Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farahnaz Forotan (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 speedy keep due to withdrawal by nominator. (non-admin closure) Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Farahnaz Forotan
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable journalist. Article was remove twice before. No refund requested The Banner  talk 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has been expanded and improved since its first nomination back in 2016, when WP:GNG and WP:PROMO were cited as the main concerns. In 2020, during the Afghan peace talks, Forotan proceeded to collect testimonies and start a campaign that both received the recognition of the United Nations and important coverage, unlike previously, including from The New York Times, The Guardian and Le Monde. The same happened after she left Afghanistan. I should also mention that by receiving the "Journalist in the Country" national award she should meet WP:ANYBIO, which includes this as a criteria for notability.


 * If I may, I'll note that I did ask for a WP:REFUND some time ago. (Requests for undeletion/Archive 342). --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I just added a 2019 New York Times reference that discusses Forotan's social media campaign and provides context; while this article could be expanded based on additional sources that exist (e.g. BBC, September 7, 2020, AFP April 21, 2019, Reuters, April 4, 2019), it meets WP:GNG. Beccaynr (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Beccaynr (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep She is clearly notable receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. She is also "notable" in that papers like the New York Times have taken note of her activity, plus the awards, the firsts, etc.  --  Green  C  17:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as others have said. Article is better than it was at previous AFD in 2016. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I can not see the older versions but I agree that by now she is notable. Request speedy close as keep. The Banner  talk 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes GNG. DoctorsHub (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - She has perform notability and passes GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2021 (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.