Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samira Samii

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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 12:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Samii

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Deletion requested by articel subject via OTRS (ticket #2015010810009152). Subject does not want this information on Wikipedia (no policy-based reasons offered for deletion). I am filing this AFD at her request, and offer no opinion of my own for or against deletion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject meets WP:BASIC. Sam ^Sing! 11:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - English language coverage for the subject is extremely limited. That combined with the subject's desire to be deleted should probably be enough for a delete. NickCT (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poor English language coverage is not a deletion argument. Neither is subject's desire not to be included. Sam ^Sing! 13:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - English language sources are preferable to foreign language sources. NickCT (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: clearly notable, Die Welt and Deutsche Welle are standards for German RS. I don't see a policy-based reason to remove it. Vrac (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - subject meets the definition of a low-profile individual and per policy she may request deletion of the article about herself - she does not need to give a reason. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does an agent for Bundesliga (Germany's top-level league) football players qualify as a low-profile individual? Given the amount of coverage on her and the nature of her profession, I don't see how she can be construed as low-profile. Vrac (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply either as she certainly is not a low-profile individual, please read Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual. Sam ^Sing! 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's make a few things clear. (1) There is no requirement whatsoever that an article subject have extensive coverage in English. (2) This person can hardly be considered "low profile" as the only female player agent in the major German football league, and a simple glance here demonstrates that in no way could she be described as a "person who does not actively seek out media attention." Indeed, she has wide coverage in very reliable sources in Germany, e.g. whole articles devoted to her in Berliner Zeitung, Die Welt, and Deutsche Welle to name a few, and she is the subject of a radio program and accompanying article on WDR. Having said that, I would not be sorry to see this article go. After dealing with the mess there this week that led to semi-protection, my impression is that the primary reason the subject wants it deleted is that she wants complete control over the contents. Thus, keeping it will result in nothing but a time-sink for the editors having to deal with it and for very little return. Voceditenore (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely disagree. In a nutshell, a high-profile individual is one who actively promotes themselves through regular and sustained pattern of activity. It is a separate concept from notability - she is probably notable, but beside the point. There is no indication here that Samii promotes herself more actively or successfully than any person engaged in her line of work - she promotes her clients as an agent, but that does not make her high-profile, per the essay. As such, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies. I'm sorry, but an image search for an attractive woman who was once involved in a scandal is extremely poor evidence of profile. Ivanvector (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those are recent images from her regular column which she writes for a German football magazine, and from interviews which she has given to the press about herself—not the players she manages. Those are not the activities of a "low profile" person. Voceditenore (talk) 19:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Current sources in article sufficient to meet the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC

Keep - meets inclusion criteria (rather easily) and isn't a valid WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE opportunity. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (earlier !vote struck) - I still wasn't convinced about her profile, but then I went and had a look at her webpage, which has a media contact page detailing interviews she's given about herself (as Voceditenore also noted) and indeed that is not the activity of a low-profile individual. She has posted on the front page of her website that Wikipedia has published information about her that is wrong and that we are spreading untruths (Google translated, I don't read German) and based on recent comments on my talk page and on the article's talk page, there appears to be a SPA campaign (her fans, undoubtedly) to have this information scrubbed. I don't know what the untruths are, but I assume this is related to her short marriage to Mehdi Mahdavikia, which is properly reliably sourced and should not be removed. Without a good policy-based reason given for deletion, the request indeed runs into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I also suggest that long-term pending changes protection be implemented here as it seems this isn't likely to go away. Ivanvector (talk) 17:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ keep. not for any one thing but seems enough there for notability. Lack of non-English sources is not a problem, no more than offline sources which are even harder to check. German is hardly an obscure language so they should be easily checked at some point (if not already).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the sources the English source is enough for general notability, far more so than many other articles that end up kept. So weak keep -> keep.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Delete - Wrong personal information, like birthday, residence and don't care about her privacy. These subject's are enough for a delete. JasminCT (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Jasmin-Shams (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No, they aren't. These are all problems that can be fixed. If information is wrong, give us a source that says so and it will be fixed. Privacy is irrelevant - everything on Wikipedia is based on information freely available elsewhere. We don't make things up, the article is protected to prevent that. Ivanvector (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

