Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elena Filatova

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Elena Filatova.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

User:Cantus put VfD on Elena Filatova, but forgot to add it here. I have no opinion. Mikkalai 21:52, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - highly article-worthy. Further, Cantus has been around long enough to know to put VfD-message pages on the actual VfD page - David Gerard 23:00, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * There were two choices: either to remove his msg:vfd or to put it here. Mikkalai 00:56, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Everyking 23:06, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
 * She's notable enough. Keep. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 23:22, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Famous only for being on Slashdot, twice. Definately delete. Wyllium 23:52, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
 * And over what seemed like every goddamned blog in the world as well ... - David Gerard 07:08, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wouldn't say "highly article-worthy" ... but... (broken record) i've seen more obscure articles on Wikipedia.  blankfaze | &#9835 01:45, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. - Hephaestos|&#167; 07:11, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. So what if she isn't as well-known as Princess Di? As long as the information is correct. Abigail 12:24, May 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. People should generally not be in Wikipedia by having put up a fake Angelfire homepage; motorbikes aren't allowed in the radiation zone. And she admitted on the page after it came out, that the site was just "poetry", and called her detractors bloodsuckers or something &#5795;&#5815;&#5815;&#5854;&#5809;&#5803;&#5835;&#5825;&#5850;
 * Keep. I started this article and although I had second thoughts thereafter for privacy reasons, this story is noteworthy enough even if it turns out to be fake and, if I dare say so, perhaps ESPECIALLY if it turns out that way. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. The not-very-compelling reason for my vote is that I liked the story. I saw it first on Slashdot, read the (fake) article, found it fascinating and haunting&mdash;"poetry" is not too strong a word&mdash;and, of course, now feel a mixture of emotions at having been taken in. I guess what I'm saying is that to those of us who did read the article, it was somewhat memorable and notable. I just took another look at it at http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html . Damn! I still like it. Hey, I liked Daniel Defoe's Journal of the Plague Year (another fake) too. Dpbsmith 00:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a fake? Oh.  Apparently they've also taken 'gullible' out of the dictionary...  Anyway keep this as she is fairly well known by all accounts, even if the content of her site is questionable. -- Graham  :) | Talk 09:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if her personal "story" is a fake, you cannot "fake" an abandoned town, unless you are Hollywood. The photos do tell a story. I didn't see anything similar in this form before. IMO her "enemies" are simply jealous they didn't think to do the same (read: to grab this kind of glory). Mikkalai 17:13, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's relevant whether the story is fake or not. The fact that the site got (a lot of) attention is what's relevant here. Harry Potter isn't real either, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be articles about his books on Wikipedia. Abigail 21:00, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Her 15 minutes of online fame are over. --Cantus 03:57, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. If her stuff is fake, the article must say so, but famous fakes are famous. --Jerzy(t) 05:33, 2004 May 28 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue or the deletion should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.