Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neemat Daud Abdulrahim

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. MBisanz ^talk 14:40, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neemat Daud Abdulrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

De-prodded. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. First three sources in the article are self-published websites so not reliable, fourth source is a passing mention so not significant coverage, fifth source is the homepage of a website with no linked article, sixth source is a normal self-published website so not reliable. WP:BEFORE not turning up additional sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not pass GNG Sources used are either primary or user generated. The secondary source only quoted her. A BEFORE search does not come up with much either. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly promotional article about a non notable subject, does not pass WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. --hroest 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - more reliable sources will be cited. Printed sources Currently not within reach, and will be added ASAP! Atibrarian (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added two reliable references (books), more to be added once available/within reach. The Sokks The Subject does pass WP:GNG It's unfortunate more of the published books aren't online.Atibrarian (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)^[1][reply]

Comment - @Atibrarian, The sources you've added quite unfortunately do not contribute towards the subject's notability. A subject is considered notable if they have been discussed in detail in multiple sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. This does not include a passing mention or a list where the subject is mentioned. Kindly see The Golden Rule and WP:THREE. Thank you and I hope this helps. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (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.