Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaheh Hallegua (2nd nomination)

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 merge. Numerically, we have 10 deletes/merges and 4 keeps, which amounts to 71% keep, usually considered consensus. The keep/merge arguments are that the coverage is trivial and not sufficient for WP:GNG (a variation - one event). The keep votes are that the coverage is not trivial and that nothing has changed from the previos nomination. The previous nomination, not surprisingly, had the same arguments, with the majority voted for keep. Thus, the things did change from the previousl nomination, and the change is that more users now think that the coverage is trivial. Given the consensus, the article can not exist as a standalone article; given still a significant number of keep votes, it should be merged rather than delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yaheh Hallegua

AfDs for this article:
Yaheh Hallegua (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)

Agreeing with User:Joe407 from the first nomination, I find it utterly disturbing to have an article on a woman who's only "claim to notability" is the fact that she does not (want to) have kids. The fact that she's the last "female Cochin Jew of childbearing age" merits a mention in Cochin Jews or Paradesi Jews at most (which there already are), but not a seperate article on her whereabouts and her motivation "not to marry her cousin". This article should've been deleted long time ago. bender235 (talk) 10:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The subject's notability, as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, is derived from significant coverage of her in the numerous reliable sources that are cited in the article, with The Last Jews of Kerala devoting five pages to coverage of the subject. That is why the previous AfD resulted in consensus against deleting the article. Let me quote the general notability guideline:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

That something is disturbing some people has no bearing on its notability, and is not a valid reason for deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:43, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One mention in some book does not merit notability. In the (much more popular) book The Big Short by Michael Lewis a couple of small-time traders and analysts are mentioned over much more than five pages, still none of them will ever have a Wikipedia article. The other sources quoted in the article barely mention her at all. For instance, the obit of her uncle, Sammy, only mentions an unnamed "niece" of his. I still don't see why Ms. Hallegua is notable enough to have her own Wikipedia article. --bender235 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One mention in some book does not merit notability.
No, but significant coverage by multiple reliable sources does, and that's why the subject has a Wikipedia article. The Last Jews of Kerala is just one of those multiple sources; the others include The Rough Guide to Kerala, The Daily Telegraph, The Economist, etc. The "small-time traders and analysts" that you refer to are irrelevant to this discussion: please see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Deletion of articles. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I wrote below, all sources listed in that article besides the Last Jews of Kerala book mention Ms. Hallegua with only a single sentece each. Sometimes not even by name. So all we have is a single book that uses her story as anecdotal decoration. That's it. In my eyes, that fails to meet notability criteria by a mile. --bender235 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you may not have reviewed all of the sources or read the previous deletion discussion in its entirety. The Rough Guide to Kerala also covers the subject in detail, dedicating about half a page to her; this was discussed in the previous discussion. The Indian Express article has a paragraph on the subject. Non-trivial coverage in the above three sources (The Last Jews of Kerala, The Rough Guide to Kerala and The Indian Express) is more than enough to establish notability per the guideline (quoted in my first comment on this page), without even having to review the other sources that are present in the article. In your reply below, you even appear to have found additional references from The Guardian, which isn't present in the article, and only serves to further solidify the case against deletion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind telling me your definition of "non-trivial coverage"? For example, this Guardian piece on youth unemployment opens with what I referred to as "anecdotal decoration", a brief description of a young woman named Argyro Paraskeva who's affected by unemployment in Greece. Her story fills three paragraphs and about a dozen sentences. Way more than in Ms. Hallegua's case. So tell, did Ms. Paraskeva receive "non-trivial coverage" in your eyes? Enough to merit her own Wikipedia article, which then supposedly describes her hardships in unemployment? If not, then why Ms. Hallegua? Where's the difference? --bender235 (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My definition of non-trivial coverage has nothing to do with this discussion. Let's instead check what Wikipedia's notability guideline says:

