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. Almost all !votes are keep, there are no !votes from SPAs or canvassed users and the number of independent reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject rapidly increased during the discussion period. The AfD lasted two weeks, and all 2 delete !votes were in the first week. (non-admin closure) Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Ali

[edit]

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

WP:NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per news reports, this is apparently a family affair blown out of proportions. If there had been inherent encyclopedic value – as in, something worthy that generations would love to read – I might have !voted a keep. However, this is absolutely the daily asylum-refused-news variety. Lourdes 02:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that this page, although badly written, must be kept. It highlights a dangerous case that actually stirred action in Saudi Arabia and outside, so I do not see a reason for deletion. I only suggest a rewriting. • Sammy Habib-Kemal Majed • Talk • Creations • Wikipedia Arabic •
10:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SammyMajed. The nominator's concern can be addressed by improving the article (WP:BEFORE). Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the quality has improved substantially and there are plenty of reliable sources already cited and to be incorporated. Curious Sargon (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 16:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the quality has improved, in the mean time more independent sources are available and have been incorporated. It is the will of Dina Ali that her story be published, Human rights experts say, information about the case will enhance her chances of survival Tania Schellenberg 10:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event received widespread media coverage. Moreover, the subject was an adult woman who was forcibly repatriated by her male relatives. This is significant because Filipino authorities apparently facilitated this action, which is illegal under international law^[1] Shwikiagg (talk 16:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Article is a blatant violation of WP:BLP.Redhat101 Talk 03:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Redhat101 Just out of curiosity, do you have any evidence that she is still alive? Xoviat (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2017 (UTC)xoviat[reply]

@Xoviat: WP:BLP can also cover the recently deceased. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the relevant comments above, BUT some improvements and perhaps a reorganization are necessary --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On WP:BLP concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 18:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that Dina is alive. On April 19, Bloomberg reported that Dina was in protective custody in Saudi Arabia and that officials are looking for a solution so that she can "live a normal life." ^[2] However, Dina actively sought to publicize her circumstance, borrowing a phone to upload videos to twitter pleading for help. The goal is not to victimize the subject but to document a matter of growing public interest, and provide aggregated information for people who want to quickly get up to speed on the issue. The article includes numerous reliable sources, including a link to a HRW article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilines (talk) 12:43, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

References

^ "Fleeing Woman Returned to Saudi Arabia Against Her Will". Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 16 April 2017.
^ "Saudi Arabian Woman Who Tried to Flee Put in Protective Custody". Bloomberg. Retrieved 23 April 2017.

Keep As per WP:HASPOT the page has grown exponentially since it's creation less than 2 weeks ago, and the person/event in question has started a larger conversation which is receiving further media attention each day.^[1]^[2]^[3] There is no doubt users are already coming to this page for information (based on traffic from the views tool above), and will continue to in the future. Jfameous (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Reuters (2017-04-12). "Saudi Woman Seeking Asylum in Australia Returned to Saudi Arabia". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-24. ((cite news)): |last= has generic name (help)
^ The Associated Press (2017-04-16). "A Saudi Woman's Plea for Help Exposes Risks Runaways Face". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-17.
^ Nordland, Rod (2017-04-21). "Cellphones in Hand, Saudi Women Challenge Notions of Male Control". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-04-21.

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.