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. Sandstein 10:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yulia Okropiridze[edit]

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

Completing nomination for IP editor 195.211.175.194, who posted the rationale below on the article's talk page. My read is that the nominator asserts that the subject is non notable, and that what notability exists is local. I note further that the sources do not appear to be reliable, at first glance - the one that might be, the interview, is a deadlink. Overall, on the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So very little known anywhere, including Ukraine itself! Never won anything important. An article seems to be a love gift or so from one of the boys that likes her, it looks like! Unimportant tournaments, nothing was won (except for the very local beauty contest...). Just plain nonsensical to leave it on Wikipedia, pretty NOONE in Europe is aware of Yulia’s existence and/or victories. A local celebrity for her own provincial city in Ukraine only... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.211.175.194 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 14. Snotbot t • c » 19:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 16 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:27, 21 November 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, →B music ian 04:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet the WP:GNG for Ukrainian ballroom dancers. Qworty (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a few things here concern me. First is the borderline-abusive IP comment; second is the Qworty post. (there IS no GNG for Ukrainian ballroom dancers...) Anyway, she was featured in Eurovision's Dance contest, which could bring notability - especially as she and her partner finished runner-up. Getting a bronze medal in the national ballroom championship may also bring some notability - however, this one is not referenced, so for this to be valid, a reference would need to be found. The second reference in the article is a dead link. If someone can find a reference for her getting the bronze in the national ballroom championship, I would vote keep, based on this medal in a national championship, and the 2nd place in Eurovision. At the moment, I'll vote a weak keep. The article needs a thorough re-write, but it is rescuable - I would do it myself if someone can find Ukrainian sources on this bronze medal. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment - the IP nominator has never edited anywhere else other than this article as well; as I kind of suspected. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response': The notability guideline evaluations for this article should be thus: WP:ARTIST then WP:GNG. Does not appear to pass the artist line. There is questionable notability that may pass GNG, but without any cited facts, we can't prove it. Hasteur (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article consists of zero cited facts, weasal word phrases, and tenous 3rd party grabs for notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 5 December 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.