Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gihan Ibrahim (2nd nomination)

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. Argument for deletion was prima facie already weak, and this is simply a SNOW keep. Nominator has been asked on their talk page about their rationale behind their various deletion nominations, but this admin doubts their good faith. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gihan Ibrahim

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG lacks coverage Patriot0239 (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Patriot0239 (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 06:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage in independent reliable sources, both journalistic and academic, across a period of several years. I believe it meets WP:GNG. I will work to further strengthen article sourcing. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 06:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: multiple sources and cover of TIME, meets WP:GNG.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very obviously meets GNG. Furius (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ezlev^tlk
_ctrbs 18:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very well referenced article. pburka (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG; I also added this 2012 Los Angeles Times source, which is more than a trivial mention. Beccaynr (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2021 (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.