Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lika O

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Dismissing the opinions of editors appearing out of nowhere, I see a rejection of current sources being used and a consensus to delete. User:Demeter39G pay attention to the words of User:S0091 and if you nominate other articles for AFD discussions, try to avoid the problems that emerged in this one. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lika O

[edit]

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

Lika O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Requested by Demeter39G, Here: The article does not meet the notability criteria and merit. The 1 source is not a reliable source that verifies notability. It is a forum like site for local community, which serves as self published blog. http://ruhollywood.com/2018/11/12/miss-russian-united-states/

4 source is a self published interview on an ads website, not reliable secondary source at all. http://www.spektrummagazine.com/fashion/getting-to-know-lika-osipova/

6 source is an article on a gossips site about dating life of a Russian media person, barelly mentioning the figure of the Wikipedia. https://www.eg.ru/showbusiness/66399/

Sources 7 and 8 are different links to the same poster to the city of the city. It is rather a primary sourse not a secondary source to verify notability. https://www.weho.org/home/showdocument?id=26793

Source 9 - a link to the so called LAF.It is not a film festival, it is a monthly paid competition, not recognized in media or the professional community. The link only mentions name of the person, and does not provide any evidence to verify notability. https://www.lafilmawards.net/single-post/june-2021

To summarize- 6 out of 9 sources used for the page do not meet even closely any possible notability verifications. The figure has barely any professional credits, zero recognition in American or Russian media beyond a self proclaimed pop star status. GrabUp - Talk 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per @Cullen328 recommendation at Teahouse. I already voted by nominating this article. GrabUp - Talk 06:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Grabup, because you simply copy and pasted the other users rationale from the talk page, your own vote is probably okay here. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's fine. Cullen was explaining about both sorts of cases, the ones where it would be ok and the ones where it would be irritating. This is not the one where it would be irritating. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 01:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. GrabUp - Talk 17:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing found for sourcing, this seems to suggest she might not even be a celebrity [1]. This is all I could find, a photo [2]. I agree with the nom, sources used are not helpful in establishing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Medium article is just an amazing analysis and a major exposé. Maybe she also paid for this Wikipedia article? GrabUp - Talk 13:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article was developed on 23 October 2019‎, if you check the article history there were many anonymous edits without a reference which was been undo by many other Wikipedia editors to protect it.

As mentioned in the previous vote, the Medium article as analysed good, but there many Medium article which mentioned by the concern person works, I have also added one article of it. It seems that this article has been targeted by anonymous person.Moharavi (talk)

