Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nora Armani


 * 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. Yunshui 雲 水 09:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nora Armani

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No citations beyond the personal web site of the individual the article references. On first glance the article appears to be a cited piece with links to dozens of other wiki topics but there are no citations or references to show notability other than a personal web site. The subject does not meet wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is nothing more than a PR page with nothing to back it up. Jimmydanglewood (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 February 12.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 01:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a performer, she appears to be fairly notable in the general sense of the word. However, in Wikipedia terms it appears that there's little about her that can be used as detailed, reliable sources for her page. These two news articles seem fine, but they're both uncomfortably promotional and maybe could be challenged. Perhaps her work has received different sorts of coverage in non-English publications? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - They are both very promotional and don't support notability. I did a bit of digging and cant find much past these two which may be paid press releases.  Its also odd that the original creator of the page deleted their account and quite a few look to have done very minor edits only linking other wiki pages. Possible sock puppets.Jimmydanglewood (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a poorly-written article and it's disappointing to see how many editors have boosted their edit count over the last 10 years by tweaking it variously, without making much improvement. I think I've now improved it, by adding a handful of references which appear to show notability (and fixing slanted apostrophes, avoiding "currently", removing inline external links...). Between them the sources I've added probably support much if not all of the text but I don't have the degree of interest to go through and add refs to support each statement. Pam  D  14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The references added are built to promote individuals and are not reliable. You can find services to post press pieces on the referenced sites on Fiverr and other gig sites for less than 20 dollars. Annemariecarney (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete I am going to agree with . The sources are not strong and at best a bunch of PR pieces, and there seems to be some sock puppet issues with multiple COI editors. Jimmydanglewood (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Jimmydanglewood, if you are the nominator, I don't think you're also allowed to vote—your nomination counts as your "Delete" vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep: There are quite a few articles out there, which I believe would qualify as significant coverage, but I don't feel that I am in the best position to evaluate Armenian sources. If someone can provide some guidance in this respect, I'll happily update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 02:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete ,Not much coverage with reliable source to be notable Alex-h (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note The nominator and Annemariecarney have been blocked for Sockpuppetry. --Michael Greiner 03:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per PamD. The Living love ( Talk to me) 06:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the good work of User:PamD in improving the article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per PamD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2020 (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.