Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiysha Saagar
as analyzing the article sources and the ones above show they are literally still only photo galleries, announcements, listings and mentions, none of that establishing actual notability in our policies, the information itself is then we bare as it could be since it's all trivial and unconvincing, none of that helps since the sourcing itself is simply so worse. Sources saying such sheer blatancy as the beautiful and hot woman" is not anywhere damningly near our notability and we would never choose that as a sole basis at all; worse if we say "but they're sources!". For God's sake, one of the sources themselves is to a dental office's URL (!!) so it's clear there's actual intentions of an article here, instead simply filling it with whatever, which is naturally only acceptable for their own website, not here. We never alone take "this or that" as "it's enough for an article" because that's '''not our policies'''. The nomination itself shows the fact she's not independently notable for anything and this is all , next is the sheer fact some of these websites we explicitly state as unacceptable in our policies, so why would we then say "But they're sources!"? If no one actually looks at these sources, they would've actually seen the damning sheerness of such blatancy as self-advertising professional photos, not actual contents. We base notability and articles by ourselves at AfD, not from what something or someone else apparently labels them, because they are not us, and we are not them
— User:SwisterTwister, 07:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:COATRACK (Wikipedia:Coatrack articles)