Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olga Prokopova


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Olga Prokopova

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a biography of a businesswoman in Russia who, as far as I can tell, doesn't have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article has sources consist of: no mentions at all, brief single-paragraph coverage, primary source (interview), or trivial mentions. It's been deleted twice before as WP:G11 and WP:G12 (suggesting author COI), but the promotional and copyvio problems appear to have been corrected in the current version. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. Why do you doubt the importance of this woman? Very authoritative sources write about Olga Prokopova, she is in the circles of famous people and her person is no less famous. -- Marino Asler (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Do you know what "notable" means on Wikipedia? It doesn't mean "famous". See Notability and Notability (people). If "authoritative sources" have written about her, then why don't you include examples of significant coverage by independent reliable sources? The two you just added to the article give her only a trivial mention. That doesn't count toward notability, and neither do interviews. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Watch-That-Label|MEET OLGA PROKOPOVA – interview, Braccialini, Italian fashion magazines, authoritative Russian fashion magazines - these are authoritative sources, and judging by them you are mistaken about Notability of this persona Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC) — Marino Asler (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Did you even read my previous comment? Interviews are Primary sources and don't count toward notability. An interview is the subject talking about herself. A magazine being "authoritative" is irrelevant. We need significant coverage that is independent of the subject. An interview isn't independent, and the other sources you have offered don't provide any significant in-depth coverage of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage in secondary sources. Reference #6 appears to be about an entirley different person and makes no mention of Olga Prokopova. SamsaK (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Incorrectly designed source is reason for editing the article, and not for deletion. Many secondary sources, and in different languages. For example Buro24/7, Vogue and other Marino Asler (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that an article 10 lines in lengths constitutes as significant coverage. SamsaK (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was created so that everyone could contribute to the development of the article. If you value the length of the article, then why do you consider your articles to be more significant? Your statements are too one-sided. You do not think about people who live in the fashion world, just like these people may not be interested in the Kafka museum Marino Asler (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * SamsaK was referring to the short length of the source, not the length of the Wikipedia article. And that's the trouble. No in-depth significant coverage of this person. As explained above, repeatedly. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many sources, in different languages.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why haven't you provided any examples of such sources? You haven't yet. Nothing with significant coverage of the person. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The career section reads like an infomercial, subject fails to meet the simplest of WP:GNG standards for notability.  Cllgbksr (talk) 06:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Authoritative sources say the opposite.Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "authoritative sources" don't actually say anything at all. All you have provided are interviews or trivial mentions. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD A7 Non-notable person because it fail WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:36D5:5690:A93D:AC0D:17F8:1EE0 (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you make such a statement, then prove it. There are no advertising links in the article. The brand Volha Jewelry is known all over the world. Olga Prokopova is the founder of the brand, and a very famous and notability person in the fashion world. Many authoritative publications have written about she. Valery Demure - Valerie de Moore from London, known on the international scene as a representative of the jewelry brands of the best in the fashion segment. This review Braccialini Here's what the Italian brands write Many authoritative magazines in Russia also write about Olga. There are many people who are interested in fashion, and for which Olga Prokopova is a notability person. Marino Asler (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please understand that of those three sources you linked, two are interviews and one is a trivial mention. Interviews are Primary sources and don't qualify as coverage by an independent source, because an interview simply records the subject talking about herself. Please see Golden Rule. We need significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. I understand what you're talking about. I also say that there are many authoritative sources, in different languages. Here is a list of authoritative printed journals, with pages. Another thing the article needs to be improved. But this is not the reason to delete it. Here a very famous journalist Evelina Khromtchenko writes about Olga Prokopova.Marino Asler (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And I must ask, again, where is the significant coverage? Yes, that list of authoritative publications are good sources, but we need to see more than one of these sources that has given more than trivial mention to Olga Prokopova. The "very famous journalist" you linked merely wrote a paragraph about a piece of jewelry. The article has just one sentence about Olga Prokopova herself. That isn't what we call significant coverage. It's a trivial mention. We have a guideline about notability, being notability is not inherited. In Wikipedia's terms, it is common for a person's work to be notable while the person is not. A notable wine label can have a non-notable winemaker. A notable music composition can have a non-notable composer. A notable piece of jewelry can have a non-notable designer. A notable book can have a non-notable author. Again, where is the significant coverage? Being well known doesn't equal being notable by Wikipedia's definition. We need significant coverage in multiple independent sources &mdash; coverage about her not about her works or her business. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you not consider print publications? In my strange, that Olga Prokopova is not yet in Wikipedia. She is the owner of a well-known brand, a famous jeweler, an enviable bride, engaged in charity, published in well-known magazines, gave interviews on television, her decorations were recognized by the most famous brands of fashion Marino Asler (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with print publications. The problem is the meaning of Notability and in particular Significant coverage and Primary sources. The coverage of Olga Prokopova does not constitute significant coverage, and therefore she is not notable in a Wikipedia context. Interviews count as primary sources, not independent coverage. And numerous mentions in many publications don't count either. There just doesn't seem to be any in-depth information written about this person. There are mentions, interviews, and write-ups about her products, but not about her. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2017 (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.