Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaila Abdullah

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shaila Abdullah

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

Nothing significant about her. Fails WP:NWRITER. Störm (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:03, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't pass WP:N. So, delete it. M A A Z T A L K 19:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability tests. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other good sources exist, just are not currently cited in the article due to its stub status - see, for example, this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TDW's comment above. Definitely needs quality improvement, but that is not to be confused with notability. Montanabw^(talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CREATIVE which states, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" and "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Both apply here as one of her books was part of an influential 2014 research study that demonstrated people were less racist towards Arab people after reading a 3,000 except page of her book Saffron Dreams. This study and the impact of her book was reported on in many newspapers at the time. Additionally, this artist has won multiple awards for her books. Her children's books have also been noted as being good for children with special needs. She has a listing in the Encyclopedia of Asian-American Literature. Lastly, the article also passes WP:GNG with "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Lonehexagon (talk) 19:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure she fails NAUTHOR but given the coverage and sources, it appears to pass GNG and NPERSON. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:01, 10 March 2018 (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.