Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghazal Omid (2nd 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ghazal Omid
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This nomination is being placed on behalf of User:Ghazal Omid, who has previously identified as the subject of this article. The user is upset that incorrect information has been added to her page (which was removed once she called attention to it), and has requested that it either be fully protected (which is not an option) or deleted. You can see her request in in this edit. Per WP:BIODEL, "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Omid does not understand how to use Wikipedia processes, so I have opened this on her behalf. I will review the article later and make my own recommendation, so please do not take this initial opening as my own vote for deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll refrain from !voting for now, but I'm leaning towards keep. It seems the subject's request for deletion is born out of her frustration at not being allowed to use Wikipedia as a platform, and her concern that her enemies will turn the article against her. The latter is worth taking into consideration, but the article no longer seems to be the "vandalism magnet" it was at the last AfD, with only two problematic edits in two years, both by one editor who probably won't be back. In addition, the article has been substantially improved since the last AfD, which was closed as keep. The subject is, in my view, notable enough for an article. I just don't know enough about the BLP rules to judge whether the subject's distress is sufficient to outweigh that notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think the notability threshold has been met. The article is genuinely informative for someone who wants to know more about Omid, who is a public figure involved in issues of significant public controversy. Probably best to find a community member, if we can, who knows this subject matter well enough to identify vandalism if it recurs. MikeGodwin (talk) 23:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Public figure & notable author, with a published autobiography, so not eligible for optional deletion on request. What we need to do is simply watch the article. I agree that articles about people can be problems, and the solution is to deal with them carefully and sensitively.  DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject is notable, article is neutral. Can be watchlisted to quickly revert any vandalism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)




 * I am copying here a comment that Omid left on her User Talk page:


 * As a side note, I have decided not to leave a !vote on this matter...I'm too involved in attempting to somehow make this experience palatable to Omid, even though I've at times been frustrated do to an inability to explain how WP works. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2012 (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.