Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najla Mahfouz


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Najla Mahfouz

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women,  and Egypt. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The coverage isn't a lot, but I think enough to keep:
 * 1) She's mentioned three times in Muslims and the New Information and Communication Technologies: Notes from an Emerging and Infinite Field. (2014). Germany: Springer Netherlands.
 * 2) The article https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1366927 is all about her, and a secondary source (talks about her books, mentioning she published 48, her editor job, her art)
 * 3) https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/1254868 (includes a quote, but still editorial about her writing) CT55555 (talk) 22:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Easy keep, on the face of it, Draft at the very least It is claimed that this lady is the deputy editor of the biggest newspaper in Egypt, which would make her the equivalent of someone like Joseph Kahn of the NYT, and nobody would doubt his right to be on Wikipedia, plus a prolific author and an artist who has had solo shows at recognised galleries like the Cairo Atelier (which should have an article whilst we're on the subject). The problems here are the usual ones with people from developing countries, they just have a lot less media of the kind that Wikipedia approves of leading to all sorts of biases in our coverage (hence WikiProject Countering systemic bias) of people from those countries, aside from our general coverage bias against women. This editor seems to be working in good faith to fix some of those biases, and should be encouraged. I imagine Mahfouz has good coverage in Arabic sources even if not in English (so I can't really help directly), and then you have the issues of different transliterations being possible - I've moved the article to Naglaa Mahfouz to match her Wikidata entry at Q107056752 and the usage on the government fine art website. I know we're all busy and everything but given that this kind of article is likely to have systemic bias affecting easy referencing, surely the better approach would be to have some awareness of the systemic bias issues and move to draft rather than delete? To be honest, given that the editor concerned appears to be inexperienced but editing in good faith in an area where our coverage is poor, deletion rather than draft comes across IMO as rather WP:BITEY.
 * And just as an example of that inexperience, I encountered them because they were capitalising all the words in categories. You've got HotCat, which would fix those kinds of problems if you let it, but instead chose to delete all the categories and not replace them. At the very least in that situation I would try a HotCat "edit" to give it a chance to fix it rather than removal, particularly if you were going to leave the article completely uncategorised. Le Deluge (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Is there someone to look for non-English sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with what Le Deluge said. One of my frustrations with Wikipedia are the frequent attempts to delete articles about people from outside the U.S.A. and Europe when the article subjects meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Yes, the article needs work but that's not a reason to delete it.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep for now. It is likely that she is notable. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:A1AB:12C4:EC87:8DE0 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets general notability guidelines and can be expanded upon and improved. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (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.