Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamilla Osman


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Kamilla Osman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article appears to fail notability criteria for WP:BLPs. In essence, fails WP:1EVENT. References cited are mostly blogs and unreliable tabloids (Note: The Daily Mirror can be  dubious as a reliable source for Wikipedia ) -- and almost all references are for a single event: when two people met one day and took a selfie together. Is that enough for a biography? — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support deletion as un-notable. However your link seems to show that the daily *mail* was considered unsuitable for wikipedia rather than the mirror! Jaxyking (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Thanks for pointing that out, Jaxyking. I've changed the link to the correct discussion. — Cactus Writer (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  Cactus Writer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete She seems to be more of a novelty than a notable individual. There are a few decent sources cited, but I don't think that proves notability. Imalawyer (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:BLP1E. I know that given social media we now officially live in Andy Warhol's "everyone will be famous for 15 minutes", but Wikipedia is not a database of everybody who's had their 15 minutes — the core inclusion test here is will people still be looking for this article ten years from now, not "who was in the news for 15 minutes last week". Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Let's face it, Kamilla Osman is more than just a Kardashian copy. 198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And what does that reference add that would actually satisfy a notability criterion? Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Listen, I would prefer a Wikipedia that is all Sylvia Plath, James Joyce and Mies Van der Rohe. However it so happens that some indivduals from the more common forms of culture are indeed notable by our standards. This person has been covered in depth by good sources (e.g. Toronto Star, Elle, Closer in France, People, Cosmopolitan, MTV). Several of these sources talk about the phenomena of being a doppelganger and the Star article actually explicitly responds to the argument that this is a no-talent person. Like it or not, the sources are wide and far for this person, and she is a living thing, not a one-time event.198.58.162.200 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Bearcat. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.