Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazal Al Majidi

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. Being bold and closing this as Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazal Al Majidi[edit]

[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:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF despite a welter of references. WP:BOMBARD, plus regrettably lengthy and unsubstantiated lists of works. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Egypt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Netherlands. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This article does not speak for itself and does not state how the subject is notable. If the originator wants the references reviewed, they should provide not less than three nor more than five key references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find both arguments above not warranting a deletion. The problem with biographies when it comes to notability is that they are limited in scope (culture, geography). Khazaal Al Majidi is a well-known academic specialized in Ancient Mesopotamia history and ancient mythology and he is widely known in the Arab world as he is the main expert in his field (writing in Arabic). I myself have two of his large books and use them as references. The arguments for deletion concern the poor way the article is written and they are in no way warranting deletion. The article needs to be enhanced instead to keep it in terms of Wiki policies. -- FayssalF - Wiki up® 21:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, I have no issue with the article. It's dry and factual and not WP:PEACOCK in any way. Robert McClenon suggested using the three method. It's a good suggestion. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FayssalF this AfD may not be neccessary if a certain editor has not decided to prematurely shift drafts into the mainspace instead of having it being improved with almost no deadline in the draftspace. – robertsky (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author and researcher with enough reliable sources proving that notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote to keep as the author is a notable academic with ample references. VeritasOM (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 5 May 2022 (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.