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

The example given in the guideline of trivial coverage is a passing mention in a single sentence. By this definition Ms Paraskeva does indeed receive significant coverage, but it is insufficient to merit her own Wikipedia article, since the coverage also needs to be by multiple sources. That's the difference. Also, you are picking holes in coverage by a single online source, when notability is already established by coverage by the two print sources. Shortcomings of additional sources do not decrease that notability in any way. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something you need to know: the number of sources is irrelevant. Five trivial mentions are still trivial mentions, and thus meaningless. --bender235 (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not correct about the relevance of the number of sources. Please read the general notability guideline for an explanation on why the number of sources matters.
As I stated before, additional sources do not decrease notability that is already established. The subject in question is covered in detail by at least two sources, The Last Jews of Kerala and The Rough Guide to Kerala, and possibly The Economist, if one considers three paragraphs in an eight-paragraph article to be significant coverage. Trivial mentions by additional sources like The Telegraph and The Hindu do not decrease notability that is already established by detailed coverage in the other sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nomination. The reliable and verifiable sources provided support the claim of notability, regardless if anyone finds the reason for the coverage to be "utterly disturbing". Alansohn (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still waiting for an explanation why side notes as short as single sentences are deemed "significant coverage" here. For instance, the first source on the article, this [1] Guardian article, mentions her in one sentence. So does this [2] Economist article. The only actual source mentioning her is this book by Edna Fernandes, and this [3] review of said book. In what world is this significant coverage? --bender235 (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One event and not news? The fate of an entire people rests with this one person. The Kennedy assasination was one even and I think we have 3 - 4 articles on that. The holocaust was an attempt at erasing a people but I don't want to count all those articles.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was surprised when I found Martha (Passenger Pigeon). Shanawdithit also has an article. Yaheh Hallegua may not be as notable but when her group of people are gone she may be very notable. A BLP courtesy delete may be warranted as well and undelete in the future if more notability arises. I am not saying wp:otherstuffexists but the notability of these articles could be used in arguments here. I actually don't care either way. I see no problem with a redirect and keeping the history. Full deletion of the material would make re-creation in the future that much harder. I haven't looked yet but how many other languages have an article on her?--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Hallegua is not the last of her kind. Only the last "female of child-bearing age". So regardless of whether she would die with or without having kids, she would not be a 2nd Shanawdithit. --bender235 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A decent amount of coverage for someone whose only great achievement is to potentially be the last of her kind. This article should be monitored carefully, as she may well change her mind (as women are wont to do ). If so, her notability goes up in smoke and the article can be safely deleted.--Auric talk 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as listed in the article and referred to in this discussion. I've not read "THE LAST JEWS OF KERALA" but according to the last AFD discussion its coverage is apparently extensive: does anyone want to refute this claim? COmbined with the other sources, clearly adequate for notability. This nomination also seems to be slightly 'keep listing it until it gets deleted' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ATA#Repeated_nominations) because the nominator has not identified what's changed since the last nomination. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that you consider her notable while also admitting that you did not read the only source that actually mentions her beyond non-significance. This AfD is getting ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't managed to purchase and read a copy of the book in the 6 days that this AfD has been open. However, both "Treasurytag" and "Serpents choice" in the previous deletion debate claimed to have read it and identified the coverage as 'significant'. Let's b e clear: are you saying that "Tresaurytag" and "Serpents choice" were lying? Have actually you read the book yourself? Please confirm. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please also confirm: what has changed since the last deletion debate? Is it just that you dislike the result so thought you'd reopen the debate?
The last AfD was biased. The contributor with the only solid argument—User:Joe407—was ignored.
I did not accuse anyone of lying. Per WP:AGF I assume all references in said article are valid. However, as I have repeatedly said: being mentioned in a book does not make a person notable. Just like being mentioned in a newspaper article does not make one notable. It depends one whether the "story" in question is the actual subject of a book/newspaper article, or just decoration. --bender235 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'The last AfD was biased' - what do you mean by this? Were the contributors bribed? Were dissenting comments deleted? What do you mean? (Also, PLEASE CLARIFY whether or not you have read the book. Thanks.) 87.112.244.252 (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read all the sources bender? I found her mentioned in at least two others. 