Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houda Abouz
- 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) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 02:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Houda Abouz (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)
Insufficient informations or insufficient sources FBall (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Completing nomination on behalf of new editor who had added the above template to the article itself. As for my own view, the sources in the article seem perfectly adequate to meet WP:GNG. Noting that nominator blanked an associated file page on Commons without explanation. --Finngall talk 17:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Law, and Morocco. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - has enough coverage to pass WP:BASIC and featuring in 100 Women (BBC) is notable too. Not all significant coverage is in English, too. See FNH for example. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Sources signify significant coverage in media that passes WP:GNG. Article is quite short so could definitely use some additions but I see no need for deletion. GoldMiner24 Talk 18:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - the NYPost and Arab Weekly articles are, with the exception of the opening paragraphs, exactly the same. Seems to be sourced from an original piece from Reuters. Per WP:GNG - "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". -KH-1 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that this source has independent content from the others so may help Abouz's cause. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe. Might be WP:TOOSOON.-KH-1 (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I believe that this source has independent content from the others so may help Abouz's cause. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:24, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom.--SlideAndSlip (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, as the sources are sufficient to meet the GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
- 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.