Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryum Jameelah (3rd 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 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryum Jameelah[edit]

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

This page has been deleted before and the new page has the same issues as the last one, namely, it does not cite any references or sources, the use of peacock terms and has failed to demonstrate notability. It still gives her no better claim to notability than "Jewish American woman who converted to Islam".Codf1977 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC) - WITHDRAWN - It is clear that the article now meets the requirements, thanks to Abecedare and since no one has objected, I see no reason to prolong this.Codf1977 (talk) 14:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR as a notable author and activist. See, for example
- Makers of Contemporary Islam, a chapter on her in a book published by Oxford University Press.
- Maryam Jameelah papers, in the New York Public Library collection.

Hundreds of other sources are available on Google Books alone. The article should be moved to Maryam Jameelah though, since that is the more common transliteration of her name. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kudos to Abecedare. I would argue that if there was a problem with notability and reliable sources, they could have been searched for prior to nominating the article for deletion. ALI ^{nom nom} 18:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence it was while doing that, that it became obvious that the article had been deleted before and then I decided to list it again. It was not my original attention to AfD. Codf1977 (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination was understandable in light of the previous AFDs and deletion, and you don't need to apologize for your good faith action. If you would like to withdraw the nomination now, we can close this AFD - if you would prefer to wait for more comments, that's fine too. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think she is notable enough. Further, this kind of person is why Wikipedia exists, because Wikipedia can be more inclusive than even large printed encyclopedias. People who read about her or read a review of one of her books or read one of them or are interested in women with her kind of story will find articles like this invaluable and interesting. Wikipedia is big enough to include this article handily and usefully. Agree on kudos to Abecedare, and on proposed title move. Hu (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was in my opinion a weak keep the previous time, but there are additional references now to her. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 16 December 2009 (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.