Sumaya Alnasser: In the first request, there was interference from sockpuppets, and there was no consensus.  I am submitting a deletion request for several reasons, as follows:
 The article does not meet the standards of notability, and there are no real achievements.  It is evident that the article was created solely for promotional purposes.  The article has been deleted more than 4 times after attempts to publish it on Arabic Wikipedia.  Additionally, most of the sources in the article appear to be promotional and/or lack independence, reliability, secondary context, or the necessary commentary to support notability and assist in developing a neutral and balanced article.  The individual who published the article on English Wikipedia also attempted to pass and publish the article on Egyptian Wikipedia, French Wikipedia, and Spanish Wikipedia, which is suspicious.  I believe there is a conflict of interest here.  The information presented is highly questionable, especially regarding "lifestyle coaches" regardless of their nationality.  Coaching is a personal activity, and it is difficult to gain fame in it.  I also wonder how, at the age of 41, she could have trained 200,000 people...  That's a small country!  Furthermore, including her website in the article appears to be a form of promotion, as she sells videos through access to her site!
 The article is suspicious and highly dubious.  Osps7 ( talk ) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions .  Osps7 ( talk ) 11:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople , Women ,  and Saudi Arabia .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Non-notable; I can only find this puffy article [62] , with no other sources.  I see PROMO.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep -  A search found reliable sources to back the subject's notability, most of which are already in the article, including The National, an English-speaking publication which has bureaus in London and the Middle East.  The subject has been featured in CNN.  Noteworthy as well is that the subject was named by Forbes as one of the most influential women in the Middle East in 2018.  Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC .  - AuthorAuthor ( talk ) 17:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The justification for deletion is appropriate, as the article contains a large number of inaccuracies.  Also in a television interview with Sumaya Alnasser, she said that people who have doubts about my work should visit Wikipedia, because Wikipedia recognizes me!!! She says that her presence on Wikipedia makes her products reliable!!!!! This is clear promotion and exploitation of Wikipedia's purpose.  Most of the sources are promotional and paid, and during the previous discussion a number of sock puppets appeared and were later banned.  What is the point of trying to keep the article going despite the disastrous fallacies!  I support deleting the article.  It's worth noting that the article has been deleted 5 times on Arabic Wikipedia, and the creator of the article has been banned on Arabic Wikipedia.  Recently, the article was also deleted on Egyptian Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia.  Osps7 ( talk ) 21:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Sir Osps7, Lying is harmful to the online Wikipedia, please see WP:DNTL .  Sumaya has not appeared on any TV interview recently and her last TV interview was on April 25, 2022.  She has never spoken about Wikipedia in any TV show.   I ask you to bring evidence.  Sumaya does not have an article on the Arabic  Wikipedia and the English article is only one month old, so how can an article that is a month old be a reason for the success of her work?  Stop lying please as per WP:DNTL .  Mazin suliman ( talk ) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Strong Keep The article already has many trusted and reliable sources.  Clearly passes WP:GNG and meets WP:BASIC .  Last month, the XfD discussion on this article was closed as “no consensus, you did not wait at least two months as per WP:2MONTHS .  The subject has been featured in CNN three times [ 1 ][ 2 ] [ 3 ].  There are many reliable sources that have not been added to the article, I will add them.  The Arabic article you mentioned was deleted because it was poorly written, and the editor who wrote it did not follow Wikipedia guidelines (no references, wrong format, etc.).  I will write it according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines and submit it again.  Moreover, training a large number of people can be done online within a short time.  There is nothing suspicious about that.  She speaks Arabic, and the population of Arab world is about 456,520,777 people.  Mazin suliman ( talk ) 03:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Osps7 , part of your deletion rationale is actually a comment I wrote in the first AFD in a relisting comment.  It's still accurate but it's strange that you appropriated my words as if they were your own ideas.  If you "borrow" content other editors have written, please give them credit.  It's very easy to do.  L iz Read!  Talk!  05:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hello @ Liz , part of the justification for deletion is from your analysis of the article, and I apologize if my request for your analysis caused any inconvenience to you.  You certainly deserve credit for this strong analysis.  Osps7 ( talk ) 15:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep - Tough one, but I'll err on the side of keep.  Some of the sources look promotional, and it's entirely possible it was created for promotional purposes, but we're looking at the subject rather than the current condition of the article (unless it's beyond repair, which I don't think it is).  Other sources, like Vogue, CNN, The National, etc. seem ok enough, with a mix of primary/secondary material (words by the journalists vs. words from the subject).  The big question is the Arabic and English Middle East-related sources, which I (and I suspect most here on enwp) just don't have enough familiarity with to make a judgment call beyond the basics of information literacy.  E.g. I don't know Arab News, but this sure looks like a press release/ churnalism to me.  The same language appears in some of the other sources, which further convinces me it's not a good source to use.  I find myself on the fence, and because part of the reason for that is my own ignorance, I'm content to err on the side of a weak keep.  I'd encourage the closer to weigh the SPA ! votes accordingly, though.  — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - As said earlier, we have basic here for sure along with GNG .  Arab News appears to be RS .  Okoslavia ( talk ) 17:05, 21 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep