Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alesia Riabenkova

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. Michig (talk) 14:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alesia Riabenkova[edit]

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

Collection of gossips and non verified information from different fashion blogs. The only verified source is for her lawsuit against some fashion photographer. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The existing sources either don't actually discuss Riabenkova in significant detail, are just pictures of her, or are from tabloids. For context, this appears to be a puff-piece that has been repeatedly submitted as a draft by someone with an admitted PR relationship to the subject. This article appears to be a duplicate of the draft.

A WP:BEFORE search (Google News/Books, Highbeam) reveals nothing but tabloids (Daily Mail, New York Post, Inquisitr et al). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL or even WP:BLP1E. /wiae /tlk 14:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ ^(top/_bottom) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ ^(top/_bottom) 15:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only notable for one incident of alleged rape. Delete per WP:BLP1E. sst ✈ ^(top/_bottom) 15:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only real WP:RS is for the being the WP:VICTIM, repeatedly declined at AfC.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 16:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another example of a draft being moved to articlespace and there are simply not enough coverage sources to suggest solid notability and acceptability. I also mentioned that this needed further coverage to the author. SwisterTwister talk 18:53, 10 January 2016 (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.