Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Poplavskaya


 * 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. Consensus seems essentially unanimous. Any remaining problems can be dealt with on the talk p. or by OTRS  DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have corresponded with Miss Poplavskaya and it is her wish that this article be removed from Wikipedia. The information given has been cobbled together from various articles and she finds it's contents hurtful and insulting. She has also pointed out that the photograph used was taken without her permission. TristanTzara (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep She is notable, as shown by the references in the article. If she wants to communicate any concerns about the article, then she needs to go through the formal WP:OTRS process, so that her identity can be verified.  If information is inaccurate,  then provide reliable sources to be used to make corrections.  That the subject considers part of the article "hurtful and insulting" is vague and not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable person.  The subjects of articles are not entitled to manage or delete articles about them, without a much more convincing rationale.  The photo appears to be licensed properly by the person who took it.   Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  00:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentThe Google News Archive makes it indisputably clear that she is notable, with major coverage such as this in the New York Times, and this by ABC News.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  00:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage on the article makes it blatantly obvious that this person qualifies for a Wikipedia article. Deletion is sometimes suitable for articles on notable topics, but it's rare and only to be done in cases of unfixably poor quality or other massive problems, such as copyvios.  When it's an article like this, which lacks substantial problems entirely, there's definitely no reason to delete.  Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The background to this and the subject's objections which are quoted above can be seen at her user talk page User talk:Margopera. There is also an AN/I discussion Marina Poplavskaya - possible legal threat, and this discussion at Commons regarding the photograph. It may not be elegantly written but there is is nothing in the article that could remotely be seen as "hurtful" or "insulting" to a neutral observer. It is a relatively brief and matter-of-fact description of her career and makes no reference to her personal life at all. The accusation of "cobbled together" is misguided and reflects the fact that the subject is (understandably) not familiar with how Wikipedia works. This is a biography of a living person. It is required to have references to reliable independent sources and to be based on them. The issue of the photograph is moot at the moment, and is certainly not a reason to delete the entire article. The subject's notability is without question. She is a prominent opera singer with multiple and significant coverage in quality publications including The Guardian, The Independent, New York Times, and The New Yorker (a lengthy feature on her by Gay Talese) as well as in more specialist publications, e.g. Opera News, Das Opernglas, etc. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the subject not wanting to have an article on Wikipedia. She has no personal web site either, by her own choice. Whether that is sufficient reason to delete this article as a courtesy, I'll leave for others to decide. Voceditenore (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, as notable and informative, but remove the pic if she doesn't approve. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 07:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I understand Marina Polavskaya's unease with the article, but nevertheless she is clearly a notable opera singer. Like Gerda Arendt, I would suggest that the image is not used since it was taken in inappropriate circumstances. I understand that there is some correspondence between WMF and the subject of the BLP and I would hope very much that that route will lead to a satisfactory and neutral article. (I would note that many rising opera singers in a comparable situtation do not have BLPs, e.g. Irina Lungu, a redlink that might become blue at some stage.) Mathsci (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See Irina Longu in the Italian Wikipedia. I wouldn't say that Marina Poplavskaya is "rising". She is already risen with multiple leading roles in major opera houses over the past seven or eight years. Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I just heard Irina Lungu here in Aix; that's why I mentioned her. Mathsci (talk) 12:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy-based reason for deletion; meets WP:BIO requirements. See WP:BEFORE. The article subject (or anyone acting on their behalf, as apparently the nominator is doing) should follow the guidance at Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject).   Chzz    ►  09:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, because she is, as pointed out above, an established and notable international star. But I would understand if Ms Poplavskaya felt, for example, that the emphasis on her being brought in to perform at short notice on more than one occasion left the impression that she was used as a last resort simply because she was available. It is a tribute to her reputation that opera managements turn to her for help. Certainly, the question of why the Met found itself having to do so for the tour of Japan has little to do with her biography and if she thinks it misleading then it should certainly go. Wikipedia should be concentrating on the highlights of her career, and it may well be that there are gaps which reliable sources can fill, perhaps not in English. Ms Poplavskaya or a representative may be able to suggest what those might be. As for the photograph, whilst she has no reason to be self-conscious about her appearance there are many people who prefer to protect their privacy by not having their photograph published, and if there is really no photograph that she would like used in this article I think it entirely reasonable not to have one. It is her voice, not her face, that is the subject of her notability. --AJHingston (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep — clearly notable.
 * Keep the image — according to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Marina Poplavskaya06.jpg, the image seems perfectly legitimate, and it cannot be described as demeaning. Why remove it? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly passes WP:BIO and no WP:BLP issues. If she want s a different picture, perhaps she could supply one with an appropriate license or release? ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - nomination does not claim that she's not notable, just that the article sucks in the subject's opinion. Those concerns should be considered and responded to outside AfD. Photo has nothing to do with AfD.--Milowent • talkblp-r  17:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes BIO, RS reliability, and as yet has not been established that subject is the person demanding deletion (see the corresponding AN/I discussion linked above). tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above. I see no good reason to delete the article or picture for either notability or privacy reasons. This google search shows pictures of her can be found on thousands of websites, so I think privacy concerns should be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to the pic. The large amount of press she has had internationally should also confirm her notability and again raise skepticism towards the motivations of the nominator. Most likely the nominator is the agent of the artist, and is interested in controlling any PR in regaurds to the artist in question. I'm surprised no one has raised WP:COI concerns.4meter4 (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that is unfair. It has been made clear that the concerns are being raised on behalf of Ms Poplavskaya and WP:COI certainly does not prohibit the subject of an article from commenting on accuracy, fairness or anything else. Indeed, that should be encouraged as it is likely to improve the article. That is certainly true here - it is not a good article. The question is how to go about improving matters, and whilst there are procedures for raising objections they are not sufficiently clear to users, which destroys faith in the process and encourages deletion requests. Wikipedia is accused, in my view rightly, of sometimes adopting a bullying attitude in relation to BLP. In the majority of cases, if the subject or those close to them are dissatisfied with an article they are likely to be right. WP editors can strive for objectivity, but the very fact that we have often only the briefest snippets of information to go on, as in this case, makes it difficult to be balanced and encyclopedic, let alone accurate. As has already been pointed out, the best thing here would be for Ms Poplavskaya or her representatives to offer reliable sources which fill out the details of her career, a better photograph, and so forth. She deserves an article, but a good one. --AJHingston (talk) 09:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * note As far as I can determine so far it has not been made clear anyone is acting on behalf of the subject. I could use as much eloquence or lack thereof to say I am acting on behalf of Obama, but until the proper channels are gone through to prove thus, it is not clear. Just mentioning because I keep seeing this being used as a defense of the nomination and over at the AN/I. Until proven true this is an incorrect assumption to use for debate.  tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See User talk:Margopera --AJHingston (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * See the AN/I discussion. OTRS is what will determine. When someone claims to be the subject of an article and has made legal threats on the talk page, people are going to be civil.  Talking from the perspective of the subject does not mean you are the subject.  I will reiterate for you " Until proven true this is an incorrect assumption to use for a debate". That is not to say that said talk page user is not the subject, but to assume so just because they say they are and others have treated that person with civility (partially based upon the possibility of legal actions) and because we try to be civil, that is simply poor. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * related note This also is still not grounds for deleting the article which of course is what this page is for :). tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment So can we just close this AFD? No delete votes have been posted and we seem to all generally agree that there was no legitimate reason for this AFD in the first place. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - As to the nomination: there is nothing remotely "hurtful or insulting" about this article. Quite the contrary. Clearly a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the subject, which is absolutely irrelevant for our purposes. Carrite (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2011 (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.