Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lola Zunnunova (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus.

]

Lola Zunnunova

Lola Zunnunova (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)
The article does not meet
WP:GNG
. I examined all of the sources.
  • 1- An error occurred.
  • 2- Her own explanations, not an independent source.
  • 3- The page that gives very little information about her.
  • 4- An error occurred.
  • 5- A video placed in an unreliable website, irrelevant for notability.
  • 6- The same YT video with 5th source.
  • 7- A junk source.
  • 8- Her own explanations again, not independent.
  • 9- The same YT video with 5th source.
  • 10- A different YT video, does not contributes to her notability.
  • 11- A news content which contains 3 sentences about her new job.
  • 12- The book does not have Lola Zunnunova inside it.
  • 13- "404 Not Found".
  • 14- Another YT video, inadequate for notability.
  • 15- The same video with 14th link.
  • 16- Her own explanations again, not independent.
  • 17- An error occurred again with Daryo website.
  • 18- The same video with 14th link.
In the final analysis, the article is inappropriate for an online encyclopedia. A clear example for
WP:REFBOMB. Speedy delete. Kadı Message 20:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Hosting a non-notable TV show and winning a non-notable award won't make someone inherently notable, and is not a NACTOR pass. Per above analysis, also lacks reliable, independent, and most importantly, ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything new being provided. ]
@Arbitrarily0, courtesy ping. Kadı Message 21:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My previous relisting did not successfully place this page on the current log page, so this discussion did not receive any additional attention. My apologies. Thank you, Kadı, for the ping. Let's give this another week to attract comments. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed ref 4. Its a real dog and I can't get by it, so I don't think the reader will either, if the article is kept. scope_creepTalk 09:57, 3 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.