Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylva Channessian


 * 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   redirect to Miss World 1973. WP:V is not negotiable - no sources, no article. Especially for WP:BLPs.  Sandstein  17:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sylva Channessian

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N and WP:V. There are no non-trivial, third-party reliable sources from which a full, neutral biography could be written about this individual. I have searched both contemporary and modern sources in English, but have found nothing substantial. I grant that there could be some contemporary/modern sources in Arabic, but the onus of finding sources is on the individual who creates the article/adds the material. In this case, however, I would love to search for sources in Arabic - I can read enough that I could at least tell if there were sources available, even if I couldn't translate them fully. Unfortunately, the problem is that I have no idea how her name was transliterated in the 1970s and, because no sources have been provided for the article, I cannot search for her name in Arabic, highlighting the need for people who provide material to also provide sources rather than sending everyone else out on a hunt. As for WP:V, even if everything in the article is verifiable, there is nothing more than that; in its current form, the information is nothing more than would be present in a list of pageant winners. If this is the only verifiable information, then it does not merit its own article at this point. Cheers, CP 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Redirect to Miss World 1973. There's no real information in this article beyond the subject's placement in that pageant. If we can't find any information about the subject in English (the pageant's home language) or French (the second language of Lebanon), it's unlikely that we will be able to find any in Arabic either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the standard is verifiable, and until sources in her country for the period are consulted, we cant say otherwise. I would imagine the amount of newspaper publicity would be very large. DGG (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, the standard is verifiability. But the article has no sources yet. If we turn the article into a redirect, it can be turned back into a regular article once someone actually finds some reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect' Logic is sound per discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect is indeed sound. The redirect can be undone if references are actually found. - Mgm|(talk) 12:44, 8 January 2009 (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.