Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women

Is this project experiencing more deletions than most?

I just checked the alerts section of this project and counted 21 wp:AfD s. Isn’t this a rather large number considering this project has only 3,953 articles listed ? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)please ping me

That is a lot at AfD, and I wish there were far few. For what it's worth, though, this project has far more articles under its general purvue than 3,953 as all the other "women" projects are affiliated with this one. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not terribly surprised - there are a lot of projects going on to expand Wikipedia's coverage of women in areas less-likely to have rock-solid obvious notability guidelines, and Wikipedians have always been a bit gung-ho about nominating people and things they're unfamiliar with. It is also (deservedly) inflated at the moment by people cleaning up the godforsaken Neelix mess, which that it ever happened is a bit of a reflection about how bad Wikipedia has been on women's issues for a while. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it may be a good idea for all the regulars here to get autopatrolled, that will keep smaller articles out of the eyes of the NPP/AFD patrollers. Anyone who can find their way here and get autopatrolled isn't going to be putting up cruft, and we could all benefit from not having to be constantly distracted by AfDs. Also, for those who seek DYK but aren't autopatrolled, those of us who are could put up a small stub of something that's being sandboxed, and the lead editor can still get DYK credit based on a 5x expansion. Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

From WP:PERM:

• Autopatrolled (add request · view requests): The autopatrolled flag is granted to users who are active in the creation of new articles. This tool is granted so their creations are auto patrolled in Special:NewPages. Unlike other requests, any user may nominate an editor for Autopatrolled, even without that user's consent. A user who wishes to have this flag generally should have created at least 25 articles and must be trusted, experienced, and must have demonstrated they are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Notability.

So, if you've created at least 25 articles, click here. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Megalibrarygirl push that button (okay, link) you should definitely get autopatrol status. SusunW (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

SusunW I clicked the button! I'll let you know how it turns out. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I see this project still has only 4,276 articles listed in its assessment table. This is probably just a tiny portion of the articles that it should tag. Has Anyone here tried to approach user:BHGbot which "exists for a single purpose: to tag the talk pages of articles and categories with the tags which identify the articles as being within the scope of a particular WikiProject". Just curious. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: I think we have repeatedly asked everyone we could think of. But Rosiestep was working on some sources last I knew. SusunW (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The bots require a consensus on what to tag, but after a long discussion no consensus was reached. We could try reviving the proposal. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: sure, let's talk about the tagging proposal again. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like there are more articles slowly trickling in: I see roughly 300 more articles since Dec 1, 2015. (count is now 4,586). Ottawahitech (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

21 of 3,953 is roughly half a percent (0.53%). It is not a large number. —Pengo 08:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GAR for Bra

Bra, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sst✈^(discuss) 04:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You're invited! Women in Red World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Religion

Dates: 5 to 15 December 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host: Women in Red (WiR): Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in reigion to participate. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Women's history project into task force?

Should the women's history project become a task force of this one? WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: what would be the advantages and disadvantages of turning a wikiproject into a task force? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech: It could allow both projects to combine and use their talents together. Women's history is an aspect of the experience of women and it may be a way to recruit more female editors. Now there may be a disadvantage if existing members on either side want to have their projects remain separate. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Rosiestep will have some valuable insight here, since we made Women in Red a taskforce of this project. There are pros and cons, but I am unsure which of the issues we have discussed on WiR are technology related or process related. SusunW (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe, Ottawahitech, and SusunW: We've talked about developing task forces under the WP:WikiProject Women umbrella and maybe it's time to re-open the conversation. Another thing we might want to consider when there's an inactive "women's" project is having its talkpage redirect to WP:WikiProject Women; I'm not sure if that's ever been done, but it might make sense? --Rosiestep (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in Technology

I tried to tag some articles with Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Technology, but it appears that the project is inactive even though there is a link to it from this wproj. Can anyone shed some light? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

4,644 articles already tagged by WikiProject Women!

I understand that tagging of articles for this wikiproject has been done by individuals and not by a BOT - so it looks like this project is quite active, even if no one here "talks" a lot, LOL. For those who may want to help tagging articles this is what I would do (do others have better ideas?}:

1. Start at Category: Women
2. Make sure this project's tag (banner) is already on its talkpage
3. Click on the first item in Category: Women which at the moment happens to be Category:Women by behavior
4. Repeat step 2
5. Click on the first item in Category:Women by behavior which at the moment happens to be Category:Women activists
6. Repeat step 2 (Category talk:Women activists is still not tagged right now - so go ahead and tag it)
7. Category:Women activists contains both subcategoires and individual articles, go ahead and tag all the talkpages.
8. Continue "drilling down" until all women categories and articles in this category branch are tagged
9. At this point you can start working on a different brach of the category tree.

