Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanya Tuzova

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 keep. Sandstein 08:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Tuzova

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails WP:GNG and presume that this article has been written as WP:PROMO. Certain sections in the article have been written without citing any reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject fails the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - On the fence, but probably makes it by GNG. Also search for "Tatiana Tuzova". A lot of the coverage is not in English, and in sources I'm unfamiliar with, but there's quite a lot. My worry, based on the English sources I've found, is that the sources I'm not familiar with are tabloid-like/gossip-oriented like the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc. Certainly let me know if I'm off the mark here. e.g. esnoticia, memonews.it, starmag.com, alfa.it, PD America, mstar.com.my, cnnturk.com, ... but then also e.g. yahoo news, toronto sun, the mirror (not great, but not deprecated like its UK tabloid family)... One does get the sense, looking at some repeated quotes and pictures, that some of these are coming from the same agency, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the article is written poorly and definitely has a promotional tone with a lot of unsourced content, a Google News check turns up a Fox News article on her that looks to me like it qualifies her as notable. I am no fan of Fox News, but I believe that at least some of the time their content can be considered reliable and independent. My "Keep" vote is reluctant, but based on what look like suitable sources, she seems to me like she passes the GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 01:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find several articles, and I am pretty sure she qualifies for notability based on them.

Passes GNG in my view. I agree the page may have WP:POV problems, and maybe even WP:UNDUE; better to correct POV or undue problems than to delete the page. Ikjbagl (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sun and Mirror are not WP:RS. I am not sure about Toronto Sun. b uidhe 07:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've cleaned up the content and removed things that weren't verifiable, and added some additional citations. What's left is verifiable, I think passes GNG due to the media attention (whether I think the media attention is warranted or not is another thing... but isn't our place to discuss!) and is at least vaguely sensible and encyclopedic. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.