Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalya Rudakova (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   redirect to Transporter 3. Remembering that AfD is not a vote, and that I have discarded those votes that only make sweeping statements about the nominator and not the article, as well as those that only refer to the frankly bizarre and unenforceable "free pass" this article was supposedly given, here is the analysis of the discussion. The arguments for retention are mixed - some say that more time is needed to establish notability, or comment that notability is not temporary. Perhaps unwittingly given, but these are arguments in favour of deletion since to need more time for sources to emerge suggests that notability is not yet established, and WP:NTEMP can be overruled if consensus on her notability changes. In this case, in the absence of compelling arguments about why this individual is notable, the argument against retention seems dominant. However, as required by our deletion policy, I will set up a redirect to Transporter 3 and preserve the underlying history in case her notability is later established. Feel free to discuss this at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It has been longer than six months since this actress's appearance in a movie, Transporter 3, and yet, no new information has come to light. The article does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. She has dropped off of the media's radar, she doesn't deserve an article for being in a lead in a single movie. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Transporter 3; lead in major movie but falls short of WP:ENTERTAINER. Why would you nominate this for deletion rather than trying redirecting it? Surely deletion can't be preferable to a rd for the lead actress from a major theatrical release? JJL (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- more than adequately meets notability and verifiability standards. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect Only one notable role, might as well redirect to the lone film in which she starred. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the close of the previous AfD: "This article gets a free pass for at least 6 months." It hasn't been a full six months since then (23 December 2008) yet. I'm not particularly convinced of this actress's notability any more, but I believe this nomination jumped the gun. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does not get a free pass, no one has that kind of power here. And it has been seven months since the article was nominated. Do I need to list them?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You first nominated the article on 27 November 2008, the day after her movie opened. Seven months from then would be 27 June 2009. The second nomination occurred on 18 December 2008, when her movie was still in the top 10 at the box office, and was closed on 23 December 2008. In the closing of the second nomination, the closing admin wrote, "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." Maybe the closing admin didn't have the authority to give the article a free pass for six months, but if he did, the six months wouldn't expire until 23 June 2009. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect or possibly Keep: I really don't see why the nominator is so hell-bent on trying to get rid of her article... Although she doesn't really meet WP:ENTERTAINER, in which would lead to redirecting her article. I think this could also be kept because it has proper referencing. As a side note, I'm catching vibes from the nominator that leads me to believe that some editors think this article is on a deadline with phrases like "It has been longer than six months..." and "She has dropped off of the media's radar...". Please remember that notability is not temporary and there is no set time that this article has to be perfect. Tavix | Talk  05:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep one film so far, but given the time it takes to make a film this is not really surprising. There is no deadline so leave it alone and if in a year's time she has done nothing else then I have no problem with a redirect. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTEMP. KuyaBriBri Talk 15:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I have read both past deletion discussions and there seems to be an overwhelming consensus to keep. I am in agreement with this consensus. The same person has nominated this article 3 times and I think that this is non-constructive and wasting editors' time. I would be open to a merge discussion but there's simply no reason to use the deletion process. If you want to merge, the best way to do this would be to pare down the material to include only tightly-sourced information. If the article is then too small to warrant its own page, then merge it into the movie. Cazort (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this is the fourth time the same editor has nominated the same article for deletion. He is just doing it because he doesn't like me, and I created the page. I've created some other pages also, and I'm afraid he's also going to try to delete those just because he has an agenda. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you dare accuse me of being agenda driven, I suggest you take it back now, or cross out your post. I've nominated this article as it has been seven months since the other nomination, and yet the actress has not gained any new media attention, and she still fails WP:ENTERTAINER, a single lead in a single movie does not make a person notable.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But why wouldn't you just redirect it? It's a plausible search term, and rds are cheap. How could 'delete' possibly be the right answer here? JJL (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I just do that now and withdraw this AFD?—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how this article is on its way for a fourth consecutive keep after four failed deletion attempts all by you, how can a redirect be seen as anything but an attempt by you to circumvent the "keep" vote and get rid of the article? Doesn't it also seem a bit strange that within a day or two of me returning to edit things after being away for months you also decide to attempt deleting this article? Come on, people aren't that stupid. