Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun

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 Speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator and no one else recommended deletion. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Saudi refugee and WP:BLP1E case. A current news story (WP:NOTNEWS) that is unlikely to receive sustained coverage after the matter of her flight to Australia is resolved. Perhaps draftify to allow restoration should coverage persist on the order of months or years. Sandstein 11:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: I'm withdrawing this because it is clear that there will not be consensus to delete. I'll note that I am very sympathetic to this young woman's plight, but remain of the view that an encyclopedia is not the place for detailed exposés of breaking news stories. This case, and others like it (including those likely to follow) would probably better be covered in a more condensed form in an article with a broader scope that provides the appropriate context, such as Women's rights in Saudi Arabia. Sandstein 09:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment More like if it is resolved than "after", though it is currently looking more hopeful than the case of Dina Ali Lasloom. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A brief review of the google analytics for similar stories (like that of Dina Ali Lasloom) suggests that these articles will remain relevant over time.T4manC (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Massive coverage in multiple sources; and her story will not end soon. This is likely to Snow. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:RAPID Iffy★Chat -- 15:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though perhaps it could be merged into an article titled something like, "Saudi Arabian honor killings." While al-Qunun now appears to have probably successfully evaded an attempt at "disappearing" her, this subject has raised questions about the Arabian government, where it appears to have successfully "disappeared" others who were briefly fugitives of the honor killing process.One passer by (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep And no thank you to MBS supporters who started this AfD --Bohbye (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No personal attacks, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, crossing out. Keeping it since you commented on it, but my keep vote stands. thank you. --Bohbye (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - subject easily passes WP:GNG as her story has received a fair bit of coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant and ongoing coverage. Mvolz (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the snowballing coverage practically mandates inclusion, and rules out WP:NOTNEWS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ms. al-Qunun likely has a future as an activist for freedom from religion alongside Niall Ferguson's wife.Amyzex (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The wiki article is using her full name Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun, and when you search google under the name she is mostly known for “Rahaf Mohammed” you got much more results and extensive coverage worldwide >>> (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --Bohbye (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said, WP:SNOW applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Extensive coverage continues, and I was surprised not to find her statement that she has renounced Islam covered. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Continued coverage in WP:RS. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And I know people will be angry but the 'unlikely to receive sustained coverage' is a pretext. I am quite convinced the article was put on AfD because of its political and religious explosive context that some people do not like. AntonHogervorst (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. as other mentioned, extensive coverage. PMLF (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Honestly, not sure why this would go up for deletion - there is a large amount of coverage, as others before me have said, and the story's not likely to lose attention anytime soon. -Nlivingston000 ^{(Let's talk!)} 05:49, 10 January 2019 (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.