Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Takshina (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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Takshina

[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)

A non-notable Russian actress. Non-authoritative links, no meaningful roles.--RTY9099 (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was previously speedy kept at AfD, based on sources added at that time (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yulia Takshina). Bakazaka (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The corresponding article on Russian Wikipedia is far more detailed, with a long list of various roles from the past ten years or so. Judging by Google Translate, while I am definitely not convinced that every one of these roles would contribute to notability, I am equally unconvinced that none of them would do so - it would definitely help if a Russian speaker could review the article. PWilkinson (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Looking at the Google Translate version of the article, and of the blue-linked films she appeared in, it seems that she has had significant roles in at least two films which have articles on Wikipedia - Inadequate people (2010; Неадекватные люди in Russian) and 12 months. New tale (2015; 12 месяцев. Новая сказка in Russian). She played the wife of a main character in Village (TV series) (2013; Станица in Russian), but that character is not listed in the Wikipedia article about the film. One of the TV series listed on IMDB, in which she played a main role, is not included in her Russian Wikipedia article, and seems not to have an article of its own there. The other TV series in which she played the main role of Zhanna/Жанна, is red-linked on Russian Wikipedia, so perhaps it's notable - although all of the films and series which aren't blue-linked are red-linked, so it's hard to know. The one independent source in the current article [1] indicates that she got a lot of attention in her role in the series Don't be born beautiful as enemy and rival of the main characters ("The image of a lazy, bitchy, irresponsible intriguer was so much liked by the public that the actress had a whole army of fans and imitators.") So, on that evidence, it seems that she would pass WP:NACTOR. But the current article has so little information, it would need a lot of work to include what she is notable for, and sources that provide evidence of that ..... RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's not mentioned in the main credits of Неадекватные люди nor of 12 месяцев. Новая сказка. In so many words, no significant roles in multiple notable films, as WP:NACTOR requires. The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perf115 has made about a dozen contributions overall to Wikipedia, all on 11 January 2019. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This article says absolutely nothing about her career—it’s just a personal life section with one sentence about having two kids. Different languages of Wikipedia have different standards. And having gone to the Russian article, it doesn’t help... no reliable sources are given about her career and it’s only IMDb and relationship gossip. Non-notable actress with non-notable roles.Trillfendi (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because subject fails WP:NACTOR. We can gallantly invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero significant roles in notable by Wikipedia movies, shows for Yulia which makes her fail WP:NACTOR. Regarding the sources in the article: a dead link, a trivial source that is not WP:SIGCOV, and the rest are bio listings on a either unreliable or user generated websites. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly when I closed the first AFD I was under the impression more sources were going to be added, Clearly should've waited but hey ho, Anyway no evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was about to close this, but saw Davey2010's explanation about the previous AfD and decided to climb on my soapbox instead. We have a rule (which I can't find, but I'm sure is written down somewhere) which says sources don't actually have to be in the article, they just have to exist. This is a perfect example of why that's a terrible rule. If you've got sources, put them in the article. Otherwise, they might as well not exist. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not conduct a seminar in polemics. Sources that aren't in the article don't do anybody any good. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry RoySmith I should've been clearer - At the time of nominating I couldn't find a single thing but someone else did and so without really looking at the sources I assumed these were okay and I assumed the editor who found those few was going to add more if there were more, Ofcourse I agree with that statement just because the source isn't in the article doesn't mean the article should be deleted, The AFD shouldn't of been closed but I've learned a lot and certainly wouldn't of closed now. –Davey2010^Talk 17:02, 19 January 2019 (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.