Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loubna Berrada


 * 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 delete. Sufficient consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Loubna Berrada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm listing this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE due to this edit. The subject is barely (if at all) notable and the only coverage relates to whether her religious beliefs (WP:BLP1E). SmartSE (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as nothing actually suggesting any applicable notability. SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Certainly needs to be reworked. They are a Dutch politician, so improving the article could answer notability questions. That said, it still doesn't address everything. DaltonCastle (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As a politician she fails WP:NPOL. As an activist she's only notable in the context of Central Committee for Ex-Muslims (WP:BLP1E). Move whatever material and refs are worth keeping to the committee's article, then delete. Bazj (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While being the leader of an organization can get a person into Wikipedia if the article is sourced and substanced solidly enough to pass WP:GNG, it is not a claim of notability that gives a person automatic inclusion rights in and of itself. But the sourcing isn't particularly strong, and she's not so high-profile that the need to have a standalone WP:BLP about her trumps her own expressed concerns about the article's accuracy — so I'm simply not seeing why she needs a standalone article as a separate topic from the organization. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (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.