Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polli Cannabis


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 16:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Polli Cannabis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Authors believe this is ready for mainspace, it has been moved back to draft multiple times and has been declined. No indication she is notable. ~ GB fan 13:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that the opinion of the editors of Wikipedia is subjective that Polly is not a significant person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrush89 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To publish Polly Cannabis is an outstanding model of our time! Has more than 20 titles from participation in beauty contests. Nominated for a Guinness World Record! Participated in Miss Earth and Miss World!


 * To publish Good afternoon! Polly Cannabis is a model from Belarus, who participated in 20 international beauty contests. Among them are such large ones as Miss Earth and Miss Grand. It is well-known and popular in Belarus, therefore it has the right to publish. Thanks!(Olya Tovpenec) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.127.198.16 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Note:This user has made no other edits on Wikipedia.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete – this is basically a promotional piece, with no significant coverage in independent, secondary and reliable sources. The notability criteria for beauty pageant participants are pretty detailed. The closest that Cannabis comes to a claim to notability according to those criteria is the fact that she won the national pageants selecting the Belarussian participant in Miss Earth 2017 – but as pointed out in the criteria, there is no guarantee of notability, it is all down to the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources.   It doesn't help that there has been a lot of disruptive activity around the article, with at least two single-purpose accounts tag-teaming to create and recreate the article, bypassing create protection, tagging declined drafts for speedy deletion and immediately recreating them without the decline, and so on.  It is pretty obvious that this is paid spam, but even if it weren't, notability just isn't shown, or even credibly claimed. --bonadea contributions talk 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — hueman1 ( talk  •  contributions ) 16:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the posting of the article is hindered by the subjective attitude towards the heroine. Polly Cannabis deserves to be published on Wikipedia on an equal footing with other models! By deleting this article, the moderators show an intolerant attitude towards beauty contests and the fact that victories at them are less significant relative to other achievements, although this is also hard work! Gavrush89 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, being nominated for a Guinness World Record and participating in Miss Earth and Miss World confers zero notability. Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To publish If you follow the logic of those who prevent you from publishing an article about Polly Cannabis, then you need to delete all articles about models and participants in beauty contests.
 * To publish I believe that the article should be published, many articles have been published about Polly in various popular sources such as the Times, for example. And in my country only in the last month there were 101 mentions in the media. Polly was born in Belarus and, given the difficult situation in her country, the deletion of the article will bring down all the democratic principles of freedom of speech and democracy, nullify women's achievements and lower us to the level of attitudes towards women as in Afghanistan! DmitryH89 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — DmitryH89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * To publish I regard the refusal to publish this article as an abuse on the part of the moderators, who stubbornly do not want articles about outstanding women and their achievements to be posted on Wikipedia. Gavrush89 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC) — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - I agree with the reasons stated at above delete comments. Notability is not established.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  20:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * To publish If 20 nominations in beauty contests is not enough Polly's contribution, then almost all models who participated in beauty consultations and have articles on Wikipedia should have gone from Wikipedia. Editors' opinions are highly subjective and discriminate against women's achievements. The article must be published in the main space! — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 08:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:AFDEQ "Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely." Theroadislong (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Per WP:AFDEQ I'm sure editors are looking for any reason to remove an article. After all, deleting an article is easier than acknowledging Polly's accomplishments. The fact that fans decide to post an article does not mean at all that they are breaking a rule of the Wikipedia community! — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fans? The article's creator has claimed that the professional photos of Polli Cannabis uploaded to Commons are their own work.  --bonadea contributions talk 11:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Not only fans, but also not indifferent people who are not indifferent to the achievements of their compatriots! Tell me what the article you published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Enander better or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunilla_Wolde and more objective articles about Polly? Here, in my opinion, the abuse of power! Tell me, why don't you like people from Belarus and you so stubbornly oppose this country and its outstanding inhabitants?  — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

https://capelino.com/doll-polly-cannabis-was-photographed-for-lofficiel-newsletter/ https://m.famousfix.com/post/polli-cannabis-l-officiel-magazine-pictorial-latvia-march-2016-105248923 https://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2017/10/15/miss-earth-belarus-polli-cannabis-theft/ https://www.lionheartv.net/2017/10/miss-earth-belarus-2017-loses-smart-phone-philippines/?fb_comment_id=1578691338820428_1578703742152521 https://kickerdaily.com/posts/2017/10/miss-earth-candidate-experience-cellphone-snatching-in-manila/?fb_comment_id=1624849747537922_1625186680837562 https://filipinotimes.net/news/2017/10/23/miss-earth-candidate-receives-new-phone-pinoy-fan/ — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To publish That Polly is worthy of publication on many portals of the world. And this is not considered a reason for posting an article? Seriously? Links posted below:

