Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (2nd nomination)

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. Tone 22:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova

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

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

Article is self-created and self-promotional; no notability. Being covered for 2 days in media as a meme and starring in low-budget softcore porn is not enough to warrant an article. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with people who voted "keep" during the first AfD, less than two months ago. She got non-trivial coverage in a large number of independent third-party sources (currently cited on the page, I removed only one of them after checking). For example, The Cut ([1] and [2]), The Times, Teen Vogue and Vice. The coverage is not just about the Infowars interview, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Therefore, I think she easily passes WP:GNG. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. easily passes WP:GNG, already survived an AfD by a significant margin. this is the 2nd nomination from the same user (1st nomination was just last month), who appears to have a personal gripe with the subject. Nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption. Pinchofhope (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article subject is not notable and I agree that the article seems self-promotional Kokpep (talk) 06:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pinchofhope. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources in the article to pass WP:GNG—sources which also discuss the subject in terms of her career as an actress. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article absolutely needs to be cleaned up, but as it stands it clearly demonstrates notability even if you just look at the sources in the article. Self promotion doesn't override the WP:GNG. Michepman (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2020 (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.