Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahia Dehar

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) BethNaught (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zahia Dehar (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)

as per WP:BLP1E. Also considerable WP:BLP concerns. Her career as a fashion designer doesn't meet WP:BIO either LibStar (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 15:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, Lots of references on page, on https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahia_Dehar and on all formats of Web. Thanks for bringing her to my attention. Gregkaye (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notorious notoriety. WP:BIO. sig1068

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If going successful in her new career some day she may have a WP article as a designer. At present only notable for a one-time event, the sex scandal with famous footballers. Fame (notability) is not inherited from boy friends. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - I'm seeing ongoing coverage (in various languages, and probably little more than tabloid froof, but having ANY coverage in the new screwed-up Google News searches is quite an achievement) on Google News - showing that she continues to receive press attention. In books - I see a 2014 commentary: [1], and she was an example in a law book of 2011: [2]. Significant press coverage W Magazine, The Guardian, Hollywod Reporter, The Telegraph... need I carry on? After seeing those articles come up on the front page of a preliminary Google I'm going Strong Keep. Mabalu (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is not a one-off affair and she has appeared in number of news stories after the scandal. Keep. werldwayd (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Gregkaye and Mabalu and Werldwayd.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2014 (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.