~~Speedy-Delete~~ - 100% Wrong---- In Germany every person has right on her personal information which you can not public it without permition. She is a Public figure. several times I tried to help the user of Wikipedia which their sources are just false newspaper but no ones care.... Wrong personal information, her birthday, her residence and don't care about her privacy. You can also find an other picture of Samira Samii (Single) not with Fadi Merza... What is going wrong??? Someone wanna brake her reputation??? These subject's are enough for a delete. JasminCT (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin-Shams (aka "JasminCT"), I have struck the "Speedy delete". You may only !vote once in a deletion discussion. Any further comments should be preceded by Comment. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources which Jasmin-Shams has provided at Talk:Samira Samii and which she suggested we use because they contain "true information", i.e. this one actually give the 1977 birth date which she now claims is wrong, and the name of Samii's former husband (Mehdi Mahdavikia). Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) state that she lives in Augsburg and has an office by Lake Starnberg, both of which are in Germany. Like Ivanvector, I strongly suggest that long-term pending changes protection be implemented if this article is kept. Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Comment The sources which VOCEDITENORE has provided at Talk:Samira Samii and which he suggested are not "true information", just some of them this one actually give the 1977 birth date which she now claims is wrong, which the newspaper could make also mistake and the name of Samii's former husband (Mehdi Mahdavikia) but never they wrote more. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) but not about her private life. state that she definitely not lives in Augsburg and never lived there... just The media is Ausgburg like other Media interviewed her a lot. But its not mean she is living there. She has an office by Lake Starnberg is true!!!. User:Jasmin-Shams, I strongly suggest that delete are wrong information. Actually in her Home-Page her lawyer and Management warning her fans and Business-Partners regarding WIKIPEDIA Jasmin-Shams (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.88.10 (talk) [reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Speedy-Delete - 100% Wrong INFORMATION---- I am the dame opinion like Jasmin because I know all the problem which the y can come..... the user try to think just about their self not about someone want to have her relax and her privacy!!! I don't know why nobody wanna correct and add the true information. THANKS JUSMIN!!!! MAXCT (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~-Delete~~ all articles about Mahdavikai and her residence all pur vandalism... MAXCT (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — MaxXXX-max (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

MaxXXX-max (aka "MAXCT"), I have struck your latest "Delete". You may only !vote once in a deletion discussion. Sam ^Sing! 17:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxXXX-max. you are free to continue to comment, but in that case use Comment. Do not repeat your "Delete" !vote. Voceditenore (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Comment The sources which Sam-Sailer and voceditenore has provided at Talk:Samira Samii are not "true information", i.e. this one is true. Abend Zeitung- Official newspaper in Germany that she never lived in Augsburg is living in Monte Carlo. Like MAX-XXX, I strongly suggest to delete all or correct the information. Jasmin (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rightfully that belongs on the article talk page, but since you bring it up here, no, the article from 2008 says she lives in Nürnberg, which is still Germany. Sam ^Sing! 18:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.

Comment Thanks for delete her residence but its not all!!!The sources you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii means articles about Mahdavikia are not "true information", i.e. [ https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7_%D8%B3%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%B9%DB%8C this one] in WIKIPEDIA FARSI wrote Mahdavikia must to apologizes Samira Samii. Other press articles (all copied on Samii's official web site) in Frankfurter Rundschau interview she said: "Nein, privat ist privat, und ich trenne immer mein Privatleben von meinen Geschäften". (Means: Private is private and I always separate my private-life and my Business-Life). Like Jasmin, I strongly suggest that delete the Mahdavikia´s Articels. Jasmin (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The picture you have provided at Talk:Samira Samii is"not really fit on the page", i.e. this one is fit to Wikipedia-Page. it is an single Photo free of charge and free of rights. I strongly suggest to delete the old picture and add a new one. Thanks for your attention!!!MAX-XXX (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MaxXXX-max and Jasmin-Shams, this discussion solely about whether the entire article should be deleted. Please raise issues about changes to the article at Talk:Samira Samii—not here. Voceditenore (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.
Voceditenore this is a discussion page for samira samii site to deletion. why I can not say my opinion about deletion of some article or picture. Are u a boos here. who control all these information. It is a time to delete this page in WIKIPEDIA. all the time you try to order what we have to do... MAX (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MAX, Voceditenore is absolutely right. Issues of content (including images) should be raised on the article talk page. I would strongly suggest you do so because this is highly unlikely to be deleted and so you should turn your attention to the long-term management of the article (which isn't a matter for this discussion). Voceditenore is not the "boos" here and nothing about his actions suggest he is trying to be. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Speedy-Delete - what's going on here????---- I request to delete samira samii Wikipedia as soon as possible!!! I am absolutely agree with Jasmin & Max. This site must to delete immediately. 1. Wrong articles 2. Wrong information 3. The picture is not Fit to her Profile. 4. Old and false information about her past 5. Samira Samii coming from noble and Royal Family which nobody mentioned it. 6. Wikipedia is the site to find out about the person completely not partly. 7. Samira Samii doesn't talk about her private life in any interview. 8. She is a prominent person nota normal agent 9. She is a sport-manager not a Sport Agent. 10. The sources of newspapers are not a fact. What's a shame how someone can make some page about a famous person like Samira Samii in this way !!!! MarcoR_1_silarCT (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — MarcoR 1 Silar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You don't seem to understand that by arguing she is famous ("notable") you're actually arguing that the article should not be deleted. The things you are asking for can be resolved by regular editing and won't be solved by deletion. By her own actions, she has caused an article to be written about her. Now that it contains verified assertions with which she disagrees, she wants to article deleted. She doesn't own the article, you don't own the article and I don't own the article. None of your 10 dot points are valid reasons for deletion here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppets.

Comment I am agree with MarcoR. All points are fact for deleting this page and in many points I have a same opinion. specially many user can not understand German and the translate the articles in google and editing some wrong information and the don't know about Media-Rights and about Samira Samii as a prominent person. They just wanna have their fun and this is not serious for WIKIPEDIA!!!! The deletion request is absolutely correct in this case and administrator must to know his work was not serious. On the other side his work was for nothing. Many sources about past are not existed in internet anymore. Samira Samii MANAGEMENT also warning her fans and Business-Partner Jasmin-ShamsCT (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also agree with MarcoR & Jasmin. Its so funny!!! All pages actually delete from internet and these users and administrator doesn't care about anything. For me its unprofessional JOB. Normally Wikipedia must to show a reaction and delete this page. Why its take to long this process... MaxXXX-max (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, but please read all comments that aren't from the small group of brand new single-purpose accounts who don't seem to understand the purpose of this discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having lots of people register new accounts (or the same person multiple times) so that they can "vote" here won't make a difference. The results of these discussions are determined by the strength of policy-based arguments, not by the number of voters (it's not a vote). Given those arguing for deletion haven't put forward a single policy-based reason for deletion, the closing administrator's job is going to be very easy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sock-puppet.

Comment What are you writing here.. vote or not vote... all sources about her past is already deleted in internet. If someone has really interest to Samira Samii person that should be serious and search professional and edit right and professional articles. In GERMANY she is a prominent person and everyone knows her. She has an official page which you can not to make find lots of information. She is almost in every newspaper and TV Chanel. What are you saying? Is that hobby of users to make wrong pages???Marco ^Sing! 13:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she is a "prominent person and everyone knows her" which is why the article won't be deleted as you have suggested. ~~Vandalising my talk page with personal attacks and profanity won't change that.~~ St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out those personal attacks (blended with your own messages) were from a different sock-puppet from a different AFD. Speaking of popularity... St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - Subject easily passes the inclusion guidelines to have an article on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- WP:GNG, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - Complaints about the content, which have all been adressed on the article talk page, preceded this request. Notable subject, not low-profile, neutral decent article. As such no reason to delete. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2015 (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.