Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polina Such


 * 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Polina Such

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person with an article very much like a resume. No reliable sources are provided, and I couldn't find any myself (in English or in Russian). A recent BLP violation nightmare was successfully overcome; now it's time to judge the actual content. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Notability not established per WP:ENT. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, I'm not seeing evidence of notability either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per nom, I don't see any evidence of notability either. Eduemoni↑talk↓  22:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I ran my search for Полина Сухинина, numerous hits but nothing counting to GNG. The issue of protracted BLP vandalism aside, I'm not seeing this as an inclusion-worthy subject. Carrite (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The refs are almost entirely to youtube videos. The out-of-policy inline links are to "sources" that can barely be called sources, at all. As an aside, after looking through the POV stuff, I conclude that not only is this an article crying out for deletion in its own right, it's also a weirdly powerful magnet for bad wiki-behavior. That's not exactly a reason for deletion. I guess it's more akin to a fortuitous collateral by-product. David in DC (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seemed to be one vandal who produced the BLP violations, the persistence of which suggests a personal vendetta. The business could have been shut down early had one of the intervening editors taken but a moment to report them. But yes, that aside the subject doesn't seem notable. Since deletion appears likely, perhaps watchlisting this is necessary in case it's recreated. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 99, my apologies for not getting to it in a timely fashion. Maybe you should just run for admin. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies not necessary--you're invaluable here, and the only thing I'd run for is the train, though at this point I'm pretty much limited to a short brisk trot. Of course I was referring to the lengthy and appalling edit history, and am happy that this was dispatched the same day I reported it. Thanks again. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete promotional article without reliable sourcing.   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did a little research on this one. Clueless twerps with pseudonyms discussed this on WWW discussion fora well before the existence of this article.  (It's not hard to turn up one such discussion dated 2010, for example.)  This is in no way to suggest that the assertions, and the absolutely ludicrous way that they were sourced, are validly supported by said clueless twerps.  (The clueless twerps used the same "sourcing" methods; they aren't identifiable; and their reputations for fact checking and accuracy are evidently, from this alone, atrocious and incompetent.)  But rather it is to point out that the other clueless twerps with pseudonyms who then came to Wikipedia to repeat the same, a year and a bit later, probably didn't do so as a personal vendetta, as 99.136.252.89 hypothesizes.  They were simply uncritical of received knowledge and obsessed.  (We've all seen obsessives edit war for years, ne?) That said, my searches for proper independent biographical sources turned up nothing from which a proper, reliable, thorough, neutral, and accurate encyclopaedia biography can be validly constructed.  David in DC is right about the flimsiness of the sources given in the article.  (Although the external hyperlinks are probably intended as mere hyperlinks, not sources, note.)  The content is in several cases an extrapolation from the sources, which don't actually say what the article does.  And in other cases the sources are not independent of the subject. For the record, I have my suspicions that Image:Brownhat.jpg and Image:Brownhat-with-flower2.jpg are not the own work they are claimed to be.  I haven't located the originals from which these have been fairly obviously extracted and modified, however. Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing your research, Uncle G; Not that motive matters very much at the end of the day, but I'd be pleased if my takeaway re: a personal angle is incorrect. 99.136.252.89 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete — I agree this subject fails WP:BASIC due to WP:RS and substantial coverage. She also fails other criteria to the point that none could be seriously considered as applying to this person and her achievements. JFHJr (㊟) 23:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing the requirements for multiple, independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage. Also, the youtube videos are copyvios and need to be removed from the article as a violation of policy, but the page is locked. DreamGuy (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2013 (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.