  • Comment: @Moharavi Medium.com can’t establish notability as per WP:MEDIUM and the other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable. Also, I don’t think this article is being targeted; rather, it seems you are just promoting her. GrabUp - Talk 16:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sir @GrabUp, If you know that Medium.com is not notable, then why have you mentioned "the Medium article as analysed good" I am humbly request a fare voting process, Please stay away, because your intention is not good. I totally accept if other person voted against it. Moharavi (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Moharavi, please assume good faith of GrabUp. Industrial Insect (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope so. Moharavi (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, I never said that Medium is reliable or can establish notability. You are misunderstanding me. I am simply thanking editor Oaktree B for bringing that article here and expressing appreciation for the Medium article’s author’s detailed analysis. Why do you think my intentions are not good? I have never done anything to you that would warrant such an accusation. GrabUp - Talk 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The source identified as Source 6 features an image of individuals with no description or coverage at a gathering and does not showcase notability. https://www.emmys.com/tags/lika-osipova The Medium article this user added also fails to establish notability, as Medium is a blogging platform, not a recognized magazine, and lacks references to credible media that provide analytical content. The observation that each source appears to be sponsored raises concerns about how the page was approved initially. Additionally, @Grabup, I have suspicions this editor has a connection to the page or was paid for it. Given the apparent use of paid editing services. Furthermore, a sponsored segment about a restaurant this editor added is irrelevant to establishing the individual's notability within this category.
    Furthermore, the article added about the dating life of a male reality TV persona, barely mentioning the person, and yet used by Moharavi as the source to establish notability looks like advertising. He added that article as a source to " In 2021, She began her singing career with her debut songLights, for which she won Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards." which is not even mentioned in the article upon closer inspection. 108.60.60.254 (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also verified the source you added from Vietnam. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency. Demeter39G (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Forgot to log in. It looks indeed as advertising to me, as I stumbled upon the wikipedia page from an ad. There are no significant edits made anonymously to the page if you verify the history. Rather some content removed by an experienced editor Kuru, as non-WP:RS : unmarked paid placement / SEO. It creates non good intentions, as you just tried to mislead the editors. Demeter39G (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, Now you are lying, saying that you never said my intentions were not good. By removing the original comment where you said, "Please stay away, because your intentions are not good," you think no one will find out? Why you are deleting your comments after they are replied? GrabUp - Talk 07:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup looks like this is the user who created this page in the first place, suspect was paid for it. What do you think? Is there a way wikipedia marks paid articles?
    • 05:51, 23 October 2019 diff hist  +3,594‎  N Lika O ‎ ←Created page with '{{short description|Russian actress}} {{Infobox person | image = | name = Lika Osipova | birth_name = | birth_date = 30 September | birth_place =...' thank
    Demeter39G (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G: I know that he created that article and left Wikipedia in September 2021. Suddenly, after more than two years, he came back when I nominated the article. Maybe he was paid. There's no need to do anything; surely the AfD will be closed as Delete. GrabUp - Talk 08:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Grabup I follow this interest wise to see how many more paid fake sources someone will add. Someone removed and added same video source you commented on already. I'm impressed to be honest, did not expect someone's so invested. Demeter39G (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This article Passes WP:GNG, because she was in the covered of the magazine Harper's Bazaar, interviewed in NBC Los Angeles, also other few recently added reference.Evgeny72 (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DELETE This is false information again. It was not covered by Harper Bazaar. See previous reply. HB -Vietnam is paid advertisement. It says on the cover powered by Sunflower Media- Canadian advertising agency. I am a afraid, I believe it cannot be considered a source to verify notability if it is indicated by the platform itself it was paid by the advertising agency.
    See GrabUp reply , the person was not interviewed by the NBC Los Angeles, it is a segment about a venue. GrabUp replied " other source that you added is a video that obviously can’t make her notable." Demeter39G (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G you are the nominator which serves as you !vote. You cannot !vote again. S0091 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, stop adding paid sources. It is self-advertising. The source you added- is not an reliable source. It is an advertising platform, with button with prices in the middle, and it has a paid staff note. "Lika O: The Star Charlie Walk Knew Would Shake the World from the Moment He Saw". thesource.com. Retrieved 2024-05-22. Demeter39G (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not delete the references, let other Wikipedia editors view and give their feedback like like you. If the other Wikipedia editors also consider same like you then it's fine, so give them to space to check it.Moharavi (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moharavi, You should read his explaination when he removed the link, he said “Same source added multiple times”, you cited the same link multiple times, that’s why he removed the dublicate link, he never removed both of them. The link was present there after his edit. GrabUp - Talk 17:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention none of them are helpful. For example, the Harper Bazaar article which is touted above is entirely was she says about herself and the local NBC piece is an interview. The Source contains blatant promo such as her infectious energy radiating through the crowd., she exudes an irresistible charisma that transcends the stage, Her music is as infectious as her personality, It’s a testament to her innate talent, her unwavering drive, and her ability to command a room with a mere glance and so on. S0091 (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did nor remove your reference. I removed the same link you added putting different name on it. You also just added the same paid source again. It says written on September 18, 2023 with a paid partnership with NextCo . It also has a big note that says quote "Advertising disclosure".
    1. "Lika O's "Grow" Takes the Spotlight: The Song Lighting Up Clubs Coast to Coast". laweekly.com. Retrieved 2024-05-25.