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of full 'keep' votes so while I think a withdrawal in advance of a WP:SNOW close isn't a bad idea, redirecting is probably an editorial decision to be made on the article's Talk page. But in any event, outright deletion would be much less preferable than a rd. JJL (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A SNOW keep is totally inappropriate, considering the large number of delete !votes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uninvolved comment, Daedalus969 continues to misrepresent the amount of time since the last nomination, and seems to be very prickly with Jayhawk. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suspect issues between the two editors. Perhaps Daedalus969 should step back from this process. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Lead in a notable film. If this person is NN someone else would have nominated this article. I find it strange that one editor seems to be determined to delete this article despite 2 other AFD's closed as keep.Ridernyc (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:FRECKLES. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Keep, her freckles are indeed thoroughly verifiable and sourced. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - And I only say strong because the keeps are literally turning into jokes. Of the serious ones, WP:TEMP does not apply. If someone is clearly notable for something, it doesn't expire. That's what temp is about. This person, however, is not notable. She does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER, which reads Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. She has not had significant roles in multiple notable films. She's had a significant role in a film. The previous admin close giving a "free pass" is not appropriate and bears no weight on this nomination. The article should have been deleted to begin with. We don't keep because she may become notable later. So delete until she's notable, merging any relevant info into the movie's article . لenna  vecia  17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jennavecia, the word freckles in my post was a straightforward metaphor for notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gwen, your vote followed a joke vote referencing a user essay on how hot people are always notable. Maybe you should present some reason as to why you believe the subject is notable, rather than rely on an essay about hotties. Because, as it is, she's not notable. لenna  vecia  14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My now-stricken comment was referencing a reliable source, Roger Ebert, commenting on on her freckles; he did rather wander off-topic in Julianne Nicholson’s direction. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't delete and merge because it destroys the history needed for GFDL reasons. But you can redirect and merge. JJL (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thank you for pointing that out. I re-read the article and see nothing worth merging, so I've struck accordingly. لenna  vecia  22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Jennavecia. Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * KeepLead in a notable film, which was only relatively recently released, and considering how long it takes to film a movie, she could have another one on its way down the pike already. Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project, so why not keep it around for a while longer.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Repeated bad faith nominations. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bad faith nomination. Article has 7 sources, isn't that enough to prevent any more bad faith nominations? ThuranX (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy hell. To the closing admin: Weight the arguments, don't count the votes. This is ridiculous. No, seven sources is not enough to prevent deletion. We don't have a criteria about number of sources. Lead in one film released today, last week, three months ago, last year, in 1984, it doesn't matter. The criteria is multiple, and one does not meet that requirement. And, again, WP:CRYSTAL. We have nothing showing she's slated to be in another movie and, even if we did, it's not notable until it's released. Therefore, we don't keep an article on a non-notable living person. We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is. لenna  vecia  13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is has no sway as a deletion argument. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Are you seriously saying I haven't presented a deletion argument? This from the admin who voted keep as a joke? You must be kidding me. Hey, Gwen, how about you present an argument to keep, because you haven't, while I've based my argument on notability standards. Pull it together. لenna  vecia  14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't joking. Later, I said "We have more BLPs than we can maintain as it is has no sway as a deletion argument." Nothing more, nothing less. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither is "Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project, so why not keep it around for a while longer." Which is what I was responding to rather than presenting further argument to delete. However, as a BLP it is completely relevant. We don't have the resources to keep up with the maintenance of all our BLPs as it is, so it definitely matters in cases of people, such as this one, that clearly fail to fulfill our inclusion requirements. لenna  vecia  14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's be careful not to get too strident. But your point is extremely well taken. Triage, the concept that we must prioritise our resources and efforts if there is a scarcity, applies here. WP is clearly unable to effectively deal with the BLP problem, and has been for a long time. With that as a given, we should be prioritising which BLPs to keep. One event folk such as this actress seem to fall into the "not a priority, so don't keep" category under that analysis ++Lar: t/c 14:35, June 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) I never said "Its not like the bandwidth on this article is gonna break the project..." Meanwhile I've no worries about your take that the topic isn't notable. I agree it's a bit on the edge of notability, which is one reason why I threw in the metaphor. AfDs often carry sundry outlooks on notability, that's why we run them. Thanks for your input here, a closing admin will at the very least see that this is no speedy keep. (more after ec) I also note that another editor thinks that the BLP space/volunteer time is indeed a resource which calls for quantity management which, regardless of any take I may have on it now, hints that this topic could do with more discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My comment was in response to the AFD overall. The quoted comment is from Heironymous Rowe. I responded to several "arguments". لenna  vecia  21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Heironymous Rowe? Like I was meant to be up to speed on that? