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) — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amira Charfeddine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

While applauding the topic in the lady's book and supporting it wholeheartedly, this is WP:BLP1E for a single book, surely? With regret I can see no place for her yet on Wikipedia. If the outcome is to delete this should be without prejudice to future re-creation should her career as an author become established. WP:NAUTHOR applies Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 09:33, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I do not believe that the WP:BLP1E policy applies to an author with a single book, but rather the guidelines specific to authors should apply. Looking at the WP:BK guidance, it seems that Cherfeddine's book Wild Fadhila meets the criteria for its own article (I'll make that when I have a chance). And one of the criteria on WP:AUTHOR says: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... [that's been the subject of] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I believe, as the first Tunisian novel with a gay protagonist and one of the first novels written in Tunisian vernacular, Wild Fadhila meets the notability requirement and so does its author. Karen McNeil (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (me again) Just saw this in the WP:OUTCOMES page and wanted to add it: "Published authors are kept as notable if they have received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work, or if their work is likely to be very widely read." I have currently cited two independent reviews of Cherfeddine's work and the fact that she won a national-level award. Actually, there are three independent reviews, if you included Boubakr Ayadi's description of the novel's language as vulgar and disgusting. I don't think this page is suitable for an AfD at all, and rather just tags for improvement should be added as necessary. Karen McNeil (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable as a result of secondary coverage.--Ipigott (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable as winner of prize and recipient of substantial coverage. PamD 17:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the author of widely reviewed work. --Gazal world (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2021 (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.