Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marnia Lazreg

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marnia Lazreg

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Yes there are a couple of obituaries here but it appears that only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries. They may be notable one day but right now it's WP:TOOSOON 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 11:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made this stub rather quickly after reading her obituary. She meets notability minimum as an author. There are more than enough reviews out there to satisfy that. Thriley (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Algeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. She seems like a very cool woman but I'm simply not seeing the evidence for WP:NACADEMIC.— Moriwen (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very vague nom - her first book was published in 1976, so WP:TOOSOON is unlikely to apply; it's now or never. Obits in the NYT & Washington Post, and one book has had a WP article since 2015. To say "only one of her books was notable" is silly - few academic books get articles, far fewer than those that would pass AFD. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just silly, it's incorrect. I found four or more published reviews for three of her books, Eloquence of silence, Torture and the Twilight of Empire, and Questioning the Veil. I think they all meet our standard for notability, regardless of whether anyone takes the effort to create articles on them. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has obituaries in the NY Times [1] and the Washington Post [2], calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [3]. I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: She has obituaries in the NY Times [4] and the Washington Post [5], calling her a "wide-ranging scholar of women in Muslim world". And another book review here [6]. I think we're well past notability, either for ACADEMIC or AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Don't know what happened there. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Seriously? I rarely if ever come to AfD because it is so contentious. In this case, the alert stream on WIR brought me here. What kind of before could have been possibly done to give the impression that it was too soon to evaluate her and her work in independent RS? Just pressing on the JSTOR tab produces over 300 links about her and her work. Just a tiny fraction of the reviews of her work from internet scholar archive indicate that she is clearly seen as an expert and her work has been discussed over time by other scholars in multiple languages. Ditto with google scholar. If Princeton University calls her "a preeminent authority in Middle East women's studies", I don't think it is remotely likely that they would be damaging their reputation to make a false claim or that WP editors opinions on her notability are sufficient to counter the statement. She clearly meets Anybio, Academic and Author. SusunW (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just linking to WP:BEFORE as the nominator is a reasonably new editor and may not be aware of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People who get published obituaries (not paid death notices) in the New York Times are almost always notable. This article illustrates why. Beyond the obituary we have plenty of published reviews for WP:AUTHOR notability. Bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In fairness, the article has expanded x 10 since it was nominated, no doubt mainly because it was nominated, which is a good result. Johnbod (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, AFD is not cleanup. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please use Google Scholar before nominating academics next time. Many reviews of her books, meeting AUTHOR. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a clearly notable academic - and the two national newspaper obits are a good starting point for notability for anyone - and wonder where "only one of her books was notable and appears in any libraries" comes from when several of her authored books are in Worldcat and in the JISC Library Hub. PamD 08:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I didn't see the earlier version of the article but after updates there are clearly more than enough sources and coverage to show notability. Editing84 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clear, as mentioned above, most of the time we forget to search for information about personalities in Arabic, where there are many sources. Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Riad Salih could you add some Arabic sources? Finding and evaluating Arabic sources is difficult if you don't speak the language. TSventon (talk) 20:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There's a clear establishment of WP:NACADEMIC here, even BEFORE says it all. NACADEMIC can be a little bit tricky at time and that is understandable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above, and numerous reviews of her work throughout her life, obituaries everywhere is certainly a sign of notability. TLA^tlak 02:04, 20 March 2024 (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.