Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reem Al Marzouqi

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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reem Al Marzouqi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like a CV. Weak references. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzig20s (talk • contribs) 00:28, 20 March 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep I have no strong feelings on the article one way or the other, but this reeks of WP:POINTed behavior. The nominating editor disagrees with some of my edits on a totally unrelated article, and shortly after improperly tries to speedy this article that I recently edited. This was right after describing it as "creepy" for other editors to watch their edit histories.[1] It's very disruptive when these kinds of arguments spill out into other areas like this, and it poisons the well for productive editing of controversial topics. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said I would not discuss the SAE incident again, so please don't bring it up again and stop attacking me personally. Reem Al Marzouqi's page looks very weak to me--only two references, reads like a CV, doesn't look notable--there is nothing more to it.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the SAE, and you don't get to use that as a way to avoid responsibility for your actions. The only plausible reason you even looked at this article was because it was in my edit history. To try and speedy this article (without a valid rational) right after a disagreement appears to be a retaliatory edit. If a neutral party would like to AFD this, I would do the work to actually check and see if there are sources and go from there, but you're not neutral, and this nomination was obviously done in bad faith. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. This AFD is not about you at all. It's about "Reem Al Marzouqi". Please leave me alone. Don't comment on this if you don't want to.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully you or make things difficult okay? Please try to see it from my perspective. It looks like you followed me to an article I worked on and nominated it for deletion just because we disagreed about an unrelated issue. I think that was inappropriate behavior, and I have a right to explain that. Right? If not, why not? Now you are telling me to leave you alone, and that is very confusing. If you want to be left alone, you should not be following other editors around like that. Grayfell (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this article and it looks weak. I don't want to talk to you. I hope I never have to talk to you ever again. Speedily close this stub about a nobody with two weak references as keep if that's what it takes. But you are personalizing Wikipedia instead of looking at this article for what it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this article for deletion, so here we are. Don't try and blame this on me picking a fight with you. You keep saying you don't want to talk to me, but you keep insisting on having the last word. You say I'm the one personalizing Wikipedia, but you're the one making grudge edits. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no strong feelings on the article one way or the other why are you voting Speedy anything? Let the AfD continue with comments from people not involved in the feud. I see the nominator, you, Artw and Inicholson are all involved in the SAE dispute. How about letting neutral third parties weigh in? DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I regret mentioning this AFD on the SAE article's talk page. That was (inadvertent) canvassing on my part. I shouldn't have done that, and I don't think anyone should get involved with this, for or against, just because of that completely unrelated dispute.

My goal is to clearly explain what's going on. I think it's counter-productive to pretend that this isn't a messy nomination with a connection to unrelated wikidrama. I don't like the idea that my willingness to get involved in controversial articles means I have to fear retribution. I don't think that's a good precedent to set, and my understanding is that AFDs can be closed for procedural reasons on those grounds. Grayfell (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Bad faith nomination as part of feud. Artw (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we take that as a given that's not a valid argument one way or another for AfD. Please address the merits of this article instead of your views about some personal feud. DreamGuy (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Concur with DreamGuy. The !votes by Grayfell and Artw do not even remotely address the notability merits or lack thereof – difficult to see how these should not be completely disregarded. Agricola44 (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Also Keep per recent changes to the article, since a speedy does not seem to have happened. Artw (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep First UAE citizen to be granted a patent in the USA is surely notable. Inicholson (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inspiring story, but very far from meeting general notability guidelines. I don't think she is the "first Emirati to be granted a US patent". The source only claims she is the "first Emirati to be granted a US patent for a very narrow category of patents". I also couldn't verify that she was actually granted a US patent; no relevant search results on uspto.gov. Quarl ^(talk) 05:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over 300,000 patents were granted by the US in 2014. The mere act of obtaining one therefore cannot be a valid rationale for notability. Pax 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can't possibly make sense. She is notable for being the first and only (so far) person from UAE to have a patent granted, not for being one of the 300,000 to have a patent last year. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I can see how some editors believe this was made in bad faith, but even if it were we would have to focus on the merits of the article itself. I see nothing in the article that even sounds like it would meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia. The sources are weak, and even if sources exist to substantiate the claims, those facts would be rather trivial and not at all the kind of thing that deserves a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, "first Emirati female receiving a granted U.S. patent" is notable. The total number of women engineers from Arab nations with an enwiki article is apparently one, this. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep: The patent in question is a design patent, to be clear, and as Pax said, having a patent does not establish someone's notability. The source in question is not credible enough(youngplus magazine?) to make the claim that she is the first Emirati to be granted a US Patent, I find that dubious Be..anyone. I also feel it is a fallacy for above voters to be attacking the nominator rather than the nomination. Questioning the nominators motives should have been placed as a concise comment, if at all, not as a 'speedy keep' vote that does not even talk about the article at hand. Your intentions may have been good, but this is not the forum for you to continue this dispute, Grayfell. Artw's vote is also improper for the same reason. ― Padenton |☎ 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all impressed by the YT statement of the brother, but she did represent UAE on an exhibition with 100 artworks, showing her car as 101st local addition, she's featured in a PDF of her university, and another reference supporting the Jessica Cox connection is also okay. BTW, there are four related patents on the patent search page, she's listed as inventor on all these patents, but only for the specified number she's listed first. Somebody with a clue about {{cite patent}} should fix it, I gave up and tweaked {{cite web}} as better than it was. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete worthy individual doesn't (yet) meet WP standards. Le petit fromage (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "keeps" (all "speedy") are either based on behavior of editors possibly involved in an off-topic disagreement (I didn't check) or the mistaken idea that a patent satisfies notability requirements. In looking at the article, the patent is indeed the main claim to notability, otherwise the article is filled with non-encyclopedic WP:OR. There are no policy grounds for retaining this article. Agricola44 (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, there are definitely sources which suggest notability, though I am always cautious when it comes to BLPs. This source The National covers her extensively and significantly. This source [2] also covers her though I am not sure of the reliability of the website. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 20:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the early comments about only two references no longer apply; she received considerable news coverage in multiple sources. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. I looked at this one earlier and was on the fence about it, but the new refs are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another source: [3]. The National article seems to be more about women in engineering than coverage of the subject. The young+ article is thorough coverage. Looking at the young+ article more closely, it does not say "the first Emirati female being granted a US Patent", it says "the first Emirati inventor to win a US patent for designing a car that can be driven without hands", which is considerably more plausible and I've corrected in the WP article accordingly. This meets my WP:HEY. Vote corrected above.― Padenton|✉ 16:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.