Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lera Loeb

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

[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)

No consensus on whether WP:A7 applied over at deletion review, but per 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]

Delete – article subject does not meet the WP:BASIC criteria. The Glamour article is written by the article subject, so not independent. I'm not seeing any WP:SIGCOV sources out there. – Levivich 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cunard below. The 2009 Sunday Telegraph article is a solid GNG source, and the 2016 book isn't super in-depth but it's in-depth enough IMO. Meets BASIC criteria. – Levivich 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible. Two articles get written on a woman about how she's a mail-order bride and that's enough for Wikipedia notability. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure she's kicked a soccer ball at some point in her life. – Levivich 05:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Dominus, Susan (2009-07-26). "This woman is a hip fashion blogger and publicist for her husband's art gallery in New York. She is also a mail-order bride, from Ukraine, who met her spouse on an international marriage brokerage site". The Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved 2019-11-18.
  The 2,036-word article notes:
2. Zug, Marcia A. (2016). Buying a Bride: An Engaging History of Mail-Order Matches. New York: New York University Press. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-8147-7181-5. Retrieved 2019-11-18.
  The article notes:
3. Elle magazine: The Sunday Telegraph notes Lera Loeb's "blog, fashionaddictdiary.com, won accolades from Elle magazine".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lera Loeb to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if arguendo WP:GNG is satisfied, isn't that a WP:BLP1E for being a mail order bride? SportingFlyer T·C 05:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources discuss Lera Loeb's life after her mail-order marriage and do not discuss only the specific event of her mail-order marriage so I don't consider this a WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 00:47, 24 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_creep^Talk 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.