Am I making sense? Ottawahitech (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Are you saying, Ottawahitech, that if we put the WikiProject tag on the categories pages, the WikiProject Women tag will automatically go on the pages within the category??? If so, that would be the awesome!!!! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not (as far as I know). Every talkpage has to be tagged individually for the page to be included in the assessment table of this wikiproj and for Article alerts to be generated here. So a category that is nominated for deletion after it has been tagged, will show up in the alerts section, and the same goes for articles, reditrects, etc. Ottawahitech (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me However, if all the categories are tagged it will help a BOT tag articles, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

@Ottawahitech and Megalibrarygirl: After founding WP:WikiProject Women writers, we put together a list of categories on the talkpage, asked for comments, and after about a week, got a bot to add the talkpage banner to all the cats in our list. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers/Archive 1#Bot request. We repeated this 3 or 4 times over the course of a few months. That project is pretty robust now with >900 categories, and >24K articles in its scope. Shall we do it? I'm in! -- (talk) 01:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@Rosiestep: Impressive! More than 24K articles in roughly two weeks. Those BOTS sure earn their living. Having said this I still think that while we are waiting for the BOT to start, individual editors may want to continue tagging. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

No no, not in two weeks; the project has been around since August 2014. --Rosiestep (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I vote yes. Because someone keeps saying we don't have consensus to make changes I want it to be very clear, if it isn't already that I am totally in favor of using technology to add talkpage banners to the categories we previously have identified in great detail for that list of "AxelNewArtBot config" search string. (Would that we could get this done "in about a week" Rosiestep :) )SusunW (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I still find the count of 4,644 articles appallingly low. I suggest requesting a bot to tag all articles in Category:21st-century actresses (recursive) with the {{WikiProject Women}} template. This category and its sub-categories contain a total of more than 8,000 articles (checking via AWB). sst✈^(discuss) 07:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Bot request

For WikiProject Women artists and WikiProject Women writers, we set up a bot request to automatically add the project banner to article talk pages. If we want to do the same thing, there are instructions at User talk:AnomieBOT under 'WikiProjectTagger run'. We can basically pick the categories (perhaps most of the subcategories of Category:Women writers) and let the bot do the work. We only need approval for the cats from this project's members. Unless we'd be somehow modifying the project banners for WikiProject Biography, I don't think we need their permission to proceed (though they might have useful input) (paraphrasing @Gobonobo 1 September 2014). Feel free to add or strike categories from this list. If there are no objections in the next week, I'll put in a request at AnomieBOT to add the Women banner to the articles in this list. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Categories within the scope of this WikiProject
3

Like That seems like a very short list of categories, but I am still in favor of any of it being automated. SusunW (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

LikeAutomate, please. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me. sst✈^(discuss) 07:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Noob question

So we basically just tag every single women biography with the project banner? If so I would expect far more articles than the current count of ~5000. Category:Living people contains 740,850 articles, and if 15% of them are women, that should result in 111,127 articles. I can use AWB to help project tagging, if you want. ssт✈^(discuss) 11:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Or do you want to progressively tag articles in different categories, instead of blanket tagging all articles within Category:Women (recursive)? ssт✈^(discuss) 11:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You can take a look also at archive about project tagging. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So basically articles not covered by any other women projects (such as musicians, actors, politicians, etc.) should be tagged with this project. That makes sense, so I just tagged the talk pages of about 180 articles about women cricketers with the {{WikiProject Women's sport}} template. Or did I miss anything? ssт✈^(discuss) 12:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

@SSTflyer:, that's what I tag women in sports with. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

SSTflyer That would be awesome. Those of us who have been manually tagging all the new files know what a chore it is, but if we are to ever get an idea of what is being AfDed, what is in need of improvement, what is a potential GA, and even a real statistical base, we need things categorized and tagged. Any help is appreciated! SusunW (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am happy to help. sst✈^(discuss) 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• What is you guys' relation to the other women biography projects? Some articles are tagged for "Women scientist", "Women authors" etc. Should that have a banner tagging for WP:Women as well or do you subsume those projects within your own? Also sometimes importance rating may vary between subprojects - for example I would consider Hillary CLinton top importance for WP:WOMEN but mid or low importance for WP:WOMEN WRITERS. Should she have two banner tags then?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No Maunus, they should be tagged with one banner for the appropriate project. See above "articles not covered by any other women projects (such as musicians, actors, politicians, etc.) should be tagged with this project" is the goal. SusunW (talk) 18:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

