Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibtissam Lachgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 as per unanimous consensus, no deletion calls outside of the nominator and an excellent effort to update the article to meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO standards. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtissam Lachgar[edit]

Ibtissam Lachgar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notability. Fails WP:GNG. CounterTime (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly a major human rights activist in her country, the most cursory of searches brings up ample independent, third-party coverage, clearly meets GNG. Some source material is in French, however. But it's there: Examples: Quoted iN USA today, also: [1], [2], [3], [4]
  • Keep Enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, including in major international publications. AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to be one of the few openly irreligious people in Morocco and also an LGBT activist. I have improved the article (see here) and added references. I guess it can be kept now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2016 (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.