Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanan Mohamed Abdelrahman


 * 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. There seems to be consensus (though not unanimously) that PROF criterion 2 has been satisfied and thus a keep is suitable (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hanan Mohamed Abdelrahman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lack of independent third-party non-trivial coverage, the cited referenced are either associated with the award itself, or not about her. Geschichte (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep as article creator. Possibly speedy keep, because of the falsified and invalid deletion rationale. In what sense are an interview with a different mathematician published by two major mathematical societies (which includes brief but nontrivial coverage of her teaching philosophy) and an article in the major newspaper of its nation (selected from among many many other newspaper articles on the same topic) not independent? In fact, four of the six footnoted references of the article are neither associated with the award nor "not about her". And I would argue that as the winner of her nation's top mathematics education award she clearly passes WP:PROF, that as the subject of stories in multiple newspapers (not just the ones I cited) she clearly passes WP:GNG, and that the other more incidental coverage I included in the article on her book, her web site, and her participation in national education initiatives gives her a pass of WP:BIO1E. I note that this article was taken straight to AfD more or less immediately after it was created. What is it about articles on prize-winning and accomplished young women that acts as such an AfD magnet? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PS This in-depth profile was published some 7 months after the prize announcement, demonstrating on-going interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:PROF and the GNG. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly meets WP:PROF, Best. Hninthuzar (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:PROF and also passes WP:GNG. This article is a clear keep. Z359q (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not the slightest bit "clear" that she passes WP:PROF - there have been discussions on the WP:PROF talk proposing changes that probably would have made it the case, but at present it doesn't say so at all. The gng author line is probably more promising, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly obeys WP:PROF. Kaizenify (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2019 (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.