Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lera Loeb

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Sandstein 15:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lera Loeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No consensus on whether

WP:GNG and the discussion at DRV this person isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. SportingFlyer T·C 10:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There is an old flash video in Time, Weekly Acoustic News, [1] espousing her views about being a mail-order bride. I know, it is the basest article in Wikipedia, but it is notable. scope_creepTalk 12:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mail-order brides are a dime a dozen (or at least more common than a lot of people are aware of). However this was a unique high profile person who then very publicly revealed to be a mail order bride and they received in-depth coverage and analysis of this unique person which is why I created the article. Besides the Glamour piece already linked in the article, the Sunday Telegraph one supplied by Cunard is also solid and does satisfy our guidelines. This is one of the most scrutinized biographies I’ve come across on WP in a long time. Oakshade (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2019 (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.