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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 13:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amal Saad-Ghorayeb[edit]

Neutral for now, but it has been raised that this person may not be notable. Avi 02:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC) *Delete I see nothing that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics). One interview in the New Yorker does not make her body of work significant or well known. -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep with no prejudice to renomination shortly if not enough work is done Enough work has been done that it now appears that the article may be able to be expanded into something that will satisfy WP:BIO. It would fail as it is now, but I'd be willing to give it some more time. -- Avi 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. Next time, use prod instead of delete. If prod got delete, then AFD it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 05:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Being a published author and tenured professor that has been quoted by the New Yorker makes her notable enough for a stub in my eyes. NeoFreak 17:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 18:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it peculiar that there is no one that is arguing in favor of the deletion of this article, yet we still have the nomination for deletion article. I would keep this article for now.Bless sins 23:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this person notable? What have they done that passes Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? -- Avi 03:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this person is not well-known enough to justify an article in an encyclopedia. Mr. Berry 07:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - even I've heard of the New Yorker, and I'm from Palestine! This writer deserves to have an article --Asucena 14:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Simply having an article in the New Yorker is not grounds for notability.

Merely having an article does not fulfill this criteria. -- Avi 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets the first criteria as having been interviewed and then quoted by the New York as an expert on the subject of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Am I missing something? I've also removed the criteria example from the main talk space for ease of reading as it is already linked too. I hope this isn't a big deal, restore it if you wish. NeoFreak 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is dead, it seems, so there is no way to tell if she is considered a significant expert. Not every interview in the New Yorker makes someone a "significant" expert, we ALL know that by now

. So not only do we not have notability, the article is unsourced! -- Avi 18:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the online New Yorker article was dead, but there was a way to tell what was in the article. Until someone deleted the date and title of the New Yorker article from the article, while this discussion was under way. Which version of the article are people voting on? (SEWilco 03:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It is still there under reference #1. Even so, that one article does not fulfill Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. -- Avi 11:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "still there". It is there again, after being re-created after deletion. (SEWilco 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Delete not notable enough to justify article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete at last as a scholar. She is or was an Assistant professor--and they are not usually notable. She has published one book and given one interview. That is simply not enough in the academic world. If there's a good deal more more, she might be--but its is not in the article. If the book is particularly notable , she might be, but i see no information about reviews. Many subjects of New Yorker interviews are notable, but that's because they have done other things too. No prejudice against re-creation if information is forthcoming. DGG 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete Fails WP:BIO--Sefringle 04:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per recent sources added--Sefringle 03:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP All this nit-picking can be used to improve or expand the article and is better suited for the discussion page, not here. To delete it denies the fact that this is a potentially useful (however small) collection of links and information on the subject, the primary reason for the existence of Wikipedia, which should not pretend to be a Britannica as the editors do not have sufficient academic standing. To pretend otherwise makes Wikipedia a useful mule parading as a race horse, which it most certainly is not. --MBHiii 13:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a different conception of notability standards than does wikipedia itself. Being that this is wikipedia, and not anyone's personal website, we should conform to wiki's guidelines, barring exceptional circumstances, which in my opinion there is no reason for here. -- Avi 16:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I just think all this is an immense waste of time that'd be better spent trying to improve the articles themselves. Under "Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page." a redirect to a Criticism sub-heading under Hezbollah may be best. --MBHiii 18:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google finds 23,000 results for her name. Anyone find more information in there? (SEWilco 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. In addition to the NYorker interview, there is an interview with Democracy Now, one with NPR in July 2006, and another with NPR in August 2006. -- Black Falcon 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has 26,000 ghits] which may not be enough for notability on its own but definitely pushes it over the edge. NBeale 06:38, 27 March 2007 (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.