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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Osnat Lubrani[edit]

Osnat Lubrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No independent coverage, not notable person. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP It seems unlikely that WP: BEFORE was done as I find tons of independent RS over time in various languages, sufficient to establish notability.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13]. Definitely sufficient sources to support WP:Basic and she isn't a politician. She is a humanitarian and human rights official, not an elected post. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right she is not a politician. I however found those pieces as well and did conduct my BEFORE, but didn't find these relevant. Here is my synopsis of each source you linked.

  • [1] is an Op-Ed from Jpost, says more about her father (Israel Ambassador to Iran) than about her
  • [2] Is promotional tone and very brief, but could be used as a source
  • [3] Is a government website, cannot be used for establishing notability
  • [4] Kyiv Post interview, again not independent nor for establishing notability
  • [5] A Slovakian glossary by NGO/UNIFEM (Lubrani's org). Not independent
  • [6] OHCHR UN agency not independent
  • [7] DailyPost Vanutia: Passing mention, but is independent
  • [8] Page 7,10 Pacific Business Partners passing mention. Is independent
  • [9] Not about Lubrani, but a tropical storm.
  • [10] Press release, cannot be used to establish notability
  • [11] Fiji Sun interview... not independent and promo
  • [12] Island Sun, passing mention
  • [13] Jewish Times piece about Osna. Independent

  All in all there's 3 independent articles from non major newspapers, borderline BASIC. I will let a closer determine.~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to let the closer decide and honestly I have no issues either way. I rarely work on living people and even rarer come to AfD. What made me even look was your statement that there was no independent coverage and that you looked at her as a politician, which you have now concurred she is not. There is also independent coverage. Significant coverage can be a combination of multiple sources and the subject does not have to be the main topic of a source. Interviews can be used to fill in biographical details. There's enough here to prove her career trajectory and establish that she has been a regional coordinator for the UN (not a routine post that just anyone is given) in projects dealing humanitarian aid and worked in country development in Africa, the Pacific and now Europe. (By the way, in the Pacific region (also in the Caribbean), the various island newspapers are nationwide, and while not major in the same sense that UK/US newspapers are, they are the main source of news there.) SusunW (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to her father Uri Lubrani as it already mentions her? Given what has been happening I Ukraine, sje has an arguably important role in the day to day life of many residents and should ne mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BostonMensa (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Nominated as failing WP:POLITICIAN, however, she is not a politician. SusunW established Lubrani's notability with 13 sources of which nominator agrees that 3 are independent articles in a very critical review of these sources. There's no case then for deleting. I often see this suggestion, but just redirecting all women's biographies to their husband/relative, who happens to be better known, does not convey us making even a minimal effort for gender equality on WP. If a biography passes the bar it should be kept regardless of gender. gidonb (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. gidonb (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ok, weak keep. The sources are so-so, but gender equality is important here. It's not a slam dunk but just over the bar. Oaktree b (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2023 (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.