Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryam Namazie
- 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. Courcelles 00:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maryam Namazie[edit]
- Maryam Namazie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO as there does not seem to be any independent coverage. Also fails WP:POLITICIAN I couldn't find any reliable sources not even in persian. The link to the "british humanist association" leads to a supporter list. I am not sure but the her entry on that page looks like an autobiographical blog of a member of the association, thus not reliable enough in my opinion. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Badly sourced article, but lots of hits on GNews. It's mostly stuff she wrote, but articles like this one are about her. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Clearly notable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteI have no troubles believing that she might be notable. However the references given in the article are not proving that. DrPhosphorus (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. If there is significant coverage from independent reliable third-party sources, the article meets notability whether or not the sources are already in the article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She's notable enough. -- Randy2063 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no problem believing that an article's subject might be notable why not simply help sort out the article instead of promoting yet more waste of time and effort and general discouragement at Wikipedia.Opbeith (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I've added some references, I think enough to show that she passes the bar for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep reliable sources have been provided. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the recently added references, I also think that we should keep the article. DrPhosphorus (talk) 15:00, 19 December 2010 (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.