'Last of her kind' may not quite fit but 'last hope for her kind' will. I agree that 'keep listing until deleted' with no new arguments is not the correct way to deal with articles that some editors don't like. Taking them off your watchlist is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the other sources mention her name. But she is not the subject of these reports. Her story is just "anecdotal decoration", like Ms. Paraskeva, Mr. Stolis, and others in this Guardian piece on youth unemployment. That is no "significant coverage" as defined by WP:BIO, and by no means merits an article on Ms. Hallegua motivation not to marry her cousin. --bender235 (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why then would you make the false statement: "the only source that actually mentions her" and bold only? You have not brought up any new points when you filed the AfD. As I said before if it is a matter of not liking the article then don't read it and take it off your watch list. Can we only assume that when it is kept once more that you will file yet a fourth AfD with nothing new brought to the table. Can you agree that this will be the end or will you file a 4th after it is kept? These AfDs are a big waste of time for many articles that are kept over and over again. AfD1 keeps it, AfD2 deletes it, AfD3 keeps it yet again. Why are we wasting time repeating the same points each time with nothing new?--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a false statement, because that dubious Last Jews of Kerala book seems to be the only source where Ms. Hallegua is mentioned as subject, not as decoration.
And no, this is not about me not liking an article. It is about Wikipedia not including articles in random non-notable persons. Putting aside the fact that in this article a random woman is pilloried for not marrying her cousin, none of the sources in that article include enough coverage to meet Wikipedia notability criteria for biographies. Clear and simple. --bender235 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't brought anything new to this 3rd AfD. Others have disagreed with your assessment and have kept it. They will probably keep it again here. Someone will continue to keep filing AfDs on it. It isn't going to go away just because it keeps getting filed. It just keeps wasting our time in repetition of the same points. Ignore it, don't read it, take it off your watchlist and forget it exists instead of wasting editing time here. Wikipedia will not fall into the sun if we have one article that you think isn't notable. Cloudscape photography, Cosplay photography and many more in Category:Photography by genre are truly not notable if you want to Afd a few of those to fix Wikipedia.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is not how Wikipedia works. I won't ignore that such a crappy article exists just because you want me to. --bender235 (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mentions in the cited sources are really trivial, except for one, and I don't find better from my own searches. Moreover, I find in The Rough Guide that she refuses to have her photo taken, suggesting an aversion to publicity which should (see WP:BIODEL) weigh in favor of deletion in this borderline-at-best case. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most important point. Sadly enough, this article pillories a random woman (with picture!) for not marrying her cousin. This is sad and disgusting. This article needs to be deleted. --bender235 (talk) 09:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think it is pillorying her. Its just stating facts, as stated in reliable sources. Is there any particular wording you think is critical of her? Because if so, we should change it. 87.113.137.59 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BIODEL only applies to articles where the subject has requested deletion. It does not apply to situations where editors have only guessed that the subject may want the article to be deleted, based on the refusal to have a photograph taken. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that that's the wording of the policy, but Ms. Hallegua is not exactly in a position to request deletion of her article. As I said in my comment, I would support deletion anyway because she doesn't pass our notability guidelines, with anything resembling significant coverage in only one source, but since a source specifically mentions that she avoids publicity, I thought BIODEL could also be relevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a courtesy to a borderline notable. Undeletion may be warranted in the future as with Scarlett Keeling. Since the Keeling deletion a book about the case has been published and the UK parliament is now involved. It is probably due for undeletion review.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have looked at the cited references and the articles do not seem to be about her. Yes, journalists open articles with mention of her but that is essentially about style - opening with a human interest quote or description to lead the reader in. Other members of the community also get mentioned. As commented there is little evidence that the subject is forthcoming in interviews or is otherwise prominent in her community, only the the chance of being the youngest remaining because she has no children (surely the point is that everyone else in her generation has moved away, not that she has somehow acted to ensure the community dies out). So she falls below the notability threshold. --AJHingston (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The books and the articles do not need to be on the subject to satisfy the notability guideline. The guideline explicitly states that the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material". --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The photograph currently used in this article was uploaded in 2011 by a now banned user User:TreasuryTag who described it as entirely his/her own work. While it is possible that this user traveled to Kochi to take a poor quality photograph (480 dpi) of this individual, it seems at least suspect. Perhaps someone who is more familiar with the reasons why this user was indefinitely blocked/banned could shed light on whether this photograph should be deleted as non-free use. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Treasury Tag's block had nothing to do with the copyright status of images he uploaded. It is does not seem unlikely that he took the photograph on a trip to Kochi to visit the synagogue. Moreover, one's got to be acting in pretty bad faith if they would go as far as faking Exif metadata, and that suspicion is unwarranted. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an opinion piece. It is a balanced summary of the coverage of the subject by numerous sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2013 (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.