Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kola Boof (author)

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 article currently avoids major BLP concerns. Further, discussion(in borderline cases) and/or revision deletion (in outright violations); not deletion, is the way out, if they have occured in any version.Also, we don't delete random biographical articles simply per the wishes of the subject. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Boof (author)

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

Please see Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Kola_Boof: Recreation of Kola Boof. Speedily deleted twice in 2007 with reason per BLP concerns from subject. Deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive20#Kola_Boof and the article remained deleted. As far as I could find, the subject objected against the content. Starting from nationality to every single aspect of the article. About 50 emails concerning legal threats. The current stub has the same problems, is unsourced and as such against WP:BLP. In its current form I think it should be deleted. I would like further feedback on what matter of course would be best, and would like to discuss the subject properly via a deletion discussion this time instead of a speedy deletion. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how the current stub could cause any BLP-related concerns, and the subject of the article appears to meet the General Notability Guideline - see here, here, here... I could go on and on. The subject of the article has given countless interviews and sent out press releases, so there can be no claim that they don't want to be in the public eye. Frankly, I'm confused by the situation - since when does Wikipedia remove innocuous stub articles based on unfounded concerns? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times article demonstrates that Kola Boof is notable. Considering she claims she was sexually assaulted by a person, who many in the media say she is "the former mistress of", I can see how there are major BLP concerns, but the article at present avoids that issue. Here is what Pen America has to say of her https://pen.org/user/kola-boof/?member "KOLA BOOF (born Naima Bint Harith) is an award-winning Egyptian-Sudanese novelist, poet and television writer. CNN dubbed her “the most controversial woman in the world.” There is clearly something here, although it would be nice if there was a way to get to quality sources that avoid BLP issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BUT: Just looked at the article. It states her nationality, however, the two sources given for that claim don't actually back that claim up. One source (New York Times) mentions Sudan multiple times but never mentions her nationality as such, so I'd remove her nationality until it can be sourced reliably. That and we don't delete articles because the subject says to. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 15:18, 30 March 2017 (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.