Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genard Hajdini

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. SpinningSpark 19:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genard Hajdini

[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)

Couldn't find any reliable coverage. The sources in the article are just linked in and similar profiles, the lone newspaper report is also an interview of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Bingobro (Chat) 08:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a lot of fairly gossipy coverage in Albanian media demonstrating that he's appeared several times on TV and I think radio because he's so well known for his social media activities. This one is in English but is so utterly gossipy, I didn't cite it in filling out the article: "Why aren't you married?" / Gerard Hajdini leaves the moderator speechless, tells how his girlfriend got 50 million ALL: Tell us after I die for these stories!. I also found a U.S. local newspaper story about his background, conversion to Christianty, and plans after graduating from Oral Roberts University, so that gave me context to put in the Weebly page for his religious foundation, which I deleted from the original version as an unexplained ad. He wouldn't be notable in large countries, but in Albania, he clearly is: he has coverage in multiple independent sources, referring to different interviews more than a year apart. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That English article appears to be a machine translation of [1]. The translation doesn't make any sense. What this person is known for isn't discernible from the English text. Vexations (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I didn't cite it despite its being in English. As I say, utterly gossipy. The only thing it supports is that he was on D-Night. Whatever Tirana show that is (we have a Korean ep at that title). The thing is, all the Albanian coverage—"famous for being famous" though much of it is—does demonstrate fame in his own country, over more than a year. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so exited about the idea that we would have an article that is supported by dubious citations in a language that none of us appear to be able to read without the aid of machine translation when google translate does such an obviously abysmal job of translating Albanian into English. The tulsa world article is from when he graduated from Oral Roberts University, well before doing anything notable. I still have absolutely no idea what exactly he is notable for. Vexations (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep — I get the hesitancy to make decisions without native English-language sources, but WP:GNG does not require sources to be available in English and applying that standard can lead a systematic WP:BIAS. Probably most of the people in Category:Social media influencers wouldn't pass muster by that standard if they were working in a non-English-speaking country. Searching for Albanian websites that discuss him turns up a lot of news outlets. Machine translation, while not perfect by any means, does give the impression that he is covered in Albanian media as a celebrity/social influencer enough to meet WP:GNG. Whether he meets WP:INHERENTWEB (or if that is a standard to apply here, or with other social media influencers), I'm less confident. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tcr25: There's no way the sources in this article are enough to meet GNG. They all seem extremely promotional, and are primary sources as they are interviews. I'm not seeing any sources here that meet the golden rule: significant, reliable, independent. They all lack one or more. Have you found better sources than the ones included in the article? ––FormalDude talk 00:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Not all of them are interviews. The Tulsa World one is a profile, not an interview. Even articles based largely on a quote from him, for example this story from an interview he gave to a different media outlet, the reporter found his comments and the context of them relevant enough to their readership to report on. It's not an interview or a primary source, it is independent (there's editorial judgement being applied; it's not a press release or subject's website), and it affirms the basic premise that he is, at least within Albania, a notable social media personality. In this article he's discussed as part of a larger article on social media as an advertising/marketing tool, which reaffirms the basic premise that he's a well-known (within Albania) social media personality. Is all this trivial coverage? Possibly, but it seems (speaking as someone who can't read Albanian) that he is notable the way English-language social media influencers are in the U.S. and elsewhere. WP:GNG doesn't require English-language notability, and insisting on it makes Wikipedia less encyclopedic. WP:NPOSSIBLE seems to be relevant here; can the article and sourcing be improved, yes, but that doesn't mean notability isn't likely based on what we can see. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't require English-language notability correct, it does not, and I'm not insisting on it. I'm only insisting that the sources meet WP:GNG, which two of them do not as they are interviews and therefore primary sources and not independent. Another one of them is also not independent, being from his employer. That leaves two publications which may possibly count towards notability, both of which seem trivial and promotional when translated. That's not enough to vote keep in my opinion. ––FormalDude talk 13:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article is about the source, sources don't have to meet WP:GNG; they need to meet WP:RS to help determine if the article's subject meets WP:GNG. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A source needs to meet WP:GNG for the article to be deemed notable. They need to meet WP:RS to be included in the article. I am saying they may meet WP:RS but they do not meet WP:GNG. That is because GNG requires independence, significance, and reliability. The existing sources are either insignificant or non-independent. ––FormalDude talk 02:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Tulsa World has a long-standing article, it's clear as a source it meets WP:GNG. Whether or not the cited article demonstrates Hajdini's notability is an open question. You seem to be basing the claim that this article is a primary source and not independent on WP:INTERVIEWS, which is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The exact sort of distinctions about editorial independence in interviews that I see us going back and forth over are all over that essay's talk page. It's clear that WP:INTERVIEWS does not have consensus and while it may inform decisions, it shouldn't be a red line. That said, I think it adds to a weak keep for Hajdini. As best I can tell, he does seem to be covered in Albanian media as a celebrity (which often means fluff pieces that may border on trivial or even promotional, even though they come from independent sources). There's enough there there for me to think that WP:NPOSSIBLE applies. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:IDPRIMARY, you will see that it says Interviews and reports of interviews are Defined as a primary source by policy. That policy is Wikipedia:No_original_research#defs. So we have established that Wikipedia policy considers interviews by news sources to be a WP:PRIMARY source.

