Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeria Lukyanova (2nd nomination)

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. While not a strong consensus, the discussion is leaning towards a keep. There is cetainly enough coverage, such as a documentary, and feature news articles over an extended period of time, refuting any arguments that she's only had 24 hours of fame. Several arguments point to WP:ENTERTAINER which she appears to pass, based on a fannish fan base, but oddly, also the Prof test, which she clearly does not pass. A BLP only has to pass one such test, not several tests, for inclusion. Notability is about neither fame nor credibility of the subject. Past consensus has been to keep many articles about famous models, even if their claim to having done anything that matters is a tautology or that their beauty is ephemeral. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Lukyanova

AfDs for this article:
Valeria Lukyanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rescinded G4 deletion (article not similar to deleted versions). Am seeking further community consensus after previous deletion: does this individual pass the General Notability Criteria, or does BLP1E preclude her from having an article?  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for restoring this, Crisco. Utter ridiculous for it to be speedy deleted! I did not consult the deleted version (because I couldn't even access it!) and I spent the whole evening writing it on my own. IMO my version is better referenced and exemplifies notability more. As the article's author I !vote KEEP because the enduring media coverage (latest news piece of her dates August 2013!) is enough to override 1E and core policies like WP:GNG and WP:BIO have been met. This human Barbie is not "just" a human Barbie: she is a spirituality guru as well as an actress who featured in a documentary about her. I think it is wrong to persistently cite 1E here; it should not apply in cases like this one. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to rage at the deleting admin's talk, but now there is not much need to. Thanks for saving me the trouble. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 08:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please DO NOT rage at admins' talks anyway) Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just joking, I'm too peace-loving. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think "educator" is a stretch and is perhaps a bit of a misrepresentation. The vast majority of coverage (as you can see with a basic Google search) relates almost entirely to her looks and I think it's strange that the article doesn't reflect that. Why not call her a model and acknowledge her additional "spiritual" work, rather than call her an "educator" and try and play down the dozens and dozens of reliable sources that give her significant coverage for her "work" as the "human Barbie". To be clear - there's nothing wrong with an assertion of notability on the basis of her looks, in my view, especially if her looks have resulted in her receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. How is that any different to any other model? She probably says it best herself - "I use my appearance to promote my spiritual ideas". There's really nothing wrong with that. But a self-promoted, 20 minute "documentary" really isn't enough to buy into the "spiritual guru" claim, especially given the apparent lack of spiritual followers. Best to frame the article in an honest, neutral way that doesn't give WP:UNDUE weight to the few sources that discuss her spirituality over the many, many sources that give her coverage for her looks. Stalwart111 09:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Stalwart111, only due to her severely underearned media-coverage. Also, alternatively-gifted rubberdoll-obsessed individuals Valeria followers should keep in mind that her "educator" and "spiritualism" stuff is going to be challenged and ridiculed here forever. You've been warned) Ukrained2012 (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The prior AFD held in May 2012 is not much precedent; there really wasn't a consensus to delete but no one quibbled too much (and even I favored deletion on balance). The subject has been the subject of continuing press coverage since that deletion, so its hard to not admit that WP:GNG has been met by now. Somewhat ironically I was linked yesterday to Helena Antonia a bearded lady from ~1600 -- I'm sure we won't be deleting that as unseemly pop culture, and for better or worse Valeria Lukyanova has joined Helena in notability. (And if anyone can translate Latin, please tell me exactly what this 1603 book says about Antonia!)--Milowent • hasspoken 13:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's about her "service to the Queen of Spain". I'll see if I can work out the bit before that but it looks like a passing mention confirming what is in the article. Stalwart111 14:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The language as of yesterday only referenced Constance, I added the other nobility, but am confused between Maria and Margaret. I see a "Maria" in the text, but the 1950 book by Reynolds references a "Margarita".--Milowent • hasspoken 14:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. That she is an "educator" is irrelevant. She blatantly fails WP:ACADEMIC. That she is a "spiritualist" is grossly insufficient to sustain any notability either; otherwise, we could include every pastor in the world. That she is a model (of no particular fame) is irrelevant as well. An actress? Show me her "movie" listed on imdb.com. I'll save you the time; it isn't there. Neither is she herself listed there. The only reason we are here discussing her is because of her manufactured Barbie-like look. That's it. Nothing else in the article has even a hint of notability in it. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Just her appearance. Does this make her unique? No. In fact, there are LOTS of women in the world who have attempted to be human barbies (Angelica Kenova, Jenny Lee and many more). And just so Barbie isn't without the love of her life, there's a human Ken doll (Justin Jedlica). Hell, there's even a how-to guide on how to be a human barbie [1], complete with a video on how to do the makeup. Do we add articles for every person in the world who decides to do something with their appearance that strikes people as unusual? We have human vampires (Maria Jose Cristerna), human anime dolls (Anastasiya Shpagina), and more. Just because someone spends hours a day trying to look like a doll or some such doesn't make them notable. Famous? Sure. Notable? No. There's a distinct difference between the two. Plenty of people are famous due to single things. That doesn't make them notable by itself. You need more than that. That she has gotten some recent press about it is insufficient as well. The press isn't anything about her additional actions in the world; it's still all about her appearance. If the criteria were solely whether someone still gets mentions in the press, then we'd have an article for Corey Worthington. This is a clear failure of WP:BLP1E. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off there is nothing in the article to suggest that Valeria is in fact a model. The article claims she is, but nothing more. There's no cite to back it up. Is she working for a modelling agency? Has she had a spread in some magazine? The answers so far are no. Just saying you're a model doesn't make you one any more than her being an 'educator'. I took a look at her supposed peers in Category:Ukrainian female models. Here's what we have:
  • Lyudmila Bikmullina; Won Miss Ukraine Universe title and represented Ukraine in the Miss Universe 2007 pageant. Has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope.
