Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hicham Nostik

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. Star Mississippi 02:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hicham Nostik

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

non-notable, virtually every source in the article are self-published NAADAAN (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Islam, Morocco, and Canada. Skynxnex (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : PROMO. Only semi-independent coverage is the MEMRI linked used, and that's barely acceptable. No sourcing found at all, outside of spotify, youtube and the usual suspect list of download/streaming sites. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Oaktree b. First of all, regardless of the notability of the topic, it was written in good faith without any conflict of interest. Second, I've checked the sources in the English article, and while about 8-9 of them are not independent (or dead), and were used only to reference the subject's opinions, the rest are reviews of his books or interviews with the author. Do these not count as "independent"? In any case, if you search on Google only in English, for sure you won't find many independent sources about this topic. Apart from Memri, there's also the paper "Atheism in and out the Moroccan context" cited in the article, and this lecture abstract. Also mentioned in this paper and this article, and this book about atheism. In French, there are many articles which review his books and or include his biography, such as this article about atheism in Morocco, this review of his third book, a review of his second book, his interview with Hamed Abdel Samad translated to French, and this article about best selling books in Morocco (and similar ones such as 1). In German, this interview. In Arabic (Standard and Darija), there are just countless articles by independent newspapers with reviews, interviews, etc. Ideophagous (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two French book reviews look fine, the third isn't much help. Interviews don't help notability but you can use them to colour the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His first book has its own article by the way. Ideophagous (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article, but I believe the topic is definitely notable. Nothing in the the guidelines says that the notability has to be proven through English sources only. I've added several sources in my response to Oaktree above. FYI, there was already a discussion on the notability of this topic on frwiki, and the verdict was to keep it. The French version of the article definitely has better sources though. Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources, even though some of these are passing mentions I'm not going to create an entire fuss about this. I may not have included all relevant sources in the article I hope that you eventually get to that and any other articles you get to make to avoid such an AfD. :-) NAADAAN (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NAADAAN Apart from adding more reliable sources, what do you suggest to improve the article? Ideophagous (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is decent, although though I suggest it fits the WP:MOS better. The grievance here isn't really about how the article is written, moreover the faulty sourcing. NAADAAN (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep passes AUTHOR with a few book reviews, but boy does this need a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b feel free to suggest improvements. Ideophagous (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2024 (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.