Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalya Rudakova (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 Second consecutive Unambiguous keep; renomination of a unanimous keep within a month on grounds that notability must be renewed by the subject of the article on a continuous basis is to be discouraged. This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Natalya Rudakova[edit]

Article fails to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, actress, after this single movie, appears to have dropped into obscurity, there have been weeks when this article could have been improved, so editors are either lazy, too busy, or this actress has not done anything besides this single film. If she had, I bet there would have been notations made about her next movie. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all that, just one more note to people reading this nomination: We here at wikipedia do not keep what-ifs. We do not keep articles here with the hope that they will become notable. When the subject of the article does become notable, then it can be included. Not before.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role does not a notable actress make. Gimme more. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy keep This was nominated less than a month ago! And by the SAME nominator! 76.66.195.159 (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Your point? The actress quite clearly does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER, after this movie, she fell into obscurity. Editors were given plenty chance to find more sources(there are only two), and if this actor was truly notable, I'm pretty sure editors would have added in information regarding other movies. But so far, no.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've renominated in less than a month. That alone should be sufficient to dump this AfD as being excessive. Actors star in one or two films a year, so expecting a second film with her on the marquee before June 2009 is unreasonable. The film just came out last month, exactly how many bar fights, murders, and whatnot do you expect in a month? The decision of the last AfD was keep, that should be good enough for you to tide you over for atleast a month if not two or three. What makes it so important for you to delete this article RIGHT NOW, instead of in an orderly amount of time? If you had waited just two more weeks, it would have been over a month, you know. 76.66.195.159 (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The story of her discovery by Luc Besson is _very_ widely told, and may be grounds to consider her notable. Also, given her staring role in a major film it seems unlikely that further films won't follow. JulesH (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter rationale falls squarely under hopeful prediction, not evidence. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I put this article on my watchlist just a few weeks ago when it was nominated for deletion. It was kept unanimously. Inexplicably, it's being nominated for deletion again by the same person. I noted in my previous vote that the user nominating deletion and the article writer appeared to be edit warring. He disputes they are warring, but this at least appears to be an antagonistic relationship. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Yes, the last nomination ended up in a keep, one of of those who voted to keep suggested that if the actor dropped into obscurity after the movie(which she did), the article should be nominated again. Lastly, I was in no dispute with the editor you speak of, and in fact, he was blocked for personal attacks.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - To any reading CW's comment, simply refer to User talk:Jayhawk of Justice. I was in no dispute with this editor. He has been grossly and unecessarily uncivil(not to mention he has personally attacked several people). I brought the issue to AN/I, the thread of which can be found here. So please, before you assume that I was in some content dispute and make a comment to that effect, try and research what you're talking about.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. It’s very accusatory and false to assume I didn’t review the edits in question. It is fair to refer to your interactions with user:Jayhawk of Justice (and his/hers with you) as an antagonistic relationship. I don’t want to be dragged into an entanglement between other parties, so I’m fine with discussing this further, but let’s not create more problems with unnecessarily heated language. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply - Well, so far you've been pretty accusatory yourself. If you actually did bother to review the content in question, you would see that I found many of his edits troublsome, and therefore I took it to AN/I. Not once was I in any dispute with him, to call it a dispute when I never attacked him, and he was the only one breaching policy is rather backwards. Please take the time to read through all of it, besides just selectively reading and skimming through.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply. Okay, if you want to continue this further, let's talk on one of our talk pages so we're not cluttering the deletion discussion with a peripheral argument. And, again, I have to ask you not to say things like "besides just selectively reading and skimming through." You're implying that I've done something that just isn't true. I don't want to discuss this with you if you're going to keep making false assumptions about my motivations. Now, I read as much of the issue as I could. Obviously, the other character involved was not editing very constructively. Blocks were in order. You also made a few edits in your interactions with that user that could have been better. We all do that. After this discussion, I'll probably go back and say, "Hey, I could have said something differently that would have made things go more smoothly." Some of your edits though, seemed to be a bit off even by those standards. If you want to discuss it further, fine. Let's stay calm though. We're both editors in good standing. There's no need for anyone to get riled up or overreact. Chicken Wing (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One role does not notability make. Leave the actor CVs for IMDB. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As of when this second nomination was made, the movie in which she has the second-billed role (Transporter 3) was still in the top 10 at the box office in North America. The nom seems to be based on a "get hot or go home" mentality in which failure to get another movie role within a month of one's first film coming out means that one has fallen into obscurity. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - True, that is part of my reasoning, but even so, there does not appear to have been any articles about here since, movies or otherwise. If she was a new, aspiring actor, I'm pretty sure one or two newspapers would want to interview her on the subject. Still the article has two sources, failing WP:N(two is not significant), and still does the article fail WP:ENTERTAINER. We don't have articles on every actor who has had one job in the film industry. A single movie does not make a person notable. Wikipedia is not for what ifs. If this person truly is notable, then let's save the creation of the article for when she does meet the criterion.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's just too soon since the last failed afd. maybe renominate it in 6 months or a year if no other sources show up. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, she simply is not yet notable and we don't keep articles around in hopes that they one day will become so. JBsupreme (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2008 (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.