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the arguments I was responding to, you would have been up to speed. If someone is responding to a comment you didn't make, someone else probably made it. لenna  vecia  22:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The nomination was, in my view, questionable in terms of timing, although I'm willing to not go so far as to call it made in bad faith, under WP:AAGF. I have so opined at AN/I. But a bad nomination, done for the wrong reasons, can nevertheless bring attention to a thing that needs rectification. In my view, after having thought about this a while, I think, per WP:BLP1E this should be turned into a redirect to preserve attribution, with substantially all the content merged into the "one event's" article. If at a later date this actress does additional movies or other notable work, and more well sourced material becomes available, the redirect can be undone and the article revived. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, we should seriously consider merge/redirect. But not in this discussion. I think far too often, AfD is used for what should be a merge discussion. I even think bold moves of merging an article yourself without discussion are often preferable to opening an AfD, which is a waste of time. Cazort (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this were before the AfD was raised, a bold merge/redirect would be an excellent approach to addressing the issues. But with the AfD in progress, and with it not yet clear what consensus is, doing so might be viewed as in contravention to the emergence of a consensus. Better to let the AfD run and see if consensus ends up in this spot. Would the Keeps consider this approach satisfactory in this case? ++Lar: t/c 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the freckles are not that convincing; a merge for now would be fine. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator appears to be racist against Russian actresses. Favortie (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What a load of bovine excrement. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral comment See Cow patty bingo. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why do you keep trying to delete this? Granite thump (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address the issue. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Who are you addressing? If it's the nom, they have imposed a break on themselves for a few days. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was addressing Granite thump, whose comments are directly above mine, and whose comments I correctly placed my comments beneath. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I wouldn't have asked if it all made sense to me! What issue is it you want Granite thump to address? This appears to be his or her first posting in this discussion. So your comment, directed at them, doesn't make sense. But it kind of does if you were agreeing with them, and in essence addressing the nominator. Appreciate any clarification you can bring to this because I remain confused. Perhaps I'm the only one, dunno. ++Lar: t/c 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Granite thump's comment addresses the nominator, and makes no argument about the subject matter, which is whether or not Natalya Rudakova's article should be kept. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete BLP1E applies; there are no sources ABOUT Natalya Rudakova here. Any close under policy but Delete or Redirect is invalid here. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, WP:ENT(c3) applies; Natalya has made unique contributions in the field of acting by playing the part of a “super annoying bitch”. Favortie (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of those. ++Lar: t/c 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not expire. BLP1E does not apply as that is for low-profile people whose part in an event is incidental. Entertainers are a different class of people altogether. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why we have a notability guideline specifically for them. It's WP:ENTERTAINER and, as pointed out, she fails to meet it. لenna  vecia  04:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The essential difference is that low-profile people do not warrant any coverage here because they are unknown and have no notability. A one-time star with substantial notability, however, does not warrant deletion because their name is a significant search term and there are notable things to say about them in the context of the production. Organising this material is a matter of normal content editing and deletion has no part to play in this. Per WP:BEFORE, 'If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.' Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LORDY Like a side of ham in the oven she had freckle but is not the most worthy of an entry - merely an oft repeated anecdote of discovery at the hands of a hair dresser watcher! Ruminate and drop the fragments into the little grinding machine, grinding machine. Hellboy 2 (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Hellboy 2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * is about to be blocked as a SPA troll per Pedro :  Chat  20:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As everybody points out, time has no meaning here, we don't care if the media no longer cares (proof?), and we don't care if 6 months has passed. BLP1E is beyond irrelevant. So we get to WP:ENTERTAINER. And what a rubbish guideline that appears to be, and it is only a guideline at that remember. If the lead actress in a Hollywood movie does not meet the guideline, the guideline is obviously wrong. Closer, ignore the Defenders of Living People, use your common sense and ignore this flawed guideline. She's notable. There is also a high probability that there are foreign languague sources as well I would have thought. