Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Pimenova

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. Looking at the keep arguments, all I see are an assertion that 4 million likes on facebook means something (it doesn't, at least not here), an IP citing that argument, and a WP:SPA saying, of course. None of which carries any weight. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Pimenova

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

Delete on grounds of notability. The notability guidelines for people in this category (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers) have the following requirements
* Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
* Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Pimenova has had a moderate level of exposure for a child model. There is a potential concern that Wikipedia is being used by agents as an advertising base. Ordinary Person (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I acknowledge the point that Ordinary Person makes about WP being used by agents, it's unclear if that's the case here. Even if it is, though, I think Pimenova meets the "large fan base" criteria given that her Facebook page has over 4 million Likes. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 07:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Yellow Dingo (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A model is an artist, not an entertainer. Famous models go on the cover of magazines. And she didn't even have an agent until this year. But the article is old. She has been on television now, and moved to America. Lyrda (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia chooses to group them under the heading "Entertainers", so Ordinary Person was simply following the established guidelines there. See WP:NMODEL. Also, it's unclear: are you suggesting that the article should be kept or deleted? – Robin Hood ^(talk) 02:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, of course! Lyrda (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how you see a fan base of over 4 million as failing Point 2 of NMODEL. (That wasn't meant to sound snarky, btw, it was meant as a genuine question.) – Robin Hood ^(talk) 23:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL Not notable - references seem to relate to the one event where she was called "the most beuatiful girl in the world".Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed that she has more than 4 million fans, and everything else too. Lyrda (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per robin hood. Also, i'm not even into the modelling world and even I instantly recognized her name, this instant recognition seems to make her encyclopedic. Also she has more google returns than half the models wikipedia has articles on. 92.9.158.191 (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have never heard of her. Aoziwe (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as regardless of the apparent "world" claim in the first sentence, there's still nothing noticeably better for solid independent notability and it's simply imaginably too soon. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on with you? You are commenting on all articles for deletion and you want all of them deleted, all thousands of them, no exceptions. Lyrda (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete - Fails WP:NMODEL.~~ Magnolia677 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You already said so above, but you still haven't answered the question. Lyrda (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What question? Magnolia677 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677: I had asked, above, why you feel that this fails NMODEL, specifically point 2, when the subject's Facebook page has 4 million Likes. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 05:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have no need to contribute to her PR campaign, which is all this is, and all that the references are. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if 4 million people represented a significant fanbase, which it doesn't, even if the source supported the 4 million figure, which it doesn't (its inflated by 100% from the number in the source), followers on Facebook do not equate to a fanbase, so the subject of the article fails NMODEL, and there are enough NPOV, PROMO and V problems to make the article not worth salvaging even even if she were. At best, WP:TOOSOON. John from Idegon (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2016 (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.