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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasia Al Thani[edit]

Kasia Al Thani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

There are no reliable second or third party sources. Article was orginally written as self-promotion and to promote company though article has been revised. Other than being the third wife to a Qatar Prince, she has nothing notable. The user that created the article has done nothing further on wiki so it's questionable. This does not fall in the guidelines of WP:BIO/WP:GNG. Tree Karma (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete by nominator. Article originally was established for self-promotion and the creator tried to blank the page numerous of times. Upon good faith searching, all searches were press interviews promoting company and none support information provided such as birthdate and where she grew up, etc. Poorly sourced and non-notable. Tree Karma (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any reliable source other than press on her company. I don't think being the wife of royalty signifies notability and none of the references provides data that is included in the bio; with that said, I agree with Treekarma that their is a possibility the person that created this article is connected to the company or person and promoting. Fails WP:BIO and guidelines. BioDetective2508 (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold on a second I know that's not an option, but I saw this article on this page, then went to it, and started to try and improve it--I learned a lot about this lady who I'd never even heard about, making me believe perhaps she is somewhat notable. I found numerous sources, including the Sunday Telegraph, the Wall Street Journal, Harper's Bazaar, Scotsman Magazine, USA Today (and many more less-appropriate, but extant, references). As I was in the process of improving it (it looked sloppy, I'll admit) I got reverted. For example, I was in the process of establishing notability, I added the paragraph:

She discovered that €50 million went missing between 2001 and 2003 from the Barclays account of her husband, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Thani. A €50 million legal action was brought against Barclays, alleging fraud, led by Princess Kasia Al-Thani. The sheikh accused Barclays was especially negligent for allowing an employee, using a secondary account and forged signatures, to withdraw €4 million from the sheikh's account monthly. The case was was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Which was referenced from the Sunday Times, and other papers. I was reverted. I am going to put that back in. I believe a little more time must be given - the article did read like an ad, but I will try and fix that. Don't speedy delete (at least for a while!). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 06:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All references posted by above contributor are promoting company and not the person. Furthermore, the above lawsuit is about her husband and not significantly about the wife. On both persons articles, the story was reverted by other contributors. Based on the above plea I attempted another search and most all references quoted above are online entertainment blogs and interviews regarding company. Unless wiki supports creating pages on all notable people's wives, I stand by delete perhaps not speedy. BioDetective2508 (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is honestly getting ridiculous. I have nothing to do with the company, I have no vested interest in it. I have been editing here for years (not just under this IP). I never heard of her: I was trying to show that she was notable for multiple things: (A) For discovering a 50 million Euro fraud, of which the Sunday Telegraph says: "The sheikh's wife Princess Kasia Al-Thani, [...] first discovered the fraud and has been spearheading the legal action," (B) For being a Qatari royal, (C) For starting up a significant company that has been referenced in numerous places (I know the links to some pages have promotional content, I'm not ignorant - but they show notability of the company and her fundamental relation to it--a blog even can be a good source if it's an official newspaper blog by an employee). Because this AfD is taking place, I dumped some references at the end of the article and tried to improve it. I would suggest any objective editors who come across this AfD check the article's history, read the Sunday Telegraph article ([1]) which I keep having reverted as a source, as "it's not about the subject." She's in the pull quote, her picture heads the article, and the article states that it was her who discovered it and she is spearheading the case! The article even interviews her later on! One editor even reverted it saying it "must be written about the specific person," referring me to a wiki-policy page which said Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material in its first point! I keep getting treated like a prick because I edit from IPs. I've been editing for significantly longer than some editors who just dismiss me as an IP with no experience (my wikistress is going through the roof and I'm starting to be less and less objective--something I pride myself on). 66.183.69.201 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Google searched lawsuit and though there is significant coverage regarding lawsuit, all articles refer to husband and NOT wife. ONLY one article that is a mixture of lawsuit and her new company. Title of article reference the husband only and interviews the wife. No other significant coverage on lawsuit mentions her. Again, lawsuit is about the husband not wife and an administrator originally reverted the edit. Tree Karma (talk) 09:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Administrator reverted this inappropriate article: ([2]), not this one, which I used: ([3]). Please stop deferring to the "admin" in this AfD--his reversion is not in question. Your points before that mention are valid. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The biographical details are unverifiable. It must be assumed this is puffery as these details, whether correct or not, could only come from the subject or a friend of the subject. If you are notable, a completely independent contributor will create an article. Parkerparked (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep/Merge with Shiekh Abdelaziz bin Khalifa Al-Thani. Per WP:BIO#Family the sheikha appears to go beyond inherited fame. Removing the material that the IP has added appears to violate WP:AGF... -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 July 2009 (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.