Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilia Stepanova


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Lilia Stepanova

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Questionable notability of biographical article per WP:BIO - no significant information to be found here to denote notability as most information is brief and does not explain themselves clearly. GUtt01 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - articles like this are sufficient, and there are other non-English sources that are similar. The deletion rationale needs to be better here because the article itself lists the sort of coverage she has received and being a special guests on any one of those television shows would likely be considered more than "trivial".  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 03:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DAILYMAIL is not a reliable source. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but we don't need to rely on the reliability of the source itself, it is simply confirmation of a non-controversial fact; that she appeared on television. In doing so, she received coverage. As I said, the article itself lists the non-trivial coverage she has received from multiple reliable sources (which need not be print sources).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, cannot find any significant coverage from reliable sources that indicate notability. -- Darth Mike (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The television appearances aren't sufficient?  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, no. Numerous people are on TV, all the time. Most aren't notable. -- Darth Mike (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many television appearances aren't coverage of the person, that's true, but these are appearances where she has been invited as a guest and the subject receiving coverage is her and her talents / skills. They aren't a matter of her appearing on television incidentally, in relation to something else.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Probably just scrapes into WP:GNG due to a few mentions, although in dubious sources such as Daily Mail and Radio Free Europe (eyebrows extremely raised) but they seem like such junk articles or churnalism (possibly placed coverage to promote America's Got Talent?). Not sure how this will ever go beyond a tiny stub. Also can't really see how she meets WP:BIO. Leaning towards delete but not sure. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - have started a discussion here about this and similar subjects.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not seeing any real notability beyond clickbait type churnalism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete getting off the fence on this one. Per my above comment, I think this falls on the NN side of WP:GNG given the quality of the sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.