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "BLP1E is beyond irrelevant" ?? ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * in the context of it being claimed it is relevant here, yes, it is wholly irrelevant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strikes me as pretty relevant, and since this is a BLP, the onus is on you to show it isn't, not vice versa. Please read it again. Then come back and explain why this person is notable outside this event. "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources."... please provide the persistent coverage. IF this actress does another work, and there is persistent coverage, sure, give them an article. Until then, merge the entire contents to the movie article and leave a redirect. Why exactly is that not acceptable? No information is lost but the job of watching for vandalism becomes marginally easier, with one less article to watch. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant because she is not low profile, and she is not overly seeking fame through Wikipedia, nor is she wholly undeserving of notice for doing one truly low profile thing. If the crux is whether being the lede in Hollywood movie is trivial, I'm confident I have that beaten on pure common sense grounds, whichever way the debate goes. If your only justification for deletion is to have one less article, but keep all the information, I just find that bizarre. I echo the comments then made by someone else about all these 1 event footballers and their team articles. There is no editorial merit in having a biography existing as a sub-section of a film article. To illustrate how bizarre that is, this article has more references than the film. I know that's not particularly important to the BLP focussed people, but it's still really bad in general, if we are trying to stuff one article into the other on grounds of general notability. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to check WP:MOVIE. Every movie isn't notable, why should an actress with only one credit?  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What's MOVIE got to do with it? We are talking about a lede in a hollywood movie, that is one big credit. You tell me why it shouldn't be notable? MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you're asking the close to just ignore the guidelines and policies you don't like and base the close on your personal feelings. Interesting request. Haven't seen that one before. لenna  vecia  17:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator has only asserted it breaks a guideline. Thus, I am well within my rights to point out that in this case, slavishly following a guideline is nonsense, when it is so clearly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment When they change the rules about athletes so that they at least come close to matching the other notability guidelines I might consider changing my mind. But so far every argument for deletion of this article would also delete 90% of athlete articles on Wikipedia.  It's time to get the notability guidelines in line with each other. Ridernyc (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree that guideline needs work too. Many of the victims at User:Lar/Liberal Semi are athletes who perhaps should not have articles. However WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for a keep. ++Lar: t/c 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't consider it case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, more a case of contradicting and ever changing guidelines, the notability guideline are in an almost constant state of flux trying to represent consensus, this consensus is mostly gathered from AFD debates. I predict just like good old WP:FICT once enough people notice articles being deleted the guideline will be contested and will once again swing in a more inclusionist direction. I try to make my AFD votes based on policies rather then the complex, ever changing, and contradictory notability guidelines. There is a reason WP:N is a guideline and not a policy, there is also a reason that it states this right at the top of the page "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception."  In this case my common sense tells me that a lead in major motion picture is clearly notable. Ridernyc (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet the notability guideline. —  Jake   Wartenberg  19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Enough sources cited to establish notability, hence keep. ddima.talk 01:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect. Fails notability as discussed above.  Deletion will likely lead to recreation by some stray fan.  Therefore, redirect on Transporter 3 and put a lock on it until such time as notability is actually achieved.Tyrenon (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with Merge to Transporter 3. The fact that this was put up a 3rd time to make a point (or for whatever reason) aside.  It's been refused deletion twice at AfD.  If an actress makes it to the top of her profession, and actually gets to "play in the game" as it were - that is notable.   Transporter 3 has made over 30 Million dollars, it's not a home made web-episode.  As far as the WP:ENT argument?  I see it as a case of the guideline failing the article rather than the article failing the guideline.  OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?  That essay?  Nicely written essay, but still a one sided essay.  OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fails in the sense that we strive for consistency across the 'pedia.  I also remember the phrase "preserve information" from our Editing policy.  Now, that said, I can't find enough information at this time to build much more than a start-class article.  C-class at best.  The WP:RS sources aren't the best, but they exist.  Better to merge with Transporter 3, preserve the information, (and redirect "Natalya Rudakova"),  then if Rudakova continues with her career it can be spun out at a later date. — Ched :  ?  04:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Decide for yourselves. Either ENTERTAINER trumps WP:N, then delete. Or, if general guideline prevails then keep. It's quite simple. Hundreds of sportspeople are routinely deleted regardless of references, so I presume the former is de-facto standard. Not that I like it (on the opposite), but that's the way it is. NVO (talk) 13:31, 7 June 2009 (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.