Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenia Svarovski

Ksenia Svarovski

[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)

She isn't notable. She founded an online university of sorts for internet marketing. I searched in Russian too, and I don't see sources giving GNG. Mvqr (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mvqr! I have given enough sources about this person in my article. These are very respected international journals, such as Marie Claire, Cosmopolitan. Also, very famous Russian newspapers and magazines write about her, such as Komsomolskaya Pravda, Paparazzi, METRO, Argumenty i Fakty, Argumenty Nedeli, Izvestia and many others. There are 27 sources in total. I am very surprised. Sincerely,Олег Черкасский (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. We can see secondary sources: articles about the person are repeated by other magazines and online publications.Олег Черкасский (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These sources are here to just refbomb: constantly repeating what she says. Not enough to pass GNG. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 19:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked all the sources for sure? There are sources that repeat because it's interesting, but there are also many unique sources. I just found another one, for example: "I am a biologist": new professions that have appeared thanks to social networks This is an absolutely unique text!Олег Черкасский (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep, a notable topic with a myriad of reliable sources to show both context and notabilityОлег Черкасский (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save this article. I will correct my mistake.Олег Черкасский (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I corrected the mistakes in the text, made the correct links to authoritative sources and added a text about the character's activities. Олег Черкасский (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete WP:REFBOMBing of self-written posts and at least one of the other articles (Metro News) was published through the paid partnership program. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's clear that the criteria for notability have not been met. There's nothing we can say on Wikipedia that isn't simply a repetition of her own words. Akakievich (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you confirm your words with quotes? If not, then these are fake words.Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I'm not sure what sort of quotes you want me to provide. Can you clarify? All the best, Akakievich (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The phrase "simply a repetition of her own words" confuses me. Any interview is a repetition of words, isn't it? If famous magazines consider this person worthy of publishing her words, I think we should listen to the opinion of experts. I prefer to write about living people, because if I make a mistake, they can read the article and point out the inaccuracy. I won't be upset if the article is deleted or moved to drafts. It's just a hobby for me. Sincerely Олег Черкасский (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]