Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laila Al Habsi


 * 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. Obvious consensus that WP:BLP1E applies. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Laila Al Habsi

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - What is about her diving in Baikal so notable? Am I missing something? Kolma8 (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kolma8, don't crop out everywhere if you don't have time to read why it has been nominated for deletion at first. You are not obliged to comment on every deletion discussion. SAMA990 (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The first thing is she passes the notability guidelines.
 * Secondly as indicated by Mccapra if WP:BLP1E applies it says: We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met. Its 3rd point is: if the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
 * So it does not meet the third point. The event is significant and the event is well documented by all top media outlets of the the Middle East. If it was not that significant, it would not have been covered by top and reliable media outlets. SAMA990 (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I dispute that being the first Arab woman to dive in Lake Baikal is substantial, any more than being the first Irish woman to climb Macchu Pichu or the first Filipino woman to swim the English Channel. As to being well-documented, what is well-documented is her claim to be first. There is no reliable independent sourcing of who has ever dived in Lake Baikal, so the claim, though widely repeated in the press, may not be true. So in summary, you can’t base a Wikipedia biography on a single event which is possibly true and not that important anyway. Mccapra (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * First, it is certainly substantial, its not like diving in a swimming pool or a pond. Baikal is the world's oldest and deepest lake and diving in it is certainly notable and top media outlets, like BBC, cover the diving in lake Baikal. Let's have a look at this link.
 * Second, there is a difference between, an Irish woman climbing Macchu Pichu or the first Filipino woman swimming the English Channel, and an Arab woman diving in the lake Baikal. This is because in Arab women rarely do such activities, dosing such thing is certainly notable that is why top and leading media outlets have covered the story.
 * Third, if it was not true it wouldn't have been published by media agencies, that too by their correspondent names, if it had been covered by the blogs or non reliable media outlets, we could say it is suspicious. I think Times of Oman, Gulf News, Gulf Times, The Arab American News and other media outlets will not cover just hearsays. These are the reliable and top English newspapers of the whole region.SAMA990 (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well if they’re repeating a claim unsupported by evidence, that is the definition of hearsay. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, they have posted pictures along with the news and even video of the diving, I don't know what do you mean by unsupported claim. Just have a look at this link. SAMA990 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep It is notable- especially to the Arab community. Baikal is the deepest and oldest lake in the world. Similar wikipedia articles that were deemed notable were Raha_Moharrak & [] I see no reason for this to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanktanya (talk • contribs) — Sanktanya (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closer: this account has made 1 edit, ever: to this AfD. Daniel (talk) 11:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   22:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – Outlets picking up the same tourism story does not amount to sustained coverage. Partaking in a common tourist activity is not noteworthy. I share Mccapra's view that this is analogous to being the first Irish woman to visit Macchu Pichu. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - diving in a lake is not the same as reaching the summit of the tallest mountain in the world. And 's assessment is spot on, as is .  Onel 5969  TT me 00:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I am stick to the arguments above. No one is giving counter argument based on facts, figures and Wikipedia guidelines. I think just delete and keep votes wouldn't be counted. SAMA990 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SUSTAINED is a guideline. (Also note that we can't add bolded votes twice, but you can change the second  to a  ) – Thjarkur (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bolded part struck for clarity as user has voted three times in this discussion – Thjarkur (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep After going through the discussion I came to the conclusion that page passes the guidelines and subject deserves a page on Wikipedia. I have gone through the links, they are from top tier and reliable media houses and covers the subject in detail. Titumamaa (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

*Keep Consensus has already been reached, the subject totally qualifies for Wikipedia, and if any improvement is needed, it can be done. Based on facts and Wikipedia guidelines, it is unjust to delete this page.SAMA990 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * SAMA990 I’ve crossed out your duplicate !vote. You can only cast a vote once. Mccapra (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Any arguments against a merge to Lake Baikal? That's what I'd lean towards right now. ~EdGl talk 23:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The argument against a merge would be that the subject plainly isn't notable for anything and having gone scuba diving in a lake (like thousands of other tourists do) is not worthy of a mention. No other scuba diver is mentioned at the Lake Baikal article. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete with no opposition to a merge instead. Upon further review, although the sources make it "pass" GNG, it is only "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine), and I believe it fails that presumption due to Mccapra and Thjarkur's arguments -- I need convincing that what she did was noteworthy. I read the sources and they are all fluffy/puffy; none of them explaining the significance or noteworthiness of the accomplishment. ~EdGl talk</b> 01:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, per User:EdGl directly above, and the wider consensus above. Absolutely no way for mine that this reaches the notability standard required for a Wikipedia article. Daniel (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.