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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Ahmad (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)

This is a vanity articl of a non-notable writer. Does not meet GNG. Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment . The issue is of course is that a single "WP:SPA" editor has mass-spammed wikipedia with a walled garden of non notable articles. So far all who voted have agreed that the articles are not notable, but some have suggested that I should have bundled all the articles together into one nomination. I have given a mild warning to Shawn for his disregard of civility and good faith. I have joined earlier as IP and my previous account had an username clash, and editing at ADF is not possible with IP. --Hassan Rebell (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't agree "that the articles are not notable." Some are, some aren't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Her work was reviewed in the UK literary publication/website Sphinx. There's a page on her in the US Kurdish website Kurdish Aspect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kurdish aspects is a website without any editorial oversight. Sphinx is not an academic publication, the website or web-magazine is run by Happen Stance. The poems by Kajal were not reviewed there (they do review some of the poems in their publication, see here or here (rating at bottom).
This person falls into the WP:AUTHOR policy. The person does not meet points 1), 2), or 3). This leaves 4), but I don't think that a short mention on the Sphinx web-mag without even a proper "Sphinx rating" is "significant critical attention". --Hassan Rebell (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:06, 27 December 2015 (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.