Deleting an article is a mistake, why 20 international popular beauty pageants are not remarkable? Does Wikipedia devalue women's labor and discriminate against women? While Polly Cannabis in her interviews (read) stands for body positivity, peace, equality and women's rights. This is not fair. The article contains dates, names of international competitions and titles won. Enough references and facts.
 * To publish One of the few who represents the beautiful country of Belarus at the international level and wins, wins titles in well-known beauty contests. Polly is known in Belarus, Europe (proof of this by the victory of Miss Elite Europe in May 2021) and in the world as a woman model.

It cannot be deleted if the editors of Wikipedia do not recognize beauty contests, this does not mean that contests are not important, this is the same as not recognizing sports competitions and discriminating athletes and their achievements. Volha 1991 11:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC) — Volha 1991 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deleting an article is an error. Polly annually represents Belarus on the international arena, is engaged in charity work and supports women's rights. Articles about Polly are published not only in major Belarusian mass media, but also in foreign media. This proves that the sources are independent and reliable.
 * To publish

I do not agree that Polly Cannabis's article is an advertising article: nothing is sold or advertised in it. The article contains facts about education, about work activities, about achievements and awards. World beauty contests are an important criterion for media coverage. It seems that an important factor in deleting an article is a gender attribute. Are women not so important? And not so famous? And they don't deserve the right to publish? I want to believe that this is not the case in 2021. — Tovpenec15 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * No need to pretend that this is somehow connected to gender. Wikipedia contains a very large number of articles about beauty pageants and about contestants of different genders (or none).  There is an active Wikiproject which has presented a detailed set of guidelines for determining the notability of contests and participants; this is linked above. The case was made about it being somehow different from articles about athletes – in fact, the situation is parallel. Hundreds of proposed articles about athletes are declined or deleted because the athlete is not considered notable, and thousands of sports contests are utterly non-notable, which doesn't make the Olympic Games any less notable. Note also that "famous" is not a criterion for notability, and nobody has a "right" to a Wikipedia article.  --bonadea contributions talk 14:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please tell me what the article you published https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göran_Enander better or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunilla_Wolde and more objective articles about Polly? Here, in my opinion, the abuse of power! These people are completely unremarkable, there are no references or significant achievements, then why can they be published and Polly not? Why are you doing everything to infringe on the right to free publication of women from Belarus? Why are you so biased about women's achievements?  — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 17:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are articles about Polly from one reputable source:
 * KeepOne of the criteria for relevance is publication in authoritative sources.

https://people.onliner.by/2021/07/02/19-konkursov-krasoty https://people.onliner.by/2017/08/17/polli-cannabis https://people.onliner.by/2021/05/30/beloruska-priz-v-mezhdunarodnom-konkurse-krasoty

Now a little about the rating of this authoritative source in the global Internet space according to the portal similarweb.com https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by/ screenshots are shown

1. More than 40 million visits monthly

thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

2. This site is read in over 247 countries thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

3. Traffic

thumb | center | Screenshot from https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

4. Directions of publications

thumb | center | Screenshot from the site https://www.similarweb.com/ru/website/onliner.by

Hopefully this will be enough to confirm the significance of Polly Cannabis. — Gavrush89 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 19:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - obvious sockpuppetry is obvious. All accounts blocked. We should not entertain or gratify bad faith spamming like this by keeping this article. MER-C 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And whether the AfD ends in a consensus to delete or not, User:Tovpenec15/sandbox should be deleted. --bonadea contributions talk 17:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete, does not meet Wikipedia guidelines. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep  Even if the author of the article violated the rules, this does not mean that the person about whom the article was created has become less significant. At the moment, the moderators are judging very biased not only about the author but also about the hero of the article. AnuFree (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)  — AnuFree (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete: Article is abysmal to the point of even if she was notable it would need a major rewrite, given the articles history would delete per WP:TNT. Otherwise delete per WP:GNG fail, WP:PROMO violation, etc. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:16, 6 September 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.