Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatyana Kozhevnikova


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tatyana Kozhevnikova

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Misleading claim to gusiness world record (debunked here). No apparent overage outside titilating coverage in tabloid magazines (of various flavours) and a huffington post article debunking them. No native-language article to mine references from. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Neither source is reliable as both repeat the Guiness falsehood and the second source publishes accurate information only sporadically, placing a higher priority on cheap sensationalism. The claim to notability is a hoax.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Found a few references, wondering if Wikipedia has a notability guide for freak skills. Not the kind of thing I'd like to see in Wikipedia but probably meets WP:GNG, unfortunately. About the references: agree they're shaky; I wonder how Guinness, if it ever set up vaginal weightlifting as a category, could check such a thing? A prelifting exam? While the Guinness claim is most likely dubious, out-hoaxed by Ron Dicker, it is the kind of thing that Guinness is likely to cover in future; it is a Guinnessable area. While it is a freak-show circus-act type of thing, it relates to a broader subject, namely, kegel exercises => stronger vaginal walls => possibly greater sexual pleasure, so it is bound to be in the (tabloid) media.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep.See http://rekordy-ginnesa.ru/lyudi/samoe-silnoe-v-mire-vlagalishhe.htmlКот на крыше (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No matter what that reference says (and I'll admit to not speaking Russian), eight lines of text is not in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll lose no sleep if this article is deleted, nor dicker or bargain about the Dicker contention in the Huffington Post, or probe into the extent of the depth coverage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment A note left on my talk page said that she holds Guinness record 58300381. I visited the Guinness World Record website, and searched with that number, then with her name and then with the word "vagina". All three of my searches came up empty, so I can only conclude that there is no such Guinness World Record. So, we have several sources repeating what seems to be a falsehood. How can those be called reliable sources? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I heartily expect reliable publications such as The Sun, whose reputation ranks right up there with The Enquirer and Fox News for veracity and accuracy, to confirm these claims directly by hiring a reputable pollster, preferably an adult male of jockey-weight or less (31 pounds), to verify whether liftoff could be achieved and suspension achieved, with cameras going, as well as hiring a board-certified gynecologist to ensure there were no bodily abnormalities causing an unfair advantage.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we might have the makings of a Saturday Night Live sketch here... Carrite (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see the coverage in reliable sources necessary to meet GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  15:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the Guinness Book of World Records. BLP-1E is the formal rationale for deletion. Carrite (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete 100% agree with Carrite.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2014 (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.