Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nesreen Tafesh

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, with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Has been open for too long, and the article has changed enough over that time period that some of the initial arguments are no longer applicable. Vanamonde (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Nesreen Tafesh

Nesreen Tafesh (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)

Promotional biography. One primary reference, one RS. If kept, this would per WP:BLP need to be cut to a sentence. Very little in GNews. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, but needs a lot of work. Clearly a promotional article now, but with such a large number of TV appearances there must be a lot of Arabic sources. Some secondary sources can be seen in the Arabic article about her. Zero^talk 12:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We can't keep a BLP on hypothetical sources, per WP:BLP we need the actual sources right there for the article to even exist - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: The article needs a lot of work and the cruft tossed, but we have to review Arabic language sources and need time to work them in. We have a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability. At present, the article does not appear to contain anything libelous or even contentious, so there is no need to immediately delete anything other than the PR tone... WP:BLP requires sources, but per " contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion" does not mandate every single factoid be sourced and material be removed simply because it is not footnoted ... Montanabw^(talk) 06:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
• Classic WP:PROMO; no secondary sources at all; tagged for sourcing since 2014. But I have run out of patience with sourcing articles on wannabe singers, artists, and actresses, even one who has "unique diversity in my genetics... (which leads her to) self-elevate and rise above bias... (and whose) "ultimate pertinence is to the humanity.” Sheesh. Flag me if anybody has the patience to search for actual sources and put them on the page. Otherwise, delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
• Delete. Not seeing significant, in-depth third-party coverage. Speculation that "there may be sources out there" in another language is simply that: speculation. This article has been tagged for years and no proper referencing has been forthcoming. Get rid of this. Neutrality^talk 02:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 00:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep: Did a quick google search to find additional references that could be used and found a few. This article needs some time to incorperate them and to rewrite some of the information already presented on the page. Chase (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete This article has had enough time to uncover WP:RS and has failed to do so. Chase (talk) 17:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• revisiting and, after a closer look: absolutely delete. a search turned up a little gossip from a couple of years ago about whether she was dating an actor, but even this was in the self was in Al Bawaba, a Jordanian "a news, blogging and media website" - not exactly a RS. Nothing I can find supports notabilit, or passes WP:ACTOR Odder still are the iVotes recommending that we keep because "there must be a lot of Arabic sources," because sources "could" be found, or because "We have a presumption of notability." No, we don't. We do not presume that every aspiring actress is notable, nor do we keep articles that lack so much as a single reliable, secondary source. No objection to the creation in future an new article in the event that this young woman someday does something that becomes notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

note that article is sources solely to her personal website http://www.nesreentafesh.com [1] which is non-functional. I am at a loss to explain why this discussion is continuing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete -- a self-cited promotional BLP with no indications of notability or significance. No prejudice to recreating should RS manifest themselves. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. One difficulty in looking for English-language sources is that they are not consistent in how the subject's name is spelt (and variations exist in both the given name and the surname). I found a few, but I concede that were largely of the "tabloid-y" type. This is also true of the Arabic language sources that appear in the article in the Arabic Wikipedia. But at least two are more substantive, especially this one (click on reference #4 near the bottom of the page). I'll be adding that one as a general reference to the article here. After that, the article will still need work, but the hurdle of notability has been met. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC) amended by NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Montanabw. Pwolit iets (talk) 21:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as the main concerns here are the fact there's not only anything actually convincing for applicable notability, but the concerns of substance, which are important, the article contains nothing actually convincing to suggest her career has had significant and can be meaningfully improved. The Keep votes comment that improvements and time would help, but this itself cannot be guaranteed therefore delete is in fact the option for now. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. I've located some Arabic-language coverage of the subject in print publications. Not being a speaker of Arabic, I am unable to assess the contents of those publications. But I've placed links to them on the article's Talk page. If there is anyone watching this discussion who can read Arabic, perhaps that person would be kind enough to place a synopsis of those articles on that Talk page. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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.