Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (3rd 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. Yes, consensus can change. But this is becoming tendentious. I advise against any renominations for at least one year. In the event of a nomination sooner, barring some argument not already addressed in the previous three discussions, I would encourage a speedy close as keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova[edit]

[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)

Nominating for this the third time as this is pure self-promoting aggrandization this is not a person worthy of an article by that virtue anyone on IMDB who is a self-prescribed filmmaker should have an article. No, you do not warrant a Wikipedia article because you were featured in a YouTube video by InfoWars and became a meme... Additionally, there is no article which mentions Dasha in NYTimes, Vice is a culture paper and writes about plenty of people who would never have a Wikipedia page. This quite simply should not belong to an encyclopedia.

Pformenti (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. page has already survived 2 nominations this past year by a large margin as it easily passes WP:GNG. Previous nominations were made by an account that has since been blocked for repeated vandalism (see User talk:T5r4e3wnc), who also nominated her podcast page twice (so this is now the fifth attempt at targeting a Dasha Nekrasova-related page). These appear to be bad faith nominations made simply for vandalism and disruption. Pinchofhope (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This article has survived two AFD this year alone, enough is enough already.★Trekker (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Explain to me how this person meets the notability requirements per Wikipedia's policy. This nomination is not in bad-faith it's more so an attempt to delete a PR page/ self-promotional page for a person who has been given a Wikipedia article for being mentioned in a Vice Culture Op-ED for unironically sipping a Starbucks drink and saying socialism rocks in an InfoWars interview. Moreover, the article cites YouTube as a source! If we are to give all people who have 5 minutes of fame on YouTube for pissing off conservatives, Wikipedia would be riddled with insignificant people. But please mention why you are voting to keep if you have an argument that is... Pformenti (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pformenti: I'd advice you to properly format this AFD. As of now there is not even a link to the subject.★Trekker (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is this [1], [2] and this paragraph [3]. There is more. Per WP:THREE is probably notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a huge bunch of promotional muck from the page. It normal to remove the muck, not delete if it is notable. It this case it survived two Afd. Doing a hard copyedit on it would have been more appropriate. scope_creep^Talk 12:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go over WP:GNG

− − "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. - Vice article is an interview about a viral person... There are a great many of people which we would open floodgates onto Wikipedia if we deemed them encyclopedia worthy. If her podcast is noteworthy (though I'm skeptical) make that a page, but you are opening a pandora's box by letting this be an article.

− − Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.- The article cites the YouTube video link of the music video as a source of her being in the music videos. Then the article is editorializing a bit about her films citing a film review...

− − Lastly,

− − Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[5] - the very fact that there are tabloid/culture magazines like Teen Vogue and Jezebel writing about this individual's 5 minutes of fame "owning conservatives" does not warrant that it merits an article. A conversation must be had and it keeps being nominated because it is so blatantly not belonging on this platform. Pformenti (talk) 12:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pformenti, go turn on Preferences>Gadgets>Navigation popups. That'll let you hover over people's usernames to see how much experience they have, which maybe will provide you a clue as to whether you're likely to understand the notability guidelines better than they do. —valereee (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only conversation worth having is that this article is blatantly and constantly targeted by new and inexperienced editors with an apparent grudge. 4 failed nominations on articles related to this woman within a year is not normal.★Trekker (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bad faith nomination of an article whose meeting of WP:GNG has been clearly established in previous deletion attempts. Morgan695 (talk) 16:34, 20 September 2020 (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.