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. JohnCD (talk) 07:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masha Novoselova[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for more than a year, with no improvement. INeverCry 03:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, for the time being I do not see sufficient notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Striking out, she might be marginally notable, and some sources have been added.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I'm not usually interested in current models, the NY mag link on the profile looks like a good source with a lot of reasons for her notability. She's been seen around quite a lot too, including a couple of high profile covers 2, and I keep seeing the phrase "top model russe" and variations thereof in the Google news hits, suggesting that even if she doesn't have a lot of English language sources on her, she is rated quite highly elsewhere. The article itself is awful and needs revising, but as I don't read Russian or other foreign languages I'm not sure I would be able to do so. But it does seem to me that Masha Novoselova has notability in herself - she does seem to have a successful career over several years and a significant portfolio of work, so it's not like she is someone who's only just popped up... Mabalu (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She's a notable international model. As for the nom -- "Tagged for notability for more than a year, with no improvement." - What? AfD is not for cleanup. Tagged for notability doesn't not mean actually not notable, some basic searching shows she is notable. We have articles on notable subjects that haven't been improved in well over 5 years, but they are still notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very poorly phrased nomination, this is not the article improvement workshop. Internet footprint seems sufficient to support a GNG claim. I guess that's a poorly phrased and weak response to a poorly phrased nomination, now that I think about it. Carrite (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've looked at the sources in the article and on Gnews. There seems to be plenty of non-English media coverage of her and some of the hits do at first glance look like supersources. However, I can't be sure since I don't read any of those languages therefore a "weak keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 23 May 2012 (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.