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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Ibrahim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Recreation of article previously deleted under G12. Article is improved but still fails WP:BLP1E. Trusilver 09:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (I new page patrolled this article earlier today). I say that this person is noteworthy. The article is verifiable and contains information of value to an encyclopedia. Speedy deletion without an AfD consensus does not set a precedent that binds AfD participants. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Trusilver 17:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Recreation of a previously deleted entry is only speediable under G4 when that previous deletion was after AFD discussion (per CSD rules). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails the one-event rule, as well as this being news. The material might be worthwhile in some larger article on suicide bomers. RayAYang (talk) 21:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think anything is on the news around the world is notable to have a article here isnt it, this is why the article exists, plus the youtube video make it notable and the english news piece does —Preceding unsigned comment added by Banana Jim (talk • contribs) 08:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I understand that you are new here. Wikipedia is not arbitrary and what you "think" isn't necessarily relevant. What is notable or not is governed by policy - for example: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news stories, if you are looking for something like that, I suggest you check out wikinews. And the suggestion that a youtube video makes something notable is so hilarious I honestly have a hard time keeping a straight face. No, I'm sorry, a youtube video does not make something notable. I suggest you take a look at WP:V and more specifically, WP:SOURCES. Trusilver 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article subject was not a consenting adult participant in the events in which she was caught up, so privacy concerns should prevail per WP:BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One short burst of news doesn't make the subject notable. lightspeedchick (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2008 (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.