Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sirouhi Belorian

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. czar 06:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sirouhi Belorian

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is the first female Armenian lawyer in Argentina notable? No real references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILL, WP:RS, and my standards. First off, there's no allegation of notability; being the first lawyer of an ethnic and sexual minority in a medium-sized country isn't notable. There's no evidence at all that she's anything other than an ordinary lawyer; she gave money to a charity like many middle-class people do. I looked under several different searches and found no newspaper articles, books, scholarly articles, or websites about this attorney. Without more evidence, this is a non-notable attorney. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have come to doubt our direct competence to determine what "first x to do y" claims are notable. For a first x to do y claim to do notable, we need to insist on reliable 3rd party sources that mention the person and this fact (or that mention the person, and ignore the fact, if we have substantial enough of the later, we might create the article, though maybe not with the less than well sourced first x to do y claims). Having seen how some of these first x to do y claims work in reality, I thing we also must require the sourcing to be substanital. I say that because a few years back there was a US senate candidate who ran a virtually non-existent campaign, but still got an article on Wikipedia because of trivial, passing, anemic article notice on a first x to do y campaign. The local media covered this individual far less than a normal candidate because their campaign was so weak and non-existent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2020 (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.