Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetyana Ramus

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. Clear consensus that the subject passes GNG. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Tetyana Ramus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Tetyana Ramus (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)

First, it's an advertisement; second, the woman does not satisfy any criteria of WP:BIO.

In fact she is not a professional actress, artist or journalist, she is rather a socialite. To be more precise, she is a wife of a very wealthy businessman, and just participates in many activities using his money. I do not believe we have a criteria for such cases, they are probably almost always deleted (and should be). Wikisaurus (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Be careful about how you phrase a nomination. Wikipedia is already known for being hostile to women's topics. And what is wrong with a woman being a socialite and doing things with her husband's or father's money. For generations many civic and charitable institutions have been created and supported by individual women or groups of women who fall into the category socialite. For example Isabella Stewart Gardner. What matters is has the woman become well-known as supported by reliable, independent sources who treat her accomplishments in depth. Just getting interviewed everywhere isn't enough. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: Article needs some minor cleanup. YouTube links should be done away with. Other than that, article has a lot of sources about her. Therefore, it's more than good enough to pass WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not looking for an argument or debate here. I'll still stand for my vote no matter what. _SUPER ^ASTIG 01:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Keep this looks like a cleanup job not a deletion. Also I take issue with this "she is a wife of a very wealthy businessman, and just participates in many activities using his money. I do not believe we have a criteria for such cases, they are probably almost always deleted (and should be)". Frankly , it would not matter even if she did just use her husband's money. It would not matter if she robbed children's hospitals to finance herself. Articles are deleted over issues like notability and references, not personal assessments of merit. I have no respect for a great many people on Wikipedia and I think they should have pages. Honestly, there are serial killers and rapists who have surely contributed less to society who have pages. I might be willing to change my vote but I would need a better rationale for deletion than "I just don't feel that socialites are notable". IphisOfCrete (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep It seems like there is enough here to meet GNG in sourcing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:27, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject of this article meets GNG criteria for notability by way of article sources. The article needs to be cleaned up and trimmed, but that is not a reason for deletion. Netherzone (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep Definitely needs cleaning up but clearly meets WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, Although the article needs to be worked on but can stay as an article. Alex-h (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2020 (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.