    Demeter39G (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources are interviews/based on what she says and/or unreliable with some being clear promotional puff pieces. S0091 (talk) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It does appear to meet WP:BASIC, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and more. Sambroanna (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated above, none of those sources meet independent RS. S0091 (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of the editors who have !voted, Moharavi is the creator so makes sense even though they have not edited since 2021. Evgeny72 has not edited in a year (May 2023 and look at their contributions) and Sambroanna has not edited in two years (May 2022). There is now also Ronyasppolice, a new editor whose only contributions is the recently created Draft:Md. (Muhammed) Nazmul Islam yet they have posted on note on the AfD's talk page stating the article should not be deleted. The other two are myself and GrabUp. Likewise, I am uncomfortable with the nominator, Demeter39G, who joined as WikiEd student back in 2020. After 2020, they made a couple COPYVIO edits to Who I Am Not in May 2023 so had to be revdel'd then nothing until this month in which they created a draft where they have a clear COI (renaming doesn't make one's previous contributions go away) and noming this article. Even though I agree with Demeter39G most of the sources are paid promo, it all stinks so scrutiny needs to be applied to all !votes. S0091 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the editors, I do not agree. I was spammed with the wiki page and made objective points, commenting on sources that are beyond questionable and do not meet any reliable source requirements. Does someone who does not edit Wiki articles on regular basis cannot make nomination of the article that stinks scrutiny? Articles edited are from the same industry, and similar contributions. Demeter39G (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors (new or otherwise) can comment or !vote but given the history of almost all the accounts who have participated so far, scrutiny is needed. S0091 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, GrubUp,and @Oaktree b, and agree with nomination. The rest- history is questionable, as you write. Demeter39G (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When watching a tv show on a free site, the youtube video of the individual forcefully appeared as ad 8 times or so. Found same old comments from other people complaining like me. Googled, found nothing, came here. Can I remove not notable awards and unrelated sources? last 2 sources are irrelevant, do not provide in depth coverage, just mentions. Demeter39G (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She meets WP:GNG with sufficient reliable sources. She has been featured in reputable media like Harper's Bazaar Vietnam and NBC Los Angeles and received the Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards. — AndrewPerrie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC). S0091 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @S0091 do you find this meaningful, rather than bots? Repetition of same sources previously discussed which you agreed are unreliable. Considering same associate was permanently banned from Wiki for creating paid article. Demeter39G (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are reliable sources as well. I think she is eligible. DominicJoshua (talk) 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC) — DominicJoshua (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. S0091 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are the reliable sources @DominicJoshua? I agree with the point it seems like baseless paid votes, unfortunately. Demeter39G (talk) 17:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Demeter39G please read WP:BLUDGEON. There is no need for you comment on every Keep !vote and doing so can be considered disruptive. You have stated your opinion; let it be unless you are specifically asked a question or mentioned. I will keep an eye out for any WP:SPAs and tag as appropriate as I did with this editor. S0091 (talk) 18:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifications. I never nominated anything and don't know. Demeter39G (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with S0091 about the history of the nominator, which is why I did not nominate this article myself after their comment on AfD Talk. However, when I looked into it more and found nothing but promotional content, I thought I should support them, which is why I nominated this article. Currently, I see that the AfD is being targeted by the subject's PR team or their associates to blindly keep the article. These newcomers are likely being paid for their votes, so I suggest the closing admin ignore them. GrabUp - Talk 02:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I do not think Evgeny72 is paid but they do have a COI and am willing to email an admin explaining why. S0091 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Past few hours the person who voted 'Delete' for the page has removed more references from the article. It seems like a target attack from the person who voted against the page. If the reference is not good for him, let other Wikipedia editors check it and then they decide if the article should stay or removed from Wikipedia. Removing more articles at the last day is not good for the person who nominated the page. So I have revert it and all Wikipedia editors check on it and let them decide it.Moharavi (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the person who created the page and added reference that do not meet Wiki requirements. See my comment above, it seems like a target promo to me. I came here from annoying ads and made the nomination finding nothing, surprised @Moharavi accusing rational comments of experienced editors to be " in bad faith". How is the source 11 about a congressman that barely mentions the person from the article, about a non-notable or recognizable event is related. - "Congressman Henry Waxman to Be Keynote Speaker at the 11th Annual Russian Style Festival's Community Awards Presentation". weho.org. Retrieved 2019-10-10. Demeter39G (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More than 20 Wikipedia has the reference from 'weho.org' and in the 12th source (which was deleted by you) was mentioned that the Former United States Representative Henry Waxman at the 11th Annual Russian Style Festival’s Community Awards Presentation, in this event Lika Osipova received 'The Role Model of the Year Award'. So please do not delete the reference, let all other Wikipedia editors view it and let them decide if the article stay or remove. Moharavi (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    'The Role Model of the Year Award' at the local Russian board. It is not a notable "award", and the source about a dating life of the American reality TV guy is not a source that verified notability, and picture too. Stop misleading people. Rules are the same for everyone. Special Jury Award at the Los Angeles Film Awards is not a real or notable award too, it barely mentions the individual among 100 others. There is no reliable sources covering that. As a comment to all the editors to check. Demeter39G (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect your comment, in your view it's not a good source, but in my view that source is good and it also used for more than 20 other Wikipedia article. If you delete the reference, then how come other Wikipedia editors can check both our views and decide it. As a comment to all the editors to not delete the references, let everyone view the references and let them decide it, if you delete the reference then it means you are forcing your views on them.Moharavi (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever, I see meaningful discussion is pointless. If the fact the Weho.org was used for different purposes in 20 different articles has no relation to this. Demeter39G (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This thread is a mess, but the sourcing in this article is even worse. Highly promotional, trivial mentions, etc. -- that AllHipHop article by "staff writer" screams pay-to-play. (Even if it's legit, the language is so over the top there's no way it can be treated as an independent source.) Further searching brings up nothing useful for GNG, NBIO or NMUSIC. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lika_O&oldid=1226029865"