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 per WP:BLP1E. The arguments focusing on BLP1E were convincing, as the article subject seems to meet the 3 criteria given in policy. BLP1E is part of a foundational policy, and explicitly trumps the general notability guidelines: "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." I anticipate that this close will be controversial, and I'm comfortable with having it reviewed. But as some of the commentators below argue, this is exactly the sort of edge case which WP:BLP1E is designed to address. MastCell ^Talk 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Lukyanova

[edit]

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

The article fails to address the WP:BIO criteria. Being blond and a self proclaimed statement of notability that you look like Barbie is not sufficient even if sourced. Fæ (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She has become quite the internet sensation:[1][2][3][4][5] and many more hits. Going purely by coverage she might pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to say that this is really encyclopedic content - is she a participant in a news event? a celebrity? an internet meme? someone who'll be entirely forgotten next week? --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can write for the Huffington Post and the Daily Mail is not the best source when it comes to a slow news day and a big busted blond is demanding free publicity. Recentism should be carefully considered but if someone can pick out some quality reliable sources then this may well be a suitable article based on the level of verifiable international interest. --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately I think that this cute butchered face has made enough of a sensation to have an article in Wikipedia: Forbes, and if Forbes starts to talk about it, I think other top-notch papers will mention her, it's only a matter of days now .... Rubyface, d, 9 may 2012 17:56 —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- OMG, the main photo in the Forbes article looks like she's a 2nd Life avatar than has been photoshopped in. I agree, Forbes is a quality source, we just need to struggle over interpreting 'recentism'. --Fæ (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 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) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; thus the topic passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC:

ABC News: "The Real-Life Ukrainian Barbie Doll."
News.com.au (Website for multiple Australian newspapers): "Real-life Barbie doll Valeria Lukyanova has become and internet sensation."
New York Daily News: "'Real-life Barbie' heats up the Internet - but is she a hoax?"
Huffington Post: "Valeria Lukyanova Is A Real-Life Barbie Doll."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also: Soldak, Katya (May 6, 2012). "Deconstructing a Ukrainian Barbie". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved May 16, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NA1000's sources are compelling. Clears the General Notability Guideline as the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage in published so-called "Reliable Sources." Whether we think being a blonde human homage to a sexist doll is a worthy achievement is pretty much irrelevant here, an example of IDONTLIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Typical knee-jerk inclusionism that completely ignores WP:BLP1E. This women is an otherwise non-notable, non-public individual who is being gossiped about for a single issue, her unusual appearance. Many, many articles of this nature ("woman who walks into mall pool while texting", "man fired for drunken airplane rant") that had a hell of a lot more coverage than this person have been deleted in the past. A ballsy closer would discard the invalid !votes that do not address 1E policy and toss this article out on its ear. We'll see. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much bluster which neatly avoids the fact that this is a public figure, a working fashion model. See, for example: [6]. So no, she's not famous for "one event," although she certainly has recently received traction for working the Lukyanova=Barbie angle. Ultimately this is a question of sourcing, not personal opinions of worthiness of models in general, this model in particular, or what Wikipedia's BLP policy should be rather than what its notability policy actually is. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see sources at the bottom, and I think it qualifies the GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tarc, minus the snarc, has a point. I'm not seeing any coverage aside from a recent flurry, so it seems to be a true BLP1E. I often disagree with BLP1E arguments, but it seems to fit here. Plus, this girl is freaky, people! Holy schnikes! We don't live in Second Life!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I reserved comment on this to think for a while. This person's appearance isn't an "event". Nevertheless, I think our one event policies apply. If a person modifies their appearance in such a way as to draw attention, does that make them notable? Or, is the look notable? Valeria is not the only person to attempt to be a human barbie. In fact, there's LOTS of them [7]. Yes, there are references on the article. But, the references...every one of them...are titled regarding her manufactured look. The only reason she is famous is for the look. Otherwise, she's just another model among millions of models in the world. At what point do we draw the line in the sand? I think the line is; is the person notable for anything other than their manufactured appearance? If you want another case to consider, consider this case; a woman who describes herself as "vampire woman". Is she famous for anything other than her manufactured look? No, she's not. This look isn't unique either. Since this particular look is one many people have attempted, I would consider merging this, Sarah Burge and any other human barbie attempts to List of human Barbie imitators, or something similar. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 22 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.