern was notability and paid promotional editing. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cantthinkausernamenow there's around 750K google results about "هيا مرعشلي" (You can find hundreds of reliable sources among them), and her name is basically unique, so it is difficult to find any positive negative search results, unlike the name "Adel Ali" that matches dozens of other persons. And I repeat, if it is about notability, she is notable. --Alaa :)..! 06:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like this was nominated based on the sourcing in the article and issues with the editor rather than a WP:BEFORE search. A quick google brings up indications of notability in English and French language sources, despite her being Syrian, suggesting notability. Examples:

https://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/haya-maraachli-features-fame-caused-confusion-picture-1462757
https://veryarts.com/art/148133.html
https://www.nawaret.com/%D9%81%D9%86/%D8%A5%D8%B7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A9-%D9%87%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%B9%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%AA%D8%AB%D9%8A%D8%B1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%AA%D8%A7 CT55555 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I'm still not convinced. None of these sources establish notability and doesn't look really reliable. You can see in Ali Adel discussion albawaba is dismissed as "Albawabhnews.com source is more likely than not churnalism and is straight-up unusable."

Nawaret link is an useless tabloid thing.

I don't know if veryarts is a reliable source but it looks like a copy paste thing.

Notability and verifiability problems remain in my eyes. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination doesn't state a valid reason for deletion. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I did state though, on the contrary I don't see any valid or strong arguments by "keepers" here. You don't have any valid reason for saying keep here for example.

Notability + verifiability + lack of reliable sources + created by one of the banned users of a paid editing sock network as a blatant promotion

All are valid reasons. Currently there are 3 links in the article (2 ref and 1 external link) and none of them is a reliable source. None. Zero. All three of them has Edit button in their pages. All three links can be edited by anyone, anything can be added or edited by anyone on all three sites. So, nothing is verifiable in the first place.

Links posted by Ct5555 with a quick search (likely without even checking them) are weak, not reliable and not usable at all. No "significant coverage", just some short trivial-gossip-tabloid things which are not reliable or significant and not beyong trivial mentions.

I did try that suggested Google search too and it's not 750K results, if you try to reach beyond page 10 it's reduced to around 100 results and again I was not able to find any "significant coverage" from reliable sources. All I can find is some trivial mentions, gossip-tabloid things ("she said this on instagram", "oh look she posted a sexy picture on instagram" etc.)

This may not look like a fully fake page like the deleted Ali Adel page but I can't verify anything here either regardless, surely not with pages that can be created and edited by anyone.

And I can not find any non-trivial significant coverage in any reliable sources either, let alone multiple. So I cannot prove notability here in any way. Cantthinkausernamenow (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2022 (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.