Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Lisina

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) 23:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Lisina

[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)

Very dubious tabloid sources, some of them circular (e.g. the 'Tranding' article is just reporting on the New York Post's story). There are more sources covering her death online: all the ones I saw were similarly tabloidy/Daily Maily, but there might be some reliable ones;

WP:BLP1E, however, suggests that we shouldn't have an article about someone when the only coverage about them is about their death. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nomination reasoning. — Mainly 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, per nom - just removed Daily Mail and The Sun for example - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails both
WP:ENT with a lack of coverage by reliable sources. Sources covering the subject are of low quality. Nominator's assessment is correct. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Agree with nominators reasoning.
GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2021 (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.