The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)"Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."
"... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women."You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The result was delete. Modussiccandi ( talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
The criteria for this list is not clear, and "fighting for human rights" is a very vague motive. There's also no good reason to limit it to women. Songwaters ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
How is being a wartime reporter fighting for human rights? Including her on this list for that reason is a stretch and a half; indeed even the articles listed as refs by her entry in the list (one BBC, another in Arabic, so I had to use a machine translation) say nothing about "human rights".But wait, I hear you say, we have reliable sources that discuss this topic as a set. Just look at the references in the lead! Okay, the first one, from The Guardian is "supported" content -- supported by "Count Me In!", a consortium of groups with a clear agenda. That's not really a value judgement, but it does count against the independence of the source for demonstrating notability. Not to mention that the Gardi example I mentioned above calls into question the reliability of this article due to it's unclear inclusion criteria. The other source is from AWID, an activist organization. This again, disqualifies it from establishing notability on independence (and probably reliability for that matter) grounds. Not only that, but it's simply a memorial list of women activists, regardless of how they died.That was a long !vote, but this one deserved a closer look. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 04:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)"Shifa Gardi was a reporter for the Kurdish channel Rudaw. She had been credited for breaking the “stereotypes of male-dominated journalism”. She was killed by a roadside bomb while covering the battle for Mosul on 25 February."
"... and the first citation [in the article] shows that grouping people killed for human rights, are grouped as women."You can't have it both ways. The third source similarly seems to be discussing all people, whereas the page number you mention is talking about one specific incident. The second source doesn't seem to be discussing women specifically at all...you're just throwing words into a search box and parading around any hits you get as some sort of magical potion to justify a list, but it doesn't work like that. The very sources you bring up are, if anything, evidence against this particular list. And really, at best, what you're doing here is starting to show notability of the overall topic of "violence against human rights activists" or something along those lines (which might even exist already...I haven't looked). But just because we might have an article about that doesn't mean that we should create a list of every incident. Lists like this are beyond problematic due to the unfixable OR/SYNTH issues that I mentioned above. They also smack of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:RGW to a lesser extent. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 20:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)