More explanation, since the other women projects roll into the notices for this one, the critical point is being notified or alerted. As long as one woman related project is tagged, we will be notified. If that makes sense. Multiple tags can be applied, of course, but the goal is to make sure all have at least one. SusunW (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Another a noob question here (and I mean Wikipedia-noob, not just WP:WOMEN noob, which I realize is what SSTflyer must have meant based on the fact that OP knows how to make a fancy signature and reference a template without actually posting the template). So if I've been "watching" multiple woman-related projects, including WP:WOMEN, does that mean I'm getting duplicate notifications about anything tagged as a subproject of this one? I've been very engrossed in another project, so I haven't paid as much attention yet as I would want to. Just trying to make sure I won't miss anything if I remove the rest and only watch this one for now. Thanks! Permstrump (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Permstrump I don't think alerts go to individuals, but if you look on the main page of this project you will see AfDs, GA nom, peer reviews etc. for the umbrella groups if I am not mistaken. If you want to see conversations on talk pages, I think you will have to watchlist them all. But pinging Rosiestep who has much more experience at this kind of thing. SusunW (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Permstrump. It's the project that gets notified such as here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers#Article alerts. And SusunW is right; if the article talkpage already has a "woman" project banner, it doesn't have to have additional ones, though there's no harm if it does (e.g. Women's History and Women Scientists). Also, doing it by hand is painful. Even using AWB is painful. But there's a bot which does talkpage banners and that's the way to go. We just have to delineate which cat's pages get which banner. We do have to be thoughtful, and we do need to post the request on the project talkpage to allow for comments. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article alerts pages may be watchlisted, so it is possible for individuals to be made aware that such-a-page related to WikiProject Foobar is at XfD, etc. I explained much of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Archive 5#Please comment at AfD. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 you are amazing. Thank you for your repeated help and willingness to share what you know. The technicalities elude me and I am very grateful that you are always willing to lend a hand to help explain or clarify, or just fix whatever is an issue :) SusunW (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

No Importance Scale?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[ crosspost from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women/Assessment#No Importance scale? ]

Hi there - Re the {WikiProject Women} template: When I click on This article has been rated as ???-importance on the project's importance scale, I see Quality criteria, but no Importance criteria. Is there a link I'm missing?

Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 19:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there should be an importance scale. It probably hasnt been made yet. But using the criteria of most other projects the scale should probably have 500-1000 top level topics (i.e. only the 1000 topics most crucially important for the project, articles such as "Woman", "Feminism", "Women's rights" and some of the most signficant women of world history). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:48, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Given the warring at Talk:Lera Boroditsky, I think it's time to set one (here's a template). czar 20:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Czar - Dood! Please do not mischaracterize my conversation with Maunus as a "war". I am sick of these macho-bs compensating-for-something so-called "wars" in Wikipedia (ref User:LeoRomero/scx#Assumptions). Aren't you? - Thanks, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 20:27, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting back and forth rather than finding consensus is the definition of "edit warring", which is the name of a WP policy... so it's not not some term of art. If you think it should be called something else, that's a conversation for its talk page. czar 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Czar. I'd rather do Content (so many of our articles are unreadable), but I'm beginning to enjoy The Asylum's inside-sports-on-steroids, now that I'm back on meds. So if you'll support a move to switch our language from "Wikipedia is War" to "Wikipedia is a Learning Playground", I will do as you suggest. - Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather do content too. And I don't really support either statement, though I lean towards the latter. For what it's worth, we've already agreed that Wikipedia is not a battleground. czar 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• It appears to me that someone added Cate Blanchett to top importance as a probable joke (the only other article at that level was "Woman" which is obviously the most crucial article for WP:WOMEN). And it further seems that Leo Romero is now unwittingly continuing this joke by adding relatively minor scientists of comparable significance to Blanchett (a relatively minor actress) to the Top importance. So yes, make an importance scale to avoid this kind of nonsense.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

When we began we discussed in depth whether it was or was not necessary to have an importance scale and decided against it. It is as if one is saying a file is notable, but then ranking notability, which then leads down the rabbit hole of POV. Obviously the topic can be revisited, but still seems to me to be something that creates divisiveness rather than inclusion. But that's only my take. SusunW (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

If the WikiProject decides against the use of importance ratings, the line

 |importance={{{importance|}}}

should be removed from {{WikiProject Women}}; but if the WikiProject decides in favour of the use of importance ratings, there should be a section named "Importance scale" at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, describing the permitted values (Top, High, Mid, Low, NA). See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Assessment#Importance scale - this section is automatically linked in two places: in the banner template itself, in the phrase "on the project's importance scale."; and in the template documentation, in the sentence "See the project's importance scale for details." These automatic links mean that if a section is added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Assessment, the section heading should not be varied from "Importance scale". --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Thanks! @SusunW and Redrose64: I'm inclined to incline you further against having an "Importance Scale" in the first place. There's only one person who determines the Importance of any and every Wikipedia Article, and s/he's The Reader.

And, as a Reader, as well as an Inmate? To be totally frank and honest with you? At the end of the day, when all is said and done, In My Douchie Opinion (IMDO-ccbysaLoRETta): Madonna (entertainer) over Cate Blanchett. Or at least equal.

Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 21:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree that an importance scale is inappropriate for this project. The scope of this project is simply too wide, and importance is too subjective. sst✈^(discuss) 07:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Per consensus within this discussion, I have removed the importance scale from the {{WikiProject Women}} template. sst✈^(discuss) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks SSTflyer! You solved the problem in under 4 minutes. Magic. Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 09:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is one thing to re-invent the wheel another to play with category space

Sorry, removing category space simply cannot leave a page on wikipedia with no category. As all wikiprojects have category space to have assessment, just for a few editors here to think a project can exist without assessment, is not enough to have a project page with no category at all. JarrahTree 09:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you restate this another way? I am not sure what you mean by category space? I don't recall that the project has advocated for categories to be decreased ever, in fact we have consistently asked for more and improved categories. If you are talking about the importance rating for project banners, there are many projects that don't use the scale. I don't recall which ones, but I am sure someone has a list. SusunW (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I put a partial list at Template talk:WikiProject Women#Importance; I can expand it if you like, but can't guarantee that it will be a complete list. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Redrose64 Thank you again for your technical knowledge. That link goes exactly to the points of the previous discussion. This project is about increasing biographies of women across a variety of fields and expanding articles on women's works. If Biographies doesn't have an importance rating, why would it make sense for this project to have a rating scale? SusunW (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Requesting cooperation on project-related articles

Hi there - Here's a table that lists 4 women-related articles I'll commit to the most: User:LeoRomero/scxc. Please let me know there if you'd like to help me, or if there are any women-related Articles or Projects you'd like me to help you with. You can also copy-paste my Responsibility Table to create a Cooperation Table of your own - at the SCXC Page, or anywhere else. - Thanks and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

And how is it relevant to this WikiProject? sst✈^(discuss) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Because it led to this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do. Thanks for the question SSTflyer. Hope to read more questions/concerns/suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/3D2Do. - Kindest, and Mabuhay! - LoRETta/LeoRomero 18:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Choice of "logo"?

I kind of wanted to inquire about this image which is used as the project's logo. There's nothing exactly wrong with the image itself, but might it be more within the spirit of the project to have a picture of women drawn by a woman? Or perhaps a portrayal of real women? Just something to consider. Of course, I defer to project members, and especially women, if they're attached to the current image. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Long discussion in the archives about the image. Real women evoke too much controversy. People assume you are limiting the scope to the person's persona. If you would like to propose another image, feel free to post one for comment. SusunW (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Special prize for Women's articles in a writing contest

Hello. I want to invite you to participate in a writing contest about three state museums in Madrid (Museum of Romaticism, Museo del Traje and National Archaeological Museum), from December 14, 2015 till January 14, 2016. There is a special prize for the participant with more points thanks to articles listed in the category for that prize. You can join it in every language. More information in GLAMing Madrid Challenge. Thanks. --Millars (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus

Opinions needed in the discussion "Debunked and retracted" or "retracted"? on Talk:A_Rape_on_Campus re:Jackie's story in Rolling Stone. I'm commenting about it here because someone on the talk page said I was canvassing by posting this comment under feminism. The article is tagged for WP:Feminism and WP:WMNHIST, but the women's history project says it's for articles about women up to the mid-20th century, so that's probably a mistake. Permstrump (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Not being familiar with rules resulted in my bio to be deleted

Hi all I had a Wiki bio Page"Maryam Hashemi" which was useful to many people , it was up for about six years, i remember whenever I did any update as long as I could provide the right references there was never any problem, I hadnt updated it for a long time and I realised many information was out of date also incorrect so I updated some parts and made sure I have been providing enough references and evidence , As I was doing this I kept noticing the information was not being updated event though it was being saved and I thought it was my internet connection on my tablet playing up and didn't ralise that another editor was changing the details back at the same time and I was very surprised when I found out it was only then, so I changed the details according to what he was suggesting and mentioned I wasn't aware it was being edited as he thought I was getting into an editing war with him . It was after seeing the message that I read about "request edit " but I wasn't fully aware where I should put that request I noticed a lot of editting rules that I wasn't aware of, so I mentioned it somewhere where I thought a discussion was hapening regarding the changes and mentioned what changes I was doing and I thought it would be enough if I clarify it. The day after I noticed the page was deleted and there was the mention that I didn't sign after the messages and what I had done was not cool.

I understand the laws regarding personal bios and it absolutely makes sense but it defiantly felt like I had triggered many red lights and wiki police after me and had to teach me a lesson for not being cool and deleted my page, which is a shame and im not sure if it's at all possible to get it back. Mahashemi (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Maryam Hashemi still exists. The first Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Hashemi happened in 2007 and, with very little discussion, resulted in it being deleted then. It is currently being once again discussed for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Hashemi (2nd nomination). — Maile (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)