Now, if you go to Independent sources, you will notice that it says primary sources are not independent. And again, a source has to be independent to count towards notability. So no, the source does not at all meet WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 06:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, a reminder that WP:CIVIL applies in edit summaries as well as in comments. Second, the line you quote from WP:IDPRIMARY points to a footnote in WP:NOR to a paragraph that states Primary sources may or may not be independent sources. I'd also note that WP:GNG, when discussing notability criteria calls for sources "independent of the subject" and provides as examples advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website and (from the footnote) Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them. If your concern is independence, the Tulsa World article meets the test in WP:INDY to demonstrate independence from Hajdini. If your concern is that a newspaper report on a current figure or event is, per WP:IDPRIMARY, almost always a primary source (and thus not meeting the secondary source criteria of GNG), then you're unlikely to accept any contemporary news article as contributing to WP:GNG, which seems to me an extreme position unsupported by policy or general practice. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read WP:GNG's segment on independent sources correctly. It says independent sources excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it: For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

A source that is an interview with the topic will almost never be independent, and that is certainly the case here (the article practically being a transcript of their interview). It has nothing to do with being a contemporary news article and everything to do with the fact that it's an interview.

I'm sorry you don't feel this is explained well in policy, but I feel I've spelled it for you completely. I think any experienced editor who is knowledgeable about our BLP notability policy would agree with me. I will not be responding here again. ––FormalDude talk 13:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to close the circle, yes, that such sources are excluded is what I was meaning (I should have said "calls out" not "calls for"). As for the opinion of experienced editors familiar with the BLP policy, as one, there's room for disagreement on the difference between an interview and a profile. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless independent secondary sources can be found that prove notability. WP:INTERVIEWS alone do not prove notability. ––FormalDude talk 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: I'm glad to see you got around to !voting in the AfD rather than criticizing another editor's !vote, festooning the article with tags criticizing the sources cited, and reverting me with the summary Are you kidding me. I have placed a full discussion of the sources on the article talk page. They are news sites reporting on his having been interviewed in the media, and the interview sections of those that are interviews are cited only for his field of study since returning to Albania. I have to concede that the foundation is unnecessary since it has not received independent coverage that I could find, although not that it was presented promotionally. But your attack on the sources cited smacks of distaste for the basis of the subject's notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attacking the sources, I guess you're just unfamiliar with WP:INLINE tagging. ––FormalDude talk 09:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2022)} 09:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Noting for the record that FormalDude is all alone in his increasingly tendentious interpretation of policy with respect to this article—increasingly in that he now seeks to invalidate the Tulsa World article as a source, too—denies here that he is criticizing the sources, and has put the BLP sanctions alert on the user talk pages of A TUZI (the article creator), Tcr25, and me, after we both raised points of disagreement with the basis of his tagging. I've tried to accommodate his concerns; I've explained why I disagree with most of his pronouncements; he is wikilawyering to shame-label this article and rather than start off with a !vote here, he started a bludgeoning discussion with someone who had !voted. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to resort to personal attacks just because you got proven wrong. ––FormalDude talk 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That you disagree does not mean I have been "proven wrong"; I am unaware of any position you hold on some committee related to sourcing policy that makes your viewpoint decisive, and I have related my points to policy; in particular, you appear to be conflating verifiability with notability. News outlets writing about Hajdini's having been interviewed on broadcast media very much counts toward notability. I'd also like to point out your initial combative response, since replaced with the bare asertion of disproof above. Accusations of personal attack do not make my responses to your argument and noting of your combativeness and apparent equivocation over criticizing the sources (perhaps you use some definition that has not occurred to me) into personal attacks. But you are of course free to take me to AN/I for my having the audacity to disagree with you, to politely disagree with your assertions that I do not understand and have not correctly read policy, and to seek to protect an article from being defaced by tags that I consider specious. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-independent sources do not count towards notability. ––FormalDude talk 04:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the machine translations of the Albanian language sources that we have to rely on are so bad that it is impossible to make out what they're saying. The one English source, Tulsa World, is 22 years old and might as well be about a different person; it gives no indication why Hajdini is a notable instagrammer. Exchange student at Oral Roberts University are not automatically notable for being a student from a former communist country. Readers who are interested in this topic ~~can read~~ are better of reading the Albanian article in machine translation, because the quality of those translations continues to improve, unlike our translation.Vexations (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The document as it currently appears does not seem to be sufficiently notable. Would be happy to change my mind if additional information was added to the page.Gusfriend (talk) 02:19, 3 February 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.