Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farah Damji


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  NNADI GOOD LUCK  ( Talk &#124; Contribs ) 14:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Farah Damji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem like an encyclopedic article, it looks like news page which has only negative and news content about person not a informational. And also, Not notable page/content. Juppalsingh (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 1.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - the subject has received prolonged significant coverage (I found sources from a period of over 11 years:, , , ), passing WP:SIGCOV. Regarding the issues noted by the nominator, I suggest they engage on the talk page of the article and suggest the changes needed to make it less like a news page. Achaea (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This person isn't in the public eye so the article isn't relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:A201:5B01:4191:72F7:356D:A859 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: sustained multiple coverage, clearly notable. Pam  D  10:22, 2 January 2020 (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.