Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahaf Zina

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaf Zina

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

Several glaring problems here. First off, notability is not inherited which, in this case, to her alleged husband. All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse. Two, we are not the news; light coverage is tracked to early April 2017 then falls off immediately. And finally, the subject is a BLP and there is not a particular claim for individual notability, besides this one event. Perhaps you can argue this should be redirected to her husband's article and briefly mentioned, but a seperate article is clearly undue. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for reasons given, especially WP:BLP1E. The article is entirely about her arrest, which is a heck of a thing to base an alleged biography on. --GRuban (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She's still a living person! Give her the privacy a private individual deserves! Does anybody has a fetish for terrorism-related event, person, or objects? Dannyniu (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As a courtesy to ~~previously non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown, we require a higher bar of notability, before we cover them. Dannyniu, are you really argung that Rahaf Zina should be seen as a ~~non-notable person~~ low-profile individual? However, wasn't her husband a Daesh cabinet member? Can anyone argue that people who measure up to WP:POLITICIAN, or their spouses, should be considered ~~non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown? As the widow of someone who measures up to POLITICIAN I suggest you should not argue she merits the courtesy privacy protection we offer ~~previously non-notable people~~ people who are relatively unknown. Geo Swan (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't speak for Dannyniu, but yes, I will absolutely argue that being the wife of a cabinet member does not make you notable. Notability is not inherited. We did not have an article on this person before this incident, and this article is made entirely of sources generated after the incident. The signs of prior notability are severely lacking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wrote "previously non-notable people", and didn't use the precise phrases BLP uses "people who are relatively unknown" and low-profile individual No, being the wife of a POLITICIAN doesn't make you WP:NOTABLE notable, but my suggestion was that being the spouse of a cabinet member disqualifies you from the special courtesy privacy protections we extend to low-profile individuals, who are relatively unknown. Rahaf Zina, unlike people who meet the criteria for POLITICIAN, would have her notability built up by adding multiple notability factors, which would include:
    1. Claims she paid one million Phillipines dollars to a confederate who was a senior Police official;
    2. Claims she was involved in a plot to bomb the Phillipines;
    3. Marrying her former brother-in-law -- this was standard procedure, in various cultures, but is remarkably uncommon now.

This discussion may conclude her notability factors don't currently add up to enough notability for a standalone article, but I think claims she is a BLP1E are specious. Geo Swan (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To the degree that "claims" can actually be said to be an "event", two claims made at once would still be one event. As for the claim that she married her brother-in-law:

That claim was not in the source being cited, so I deleted source.
Even had she married the brother of her late husband, that would not be marrying her brother-in-law, as marriages end with death; she would be marrying her former brother-in-law.
Even had she married her former brother-in-law, that would not be the sort of thing that would get coverage on its own. I've never seen a headline proclaiming that someone otherwise non-famous has done that.

This is a blatant WP:BLPCRIME case, and inventing things about her isn't going to change that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Er ... where is our list of articles of actual Daesh "cabinet members" again? I propose that Daesh "cabinet members" do not qualify for WP:POLITICIAN much less their spouses. There is a reason for this! Being an actual politician demands extensive publicity and press coverage to get people to vote for you. That is what makes it pretty likely there are large quantities of sources about you that we can write articles from. Being a leader of a terrorist group demands extensive secrecy to get your much more powerful enemies not to drop bombs on you. That's what makes it pretty hard to write articles about leaders of terrorist groups. Again, much less their spouses! --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- As for a "fetish for terrorism related events, persons", etc... First, terrorists are much less common than murderers. We don't cover every murderer, only truly exceptional murderers, because murders are so commons, and, sadly most of them are so similar, that we can adequately cover almost all murders, and almost all murderers, in our more general articles, on murder, on domestic violence, on drug dealing, etc. But terrorists are relatively rare, rare enough that each one is unique enough for a standalone article. If murderers were that rare, we would cover just about every one of them too.
  Female terrorists are particularly uncommon. It is rather a man's field. Geo Swan (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geo Swan careful calling a BLP a terrorist when, at best, she is a suspect. And terroists are relatively rare? There were over 11,000 individual terror attacks in 2016.[1] That is little over 30 per day and I imagine every single one was not committed simply by just one person. Do literally tens of thousands of people each year deserve an article simply because you are under the false impression that terrorism is "relatively rare"?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME; the merely accused do not get an article except under extraordinary circumstances. This is not the first such problematic article along these lines from this editor, and some preventive measures should perhaps be considered. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect this should be discussed jointly with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, possibly with a view to merge both to an article regarding the plot and not the BLPs - however issues on both are similar. If Hussein Al-Dhufairi is notable per WP:SOLDIER (and note - this isn't just a crime "thing") and this BLP is not - then this should redirect there.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to merging the Rahaf Zina article into the article on her husband... When I first started reading about the arrests, while all the articles agreed that she was travelling with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, the reporting was genuinely confusing, with many articles saying she was married to Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and others saying she was the widow of his brother Abdul Mohsin Al-Dhufairi. This is the kind of detail reporters get wrong. It took me some time to realize that, after her first husband, the father of the child she was bearing, was KIA, she subsequently married his brother. So, in a situation like this, where someone has been married twice, it is harder to argue it is obvious the article should be merged with the spouse's article. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, but in this case it would seem both are primarily notable for the Philippine plot they got arrested for (and subsequent deportations / etc.) - am I wrong?Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fact check Nom's assertion that "All of the news sources are in the context of her spouse" is misleading and untrue. What AFP, for example actually reported is that she is a member of ISIS and was in the Philippines to carry out "a bombing operation". Here is an open access article: "Philippines police arrest couple with alleged Isis ties in joint operation with US and Kuwaiti intelligence" excerpt from text: "arrest... may have been planning bomb attacks"E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The Manila Times reports "Dismissed Police Supt. Maria Christina Nobleza received at least P1 million in money transfers from Rahaf Zina, the widow of a top IS Syria official, before both women were arrested in April and March, respectively." Geo Swan (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Gregory, come on now, you have to realize I read anything you throw out there, and know you are just reiterating my point with the source. Zina is described within the context of her husband--as a widower and possible wife. Any "notability" she possesses is from this one event, and any merge would be too soon since no one has actually been convicted yet of any plot.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge with Hussein Al-Dhufairi, and rename something like 2017 ISIS bomb plot. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give an opportunity for editors to consider Gregory's submissions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 16:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nat Gertler, including the part about taking a closer look at the contributions Geo Swan. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both this and Hussein Al-Dhufairi to Abu Jandal al-Kuwaiti. Abu Jandal is apparently notable, the other two people are not, and the Philippines "terrorism plot" isn't notable either. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse User:Power~enwiki's merger proposal as per WP:PRESERVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge three BLPs into one? Highly unlikely and against the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Zina and Dhufairi just simply are not notable; repackaging them does not change that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:10, 20 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.