Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalia Gebrial


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Dalia Gebrial

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Cited sources are either written by the subject, primary, not independent or trivial mentions. WP:BIO is therefore definitely not met. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are harder to assess, but with an h-index of 8, appear to be unlikely to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:43, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Subjects meets the WP:BASIC standard.--User:Namiba 15:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Based off which sources? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think it's certainly WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this PhD student, though the one highly cited work is a good start.  I'm not finding sufficient reviews for WP:NAUTHOR -- that would be a stretch anyway, given that there is only one authored (and highly coauthored) book.  I see passing mentions in the Guardian and Independent concerning the Cecil Rhodes protests, but I think this is short of WP:SIGCOV; it looks like it would be a WP:BLP1E anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as either WP:PROF or (more likely eventually ) WP:Author. One significant book ,and one only. The article iseems to be used as a WP:COATRACK for her opinions.  DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't the fact that she has a name in such a source make it encyclopedic? --E.Imanoff (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC) —  is a confirmed sock puppet of.
 * VIAF? No. That's a database of people who have published a book. (Or, more specifically, been listed somewhere in the catalogs of various major national libraries and equivalent listings — it's actually a tool for cross-indexing those libraries.) It is merely a spinoff of the fact already discussed and dismissed as insufficient above, that she is the author of one book. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extensive explanation.--E.Imanoff (talk) Search 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The book she co-edited, Decolonising the University, certainly seems to be notable and could use a Wikipedia page if someone were so inclined. pburka (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ This is a very good idea. -- E. I m anoff  Snatch 01:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. GNG not attained yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC).


 * 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.