Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Jaff
as a  violation, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write something more |neutral and less dependent on |primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things than this version is. The one thing that jumped out at me from the sources as the most seemingly compelling evidence of notability, the notion that a Mexican political figure was getting media coverage in ''Kurdistan'' per footnote #26, actually turned out to be a press release (in ''English'', no less, which makes organically independent coverage of her an implausible explanation as virtually all of the site's other content is in Kurdish) — basically, it's a |user-generated public relations blog that will "publish" absolutely anything that gets submitted to it at all, not a real media outlet. But self-promoting wannabes ''routinely'' try to game our sourcing rules by creating and distributing their own |self-published "sourcing" for themselves on user-generated content and "citizen journalism" sites, and then trying to use that self-created "coverage" as proof that they pass . So if that's happening here, then I have less inclination to give any of the other questionable sources the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not seeing enough non-questionable sources to vote "keep with cleanup". If somebody can write and source a new article much better than this, that's another story — but this as written is so bad that it qualifies for the |blow it up and start over treatment ''regardless'' of her potential notability
— User:Bearcat, 19:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTADVERT||WP:NPOV||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:USERG||WP:SELFPUB||WP:GNG||WP:TNT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)