  • Nataliya Gotsiy; Won Ford Models Supermodel of the World. Appeared on the cover of French Elle and Italian Marie Claire, and has worked with a whole host of fashion designers. Has Valeria appeared on the cover of a magazine, much less a fashion magazine? Nope. Has Valeria worked with any fashion designers? Nope.
  • Kamaliya; Won 2008 Mrs. World. Again, has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope. Kamaliya also performed at the International Lahore Festival, for which she was complimented by the president ot Pakistan. Has Valeria appeared at any international events, much less won accolades for doing so? Nope.
  • Kristina Kots-Gotlib; Won Miss Ukrain Universe title as well. Again, has Valeria won a beauty pageant? Nope.
  • Olga Kurylenko; Has starred in a number of blockbuster movies, including Quantum of Solace and Oblivion (2013 film). Has Valeria appeared in any movie that can even be found on imdb? Nope. All we have is a pathetic 20 minute video on a less than significant website.
...and that's just the first five. Look, all we have here is a person with no claim to fame other than putting on some clothes, some makeup, and making herself ridiculously thin. To quote Valeria herself, 07:42 "I think people who try to look like dolls essentially are seeking fame". That's what we have here; nothing more than a fame seeker who got some attention in the press. She hasn't won any pageants, she's never been employed by a model agency that we know of, she's never appeared in a real movie, nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. In fact, the term "model" should be removed from the article. I can say I'm a professional basketball player but it doesn't make me one. Show me proof she's actually worked as a model. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I refactored your comments to not intersperse them within mine, per standard practice. If you want to debate this, please come to my talk page. And I think you need to understand the difference between 'notable' and 'famous'. The latter she is, the former, far from it. As to the beauty contest, at the time I wrote my above comments there was no mention whatsoever of winning a beauty contest. Now there is...to a "beauty contest" that was a front to advertise the work of plastic surgeons. Hardly notable. She did compete in the Miss Ukraine contest, and did not win or place. So, nada there. A layout in vmagazine...which can't even break the top 50,000 websites in the world. Millions of views of her videos? I see her channel; I'm not seeing any videos with more than a million views. In fact, only one even crosses 100,000. Anyone can have a youtube channel. Has she been signed by any record label anywhere? Any studio? The "Space Barbie" 'movie' is hardly a movie. To put it in the same realm with a Bond movie is like say a country picnic is in the same realm as the wedding of Kate and William. It isn't a real movie. She blatantly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noone is claiming she is notable as an actress, at best some people noted she was the subject of a documentary, that is something a bit different. Noone voted "keep as she passes WP:ENTERTAINER", so your argument is absolutely irrelevant towards the arguments raised by the keep voters. Cavarrone 18:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, WP:ENTERTAINER category can be nominated for a person who "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following". As of July 2013, Valeria has 876,000 Facebook fans, 7,484 Twitter followers and over 30 millions views on YouTube. Also there 336,565 followers in the Russian facebook-alike social network VK (social network). This qualifies her for "has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following", IMHO. Innab (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said she was vacuous. I am also not alone in my opinion that she does not warrant an article here. I understand your opinion. However, it is no more valid or invalid than mine is. Thank you for your input. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the educator stuff should come out of the lede, and I took it out. But the breadth and depth of available sourcing out here is actually quite impressive, regardless of subjective views of whether she's important. The press coverage is still going after 2 years. She's not important, and neither was Helena Antonia, but she's notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken the anime girl is friends with Valeria... While "famous" and "notable" aren't exactly the same, they tend to connote the same thing. With popularity comes notability, dontcha agree? You're just ignoring the enduring media coverage. The other examples you've mentioned don't generate as much media buzz as Valeria does. Now I'll bring up a new example: Sarah Burge. She is only known for being a plastic lady, and yet her article is kept. Because of the enduring media coverage. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think WP:NOTNEWS is a more applicable principal to discuss here than WP:BLP1E, as there is no "event" here, and Lukyanova has herself (apparently) sought media attention, which means she is not a "low profile individual". Both of those are express requirements for BLP1E to apply. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, I noticed that the Russian Wikipedia had a deletion discussion in March 2013 where their article was kept [3] The closer expressed surprise at finding that the subject was indeed notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia has a ridiculous number of articles for people who are only notable for being "models". Unless one is an international print or runway model, I don't see how this meets the notability requirement but Lukyanova isn't that much different from many others who are only known for their modeling. If her article is deleted, there are quite a few others that should be evaluated, too (start with "glamour models"). Liz Read! Talk! 11:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, there are scores of models, or rather media attention seekers, and not even half of them are notable. She fails WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.--Viticulturist99 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please justify how she fails WP:GNG. Ridiculous, given the numerous news pieces mentioning her. And if she fails WP:BLP1E, wouldn't she be notable? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered the argument a little above? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Her physical appearance could be hardly referred as "an event" per BLP1E. Also, BLP1E refers to low-profile individual, and she clearly is not. Cavarrone 16:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that something wrong about it? I can remove it. Innab (talk) 05:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it already was neutral, but I changed the wording. Hope is will be less confusion now. Innab (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2013 (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.
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Valeria_Lukyanova_(2nd_nomination)
Marcações: