Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khazal Al Majidi

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. Being bold and closing this as Keep. Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Khazal Al Majidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF despite a welter of references. WP:BOMBARD, plus regrettably lengthy and unsubstantiated lists of works. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 06:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FayssalF, I have no issue with the article. It's dry and factual and not WP:PEACOCK in any way. Robert McClenon suggested using the three method. It's a good suggestion. gidonb (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FayssalF this AfD may not be neccessary if a certain editor has not decided to prematurely shift drafts into the mainspace instead of having it being improved with almost no deadline in the draftspace. – robertsky (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 5 May 2022 (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.