Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rima Anabtawi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Singularity 00:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rima Anabtawi

Rima Anabtawi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Does not assert importance or significance. Taroaldo (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Look her up, she is important enough to be included because of the work she has done for the palestinian people, Al-Awda is a very famous organization and her work has won her recognition around the world.
  • Delete - Fails WP:N and there are no references. Macy (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per all of the above. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Stricktly speaking, there is one ref, there just wasn't a reflist; I've fixed that. However, my searching hasn't led me to anything useful quickly, or even looking like I'll find anything useful. It seems to me that someone as important as this would be more visible online. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral plenty of references on-line if you know where to look. Google News gives nothing but Ixquick gives lots - the difference being the lots are primarily in leftwing activist press and in pro-Palestinian websites. I don't think Al-Awda (organisation) currently has an article (as opposed to Al-Awda the concept). If not then perhaps the editor who created this page might be better starting there? In the meantime, suggest going slowly on the deletion as the issues may be solved by editing. Nick Connolly (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • *kindly relist or extend the time limit for this discussion .. me too Neutral a lot has to be done before deleting , this person mentioned is of high notability , so i think that we must wait for more members to comment . i need some time before coming to a decision . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Time alloted for discussion is sufficient. Waffling endlessly serves no purpose. --- Taroaldo (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
      • well i see that the overall comment seems to be towards delete , so i think saving it for some more time may or may not make much difference .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment the deletes are based primarily on a failure to establish notability. However it is a noted issue that Wikipedians may find it difficult to establish notability for persons in (or associated with) developing countries. While the exact nature of Palestine is a matter of great dispute, it is, in effect not unlike a developing country in relation to establishing notability.
        • Comment This is a good point, notability in war torn or developing countiries is difficult, internet isnt a common thing and major news stations and TV dont follow closely the stories and people in those areas.
  • Delete unless evidence of notability is provided. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lacks notability.--RyRy5 talk 07:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Doing good work is good, but nothing seems to make her frequently commented upon by others, which is the measure of fame necessary here. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not appear to be much in the way of references from reliable third-party organisations available here. I agree with User:Utgard Loki above that good work is good, but that doesn't mean she's notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Delete The organization may be notable and she could be covered there, but there's no evidence from RS of her notability TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She is notable in alternative new sources, it is not unsurprising that big news organizations do not cover that sort of news. You would not find articles on notable relief workers at Fox news, just like you dont hear about all the events that happen there that are notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.152.12 (talk)


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.