Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahrazad Ali


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahrazad Ali

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — Eastmain (talk • contribs)  04:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a religious leader, but a writer who continues to create controversy. Peace. —MuzikJunky (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 02:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A religious leader? I thought she is a writer... Her controversial books were reviewed by the major US media: The New York Times, USA TODAY, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune etc. A notable author, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources in the article to indicate notability of this BLP. I have wiped all negative unsourced commentary of the subject from the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Keep Article is now sourced, and the actual and potential sourcing amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - In addition to the the sources shown above by Vejvančický, Gnews shows a lot of coverage in mainstream media. So easily passes the "significant coverage in intellectually independent reliable sources" criteria. Most of the coverage is behind paywalls, but it does exist. I have added the non paywall/subscription references to the article. She even gets 59 hits in Gscholar and 150 hits in Gbooks (other than those authored by her).--Sodabottle (talk) 08:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Uff, thank you Sodabottle - I tried to do the same thing, and after an edit conflict I found out that you used exactly the same sources there! Btw, sometimes I feel like a totally confused character in the Catch-22; the logical attitudes here on Wikipedia are sometimes very unusual. Thank you again, Sodabottle. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:34, 17 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.