Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharmeena Begum

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. Clear consensus to keep, and it looks like this has received a total rewrite during the course of this discussion, so the WP:CV problems have been resolved.

I'll add two personal observations. One, please see WP:DAILYMAIL. The other is that the hatnote, For Shamima Begum, who is currently in the UK news... is really confusing. Somebody should rewrite that to be more explicit about properly identifying the two people. Consider what, currently in the UK news will mean to a reader 10 years from now. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmeena Begum

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Sharmeena Begum (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)

We already have the Bethnal Green trio article (which incidently was the only wiki page to show when I googled this "person"'s name.. Do we really need separate articles for all these bastards? I don't see how she's notable enough for a separate article... Openlydialectic (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE I just googled the subject and found she does passes General Notability @Openlydialectic: could you please elaborate Rationale? MrZINE | talk 21:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was created by a user now indefinitely blocked for copyright violations, and is no exception to the norm for that user – blatant foundational copying from the various sources. I've blanked the page and listed it at WP:CP. Anyone who wants to read the content will need to access it through the page history; if the page is to be kept, it will need to be completely rewritten from scratch. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Justlettersandnumbers may be correct that the original revision was tainted by material that violated copyright, but the article has been added to, and rewritten, by multiple individuals since then. If only a fraction of he version they blanked contained material tainted by copyright violation, would it have made more sense to excise only the portion that actually did violate copyright?

      I accept policy allows simply deleting material contributed by someone blocked for copyright violation. But is it the intent of that policy to delete material that was once a copyright violation, that has subsequently been rewritten by innocent good faith contributors, and which no longer violates copyright? Surely the policy does not justify deleting brand new content that has nothing to do with the original copyright violation? Geo Swan (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It seems the Bethnel trios article covers her story well enough. We don't need to really give this girl that much attention as to create a whole new article about her simultaneously repeating the same information found in Bethnal_Green_trio#Aftermath. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only notable for one thing - which as mentioned above is probably covered in the three girls article. Anything new about Begum can be updated in that article. No need for a separate article as she is not notable outside of this one original event and everything that has happened since to her is connected to it. Games of the world (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think the language of this nomination is appropriate and I'd therefore question the neutrality of this nomination. Shamima Begum and Sharmeema Begum are two different people. @Atcovi: @Games of the world: Sharmeema is not part of the Bethnal Green trio and should therefore be covered separately - unless the Bethnal Green article is somehow "upgraded" to cover all girls who left for ISIL. We do sort of have Brides of ISIL for this. Sharmeema certainly passes WP:GNG on her own given she has been covered over the years in various articles and contexts. So in essence, copyright issues aside, this should primarily be a merger discussion. Copyvio can be fixed/revdel'd pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per totally inappropriate language in nom. This is not a nom in my opinion. Other than that WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subjects notable only for one event WP:BLP1E Legion X (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her notability has been sustained and the 'one event' of her leaving has lasted several years. Even though the nominations language is not neutral, we can still try to be. It is not our place to decide if she should be notable, only if she is. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Change to Redirect. I foolishly tried rewriting the copyright material. After a wasted hour I now believe the relevant material is best cover in one artical for all three. It will prevent some confusion and duplication. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Delete as a biography of one event. She is only loosely related to the Bethnal Green trio. Sustained coverage consists of incidental mentions of other ISIS brides in coverage of Shamima Begum. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence between keep or redirect here; redirect would probably be the best course of action right now, especially considering the copyright violation issues, but there may be enough information on Begum to warrant a separate article in the future. I would also raise the point that the language of this nomination is wholly inappropriate, which leads me to suspect that this nomination is not in good faith. --Bangalamania (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Bangalamania. Another way of looking at it: She already has her own page as the Bethnal Green trio(she seems the most notable of the three). All the information that should be on her page, should also be on the trio page, 100% overlap = redirect. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • @Dushan Jugum:@Bangalamania: Bethnal Green trio does not cover Sharmeena. She is only mentioned once in the context with a referral to the Sharmeena Begum article. Note, Sharmeena Begum and Shamima Begum are two entirely different, unrelated people. This keeps getting confused. As this keeps happening and Sharmeena does meet GNG IMO, an article should be kept. I will happily volunteer re. the copyvio. Also, re the language, the nominator has since been blocked as sockpuppet. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jake Brockman. It seems I have been part of the problem, I knew there was two I just had them mixed up. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
  • Whoops, thanks for alerting me to that Jake Brockman. On that basis I change my vote to keep but rewrite (due to copyvio issues; possibly a merger with one of the non-copyvio drafts below would seem most appropriate). --Bangalamania (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - subject is clearly notable - and independently so of the trio (which she isn't part of - she left a couple of months earlier). There is quite wide coverage here. The sole reason I am not voting for retention of the article is that we currently have a almost completely blanked article due to copyvio concerns. Should the article remain in the current state, then a deletion (even possibly speedy) with no prejudice for recreation would be a good result. I don't think I'm interested in rescuing this one myself - but it is possible to rescue. Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have stared a non-copyvio draft at Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp for consideration should this pass AfD. I'm open to merge this, however this will likely require a separate conversation if the scope of Bethnal Green trio should be broadened. Pinging @Icewhiz: considering his comment. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 11:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sharmeena was the first Bethnal Green girl to go to Syria. Expanding the article scope to cover the four of them with a selective merge sounds viable to me. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jake for the draft. Agree with the merger proposal. Can't see anything in the draft that can't be covered in the Bethnal Green article if it is expanded to cover this "forerunner." Games of the world (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bethnal Green trio, move content from Talk:Sharmeena Begum/Temp to there. Me three to the arguments above - seems we can have one article on all the Bethnal Green travelers to Syria. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - seeing that non-copyvio sourced version is in place now, and this individual meets GNG. Merge to the trio or brides article may be possible - but this meets notability standalong.Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tagged Bethnal Green trio with a merger proposal hat note and pinged the editors who were part of the renaming discussion earlier. This AfD seems to tend towards a merger and if so decided this has a knock-on effect on that article. I am in principle not opposed to the merger, however I would raise that media coverage across the spectrum tends to be along the line of "the three" (including Shamima) and "Sharmeena". Not sure why, but she is not really mixed with the "trio" to form a "quartet". pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Brides of ISIL. She is notable [1] [2] [3]. Do not merge to the article about the trio because she is only tangentially relevant, which is already explained there. I support merging to Brides of ISIL because there is nothing exceptional about her. See WP:ROUTINE and WP:BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 19:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- GNG is the wikidocument relevant here. Both Sharmeena Begum, and her friend with a similar name, Shamima Begum are indepentently notable, are covered by sufficient reliable sources to meet our criteria for a standalone article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This individual has received significant attention in the UK. Multiple reliable sources discussing her clearly indicates notability. Keiiri (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject easily meets WP:GNG, WP:PERSON, and our gaze when we were watching TV news almost every morning these past few weeks. -The Gnome (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sharmeena_Begum&oldid=886778274"