Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliia Roza

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aliia Roza

Aliia Roza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

non notable "spy" turned celebrity - the sources are all tantamount to gossip rags, from TMZ to NYP and Ladbible, which while not deprecated are nothing more than gossip outlets and clickbait sites. There is no meaningful in depth coverage of Roza. PRAXIDICAE🌈 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - there appears to be insufficient support for
  WP:BASIC or other notability guidelines. In the article, a source described as "AP News" is published by the AP but marked "PRESS RELEASE: Paid content from Prodigy News", and my online search finds tabloid coverage, press releases, churned press releases, social media, a few red carpet Getty images, and a YouTube video stating "Aliia Roza was awarded as a Women Empowerment Influencer by World Bloggers and Influencers Awards second time in Cannes during 75th Film Festival 2022." Beccaynr (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Whilst there is some coverage, I'm not seeing enough independant coverage to warrant a pass of
  WP:TOOSOON for an uncoming book to have any impact on notability. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The coverage seems to have emerged after her comments on Ukraine-Russia war. I agree that
  WP:TOOSOON may apply. Orientls (talk) 04:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete As other users have noted, the article's sources are of dubious nature. Furthermore, I believe
  WP:SOAPBOX applies as the article reads too much like a promotional piece. 2DKomplex (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2022 (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.