Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laleh Bakhtiar


 * 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.  Jujutacular  T · C 00:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Laleh Bakhtiar

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Lack of sources that establish notability Zionlove2 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacks sources and notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zionlove2 (talk • contribs) 15 March 2010 — Zionlove2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks OK to me. Please note too: I don't think you can nominate AND cast a !vote separately as well. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: "She has translated and written a combination of 25 books about Islam, many dealing with Sufism. She has also authored or co-authored a number of biographical works" sounds notable enough to me. It could do with some more references, and a quick Google suggests that there's plenty of stuff out there. (PS: I hope there's no WP:COI going on here - a whole bunch of Muslim topics nominated for deletion by someone called "Zionlove2"?)-- Boing!   said Zebedee  00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While trying to Assume Good Faith, I wondered myself about that... Peridon (talk) 13:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also usually wonder about new accounts that launch into AfDs so soon... Peridon (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep meets the notability requirements for an author.    DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I beg to differ. Does not meet the basic criteria of notability as is stated "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" Zionlove2 (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that means it needs additional sourcing, not deletion - nomination for deletion should come after it has been established that the article is unsourceable (not just currently insufficiently sourced). Did you do any WP:BEFORE research before nominating this article and have you verified that none of the Google hits is usable? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Chicago Tribune and New York Times sources meet notability requirements - and there are plenty more sources out there (a quick google news search fines BBC and The Times sources as well). Possible speedy keep given that this user has nominated several articles on islamic scholars for deletion (using all three methods) al of which seem to meet our requirements and given the editor's user name I fear a conflict of interest. Dpmuk (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * CommentIrrespective of what others may think, this article simply does not meet the notability guidelines that require significant coverage in verifiable sources. If there is material out there then simply add it to the article.Zionlove2 (talk) 07:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems adequately sourced. BTW Zionlove2, your repetition of the same arguments over and over does nothing to further the discussion here - and leads one to wonder whether you are pursuing some kind of agenda. You nominated the article for deletion; you cast an addition vote for deletion; at this point you should stand back and let the community evaluate the article on its merits. "Irrespective of what others may think" is not the way we operate here; we operate by consensus. --MelanieN (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2010 (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.