Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fatma Chamakh-Haddad

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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Chamakh-Haddad

[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)

per WP:PROF, no awards or honours, no notable works or researchs, and no substantial impact outside academia, just a high professor in university. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 19:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources already in the article include at least three works directly about her, and another with in-depth coverage of her (I can't tell about the remaining reference, as it is unlinked and doesn't have her name on the title, but my guess is that it is also non-trivial, based on how much it is used as a source in the article). This shows a clear pass of WP:GNG. I don't think the low citation counts on Google Scholar are a concern, given that (1) we can use a different notability criterion, GNG, (2) citation counts in the humanities are often low; they are not a good way to measure impact in the humanities; (3) she wrote in French, several decades ago, and both of those factors are also likely to make her representation in databases of online English-language literature more sparse. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I found and added to the article two more sources, in-depth published reviews of her dissertation. And I found an online copy of the fifth reference, which is as expected also in-depth. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:BASIC per sources already in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC as noted above, from preamble of peeps Additional criteria - "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, ...". Coolabahapple (talk)
Keep There's a good case for meeting the general wiki-notability guideline. XOR'easter (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 24 January 2020 (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.