Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenija Lukich

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ksenija Lukich

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

Not notable television presenter. Fails WP:ENT with no multiple significant roles. Some trivial coverage in sources, but not enough weight to warrant an article. Would support redirect to E! (Australia) in regards to her sole role. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG. The coverage is not trivial at all - there are several articles entirely about her. ("Significant" in the GNG does not mean coverage about "important" matters - it refers to the depth of the coverage rather than the content. So it is important not to confuse "trivial" in the notability sense - i.e. passing mentions - with "trivial" in the sense of "frivolous".) StAnselm (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- How does this person easily pass GNG? Of the 4 sources, two relate to the fact a woman got married, and the other 2 about winning a contest for a job. She is not known beyond one role, meaning it may qualify as WP:BIO1E. This bio article is essentially WP:PSEUDO. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - one role is not the same as one event. Plenty of people are notable only for one role. St Anselm (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True, but as BIO1E says, it doesn't mean the person is notable enough to warrant an article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per sources on Google News, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep There is lot more independant secondary guff out there than referenced in the article, so NEXISTS applies. But it does show signs of being a very little bit famous for being a very little bit famous. If not kept then probably a definite upmerge with a redirect to a Presenters section in E! (Australia), which should be there anyway? Aoziwe (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aoziwe: E! Australia only has one presenter - she is it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If she is the only presenter then the E! Australia article without her is pretty lame! So there should be something in that about her surely; without the article is weak. Which would make most of her article redundant so perhaps I am now leaning more to a definite upmerge and redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 11:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching through Bing and Google news brings up quite a bit of news coverage over the last two years or so. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 25 January 2017 (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.