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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Momina Duraid (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)

Horribly peacocky and it is hard to separate fact from fluff but does not appear to meet any notability criteria. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with the nom completely. Had tagged it, hoping that the article's creator would improve it, but no improvements have been made. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no justification for the extravagant claims in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2016 (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.