- 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. Nomination withdrawn; consensus is there are enough sources out there to fix the BLP problem by normal editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Julia Lemigova
- Julia Lemigova ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am concerned about the ability of this article to meet WP:BLP. The sources present in the article are mostly tabloids or controversial works including the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and a search for sources brings back similar hits. I would suggest some of the claims in the "Private life" section do not meet WP:BLPSOURCES and should be removed. That leaves us with the reliably sourced claim of being married to Martina Navratilova, which is fine for a redirect / merge. I did this, and was reverted with a summary of "don't delete articles". Well, BLP says we sometimes have to, so here's a discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 22. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 13:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Cleanup, remove tabloids, OK, but a source like this is completely about her and only mentions Navratilova in passing. [1] this may help as well. She is notable for things apart from her marriage to Navratilova (the beauty pageant, the Edouard Stern affair, her own business) and while not the most notable person, I think she passes GNG by a fair margin. Fram ( talk) 15:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- I thought
Le Parisien was a tabloid, favouring pictures over content, but I'm happy to stand corrected on that.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
07:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- "Le Parisien" is intended to be relatively low-brow and has more pictures than, say, The Times, but it is not a "tabloid" in the sense of a sensationalist, gossip-riddled paper. According to the French Wikipedia article, "Le journaliste Edwy Plenel juge que Le Parisien relève « d’une presse populaire plus exigeante qui n’exclut ni la rigueur ni le sérieux »35. Pour Gloria Awad, Le Parisien adopte plutôt une approche « rigoureusement factuelle, jusqu'à l'élémentaire »36." So independent opinions proclaim that the newspaper is rigorously factual and serious (in its approach to the news), which makes it in general perfectly acceptable as a RS for us (individual articles may of course always present problems). Fram ( talk) 08:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- I thought
Le Parisien was a tabloid, favouring pictures over content, but I'm happy to stand corrected on that.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
07:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability demonstrated. Good sources exist. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Good sources exist If they exist, add them to the article - they won't add themselves you know! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability demonstrated. Needs work, though, per WP:HEY. Montanabw (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Winning the Soviet Union's foremost national level beauty pageant seems to be at the upper end of the pageant winner nobility scale.- Kiwipat ( talk) 01:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- 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.