Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalia Danish

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 delete. WP:N is the main hurdle, and it hasn't been demonstrated that this topic meets it. Wily D 12:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Danish[edit]

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)

It unfortunately doesn't look like this person meets the general notability guideline (no hits for "Dalia Danish" on Google News, News archives, or Books, save for one false positive; Google Scholar turns up one article by her which is already present in the article as well as another which looks like a false positive; WorldCat Identities turns up dry). CtP (t • c) 19:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Danish, Dalia & Russell, James. The role of ‘action-effects’ and agency in toddlers’ imitation. Cognitive Development: Volume 22, Issue 1, January-March 2007, Pages 69-76

Danish, Dalia. Interview with Dalia Danish on ADD in Egypt. AlterEgo Magazine, Egypt. April 2010

Danish, Dalia. Personal and political: psychological health following the revolution by Chitra Kalyani. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. April 2011.

Danish, Dalia. Interview: Coping with the Revolution by Randa El Tahawy. Egypt Today June 2011

Danish, Dalia. Interview: Children of the Revolution by Passant Rabie. Egypt Today June 2011

Danish, Dalia. Reassuring You: Tammenny.com by Chitra Kalyani. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. October 2011

Danish, Dalia. The Psychology of a Nation: Egypt’s Trauma Continues by Dalia Rabie. The Herald Tribune Daily News. Egypt. January 2012

Danish, Dalia. Analysis: Candidates’ Body Language during the Presidential Debate. Egypt Independent. Egypt. May 2012

www.tammenny.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.202.96.170 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC) 196.202.96.170 (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What we're looking for is not papers written by Danish, but independent coverage of her in reliable sources (Twitter, LinkedIn, and other such sites do not qualify). CtP (t • c) 20:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: some of the above are interviews, which may count for notability. CtP (t • c) 20:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see where she's quoted in Egypt Today ([1]), but nothing to show that she's particularly noteworthy or notable enough to pass WP:GNG. Her papers or articles might be usable as a reliable source in other Wikipedia articles, but being enough of an authority to be considered a reliable source is not enough to pass notability guidelines. Publishing articles in papers or any journal entry is not enough to show notability. As someone said in another AfD, scientists/doctors/PhD people are expected to publish papers and journals. It's the nature of the beast and the epitome of the phrase "publish or perish". However it's only when those sources are consistently quoted as being especially groundbreaking or THE source for whatever the specific scientist/doctor is known for, then journals or articles alone might be enough. However there is nothing out there to suggest that this is the case.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE!. Max Planck... Common Coding theory... Paris V Rene Descartes and interactive learning devices... all stuck in place like Egypt, using science as a battle where censorship is habit? if Danish goes unrecognized then this is just a sign ignorance will rule196.202.96.170 (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- To 196.202.96.170: Please see WP:NOBLE. Wikipedia is not the place to give someone recognition, if he or she not notable yet, no matter how worthy the cause. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To all IPs and new users coming in: This is not decided on a vote and all arguments must fall within the rules of WP:GNG. We don't keep articles because they're related to someone notable (WP:NOTINHERITED), it has something that "totally should be highlighted" (WP:VALINFO), or anything that falls under WP:AADD. Even if a billion people come in to say it should be kept, if none of those arguments show notability for Danish per notability guidelines, then they won't really do anything. Also be aware that you should only vote once. I'm striking the second "keep". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are procedural issues with AfDing something 6 minutes after creation, but this is bad enough to be speedied as a pure promotional piece - if you delete the fluff, there is literally nothing left. My Google search turned up nothing. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you want and delete if you want - it is not promotional fluff. Dalia is the first to create an arabic self help site -- interactive- www.tammenny.com based on her knowledge of interactive learning aquired at max planck and applied i cambridge -- downing college-. she is the only neuroscience specialist in the region and the only arabic speaking downing college cambridge graduate who integrated neuroscience knowlege and created this free site. I have read the (WP:NOTINHERITED), WP:GNG, (WP:VALINFO) etc and objectively see that she fits the criteria. it's all up to you. I am more than happy to flag egyptian practicioners who are currently using wiki as promotional fluff and do NOT belong to any accredited uni or syndicate who even have fake online Phd's listed as their credential. This is really unfortunate. I wish you all a fantastic holiday196.202.96.170 (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request that other pages be nominated for deletion, but be aware that doing so just to make a point is considered disruptive. CtP (t • c) 17:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spamish - extremely low wiki notability - I am sure she is important to some but En Wikipedia's objective is to imform and publish reliably referenced content about WP:Notable things, places and people and not here to promote people - regards - Youreallycan 21:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Three of the newspaper articles are found on High Beam. She is quoted as saying the Egyptian revolution may have stressed out some people and that they can get help from her free web site (and we must presume, from her if they are so inclined). They should not feel bad about being stressed out, just get some help. That sounds like spam, back door advertising. Not surprisingly, nothing about her or by her on Questia. Not much else on the first few pages of a google search, just similar newspaper articles. She may care about her people and be a good psychologist. She may be a good researcher. That is all we have about her. May be an admirable and intelligent person, but not shown to be any more notable than hundreds of other psychologists. Not enough for an article at this time. 09:16, 31 December 2012 (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.