Talk:Kristina Pimenova

Consideration for re-inclusion

I submit that the topic has gained sufficient notability to consider the inclusion of an article again. In addition to a record-high social media following, we have now:

• a television documentary dedicated to the topic on RTL Germany (30 October 2016) [1]
• an extensive interview with the topic in Posh Kids Magazine (27 november 2016) [2]
• the casting of the topic for an upcoming film (also starring Corbin Bernsen and Oksana Orlan) [3]

Note further that the article was already lagging behind more than a year and missed (if I recall):

• an editorial about the topic in Vogue Italia [4]
• a supporting role for the topic in Creators: The Past
• a US work visa for the topic as extraordinary artist (the youngest ever to obtain one) [5]
• a computer game dedicated to the topic [6]
• appearances by the topic on Russian (Disney Channel) and Japanese tv
• a good number of publications about the topic in various languages that can be found in the Russian and Portuguese versions of Wikipedia

(better and more sources are probably available) Lyrda (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Moved the page from draft space to main space since all the work has long been done and we can't wait forever. The article for creation process is failing. Lyrda (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

None of that looks significant. You should improve the page, so it does not reads as an advertisement. As about your another page, I think one should wait until the movie will be released. My very best wishes (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

They seem significant to me. And improving pages is a task for all of us. Btw, you removed your question about missing links to other languages. They may be missing because some of these pages add Ruslanovna as a middle name. That is incorrect though. In certain records, 'daughter of' (father's first name, in this case Ruslan) is added to a girl's name, but it's not part of her name. Lyrda (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I can't comment a lot, but speaking about her O visa, for example (your ref), keep in mind that (a) the source is actually an advertisement of a law firm (not a good WP:RS), and (b) that kind of "extraordinary ability" visa does not mean much. I knew a rather ordinary guy who get such visa just because he could not get a permanent job in the US (unlike other permanent visas or ways of receiving "green card", it does not require someone to have a permanent job). But I am not the one who removes your content. Good luck, My very best wishes (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks like I need it. Hopefully some civil, less destructive editors will show up soon. Lyrda (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I see your struggle with linking. Here is the proper way to do it. The subject of the page suppose to have her personal website (now Facebook serves as her site, so having that link is OK). Her website can then be included in infobox "person" on the top of the page. All further links (to Instagram, whatever) should be accessible from her personal website, not from WP. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

She does not have a personal website yet. If she had, it would likely suffice as the only official link. The two social media pages, meanwhile, do not cover the same information, so at the moment those should both be linked. Lyrda (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Then she definitely should. This should be easy to make. And if she does not care about it, why should you struggle? Well, I personally would include link to Instagram, but that would be a minority opinion rejected per WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, since her primary profession is model, I believe the most applicable external link is the modeling agency one that I believe was deleted by Drmies. I've used those before as official external links for models. Facebook is second best to a professional site, and even less appropriate with someone under 13, since the site's usual policy is to have that as a minimum age. Unfortunately it's some sort of mobile-optimized slideshow. (It does by the way verify her height, which got changed recently.) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

  I agree. It's the only professional modelling link, comparable to IMDb for her acting. Both social media pages are maintained by her mother, btw. This information was also removed from the article. They mainly show pictures, where the Instagram page follows her life as a model and the Facebook page also gives some info on her acting career. I inluded those as well for three reasons: they provide information not found elsewhere, they are evidence of her activities and notability, and there are thousands of fake accounts and pages. It helps the reader tremendously to know which Facebook page or Instagram account is the real thing. Lyrda (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Y, if you think the modeling link is the most appropriate one, I'm fine with that. If you think that having a "professional" link (the modeling one) and a "personal" link (Facebook or Instagram) is appropriate, I'm fine with that too. I trust your judgment. But, and this needs to be said, a link to the modeling page (I'm looking at it right now) is not like the link to someone's biography on the website of the company or university they work for, since she by definition is the product, and in the context of what was a highly promotional article one simply cannot escape the conclusion that this was linkspamming. As for these social media link, we never really have more than one social medium. Again, different circumstances may call for different linkage (Trump's Twitter account is of importance, and it's quite different in content and meaning from his presidential page, and I can see why we would have both his accounts (private and personal) linked. But this person is not a president. Anyway, I'd rather see her Instagram and the modeling link than the IMDB link, which really has nothing of importance whatsoever (since, well, she's not a movie star of any importance), and since that content is most likely user-submitted, the user being an agent or a family member. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I replaced both IMDb and Facebook with the L.A. Models. I searched without any luck for a source for the city/town where she currently resides; that could be sourced to a Facebook post, or maybe it would be preferable not to specify if there's no independent source? On second thoughts I will go ahead and remove that per BLP. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer a link to Facebook because L.A.Models is a pure advertisement that provides only photos without any text. Or this could be both "models" and Facebook. As another note, I think that weak sources, such as Daily Mail, can be actually used on the page if they are used for sourcing trivial non-contentious matters, such as something her mother said. Do we have any doubts that her mother actually said something that was quoted by Daily Mail? I do not think so. My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Responding with some explanation of the way I've been thinking. I don't think either the model agency page or Facebook is marvelous. The underlying problem is she's still very young, so there isn't really much a personal or a professional webpage can say. But model is her profession (at least until she's in a film that hits it big or that gets a lot of ink; neither has been released yet) and that portfolio has also been discussed in various on-line venues, including the Daily Mail article. The Daily Mail article is long and full of gossipy details, but they're not known for their accuracy and as I understand it we are to avoid using them, particularly for BLPs. So I found a slightly less dubious source, but it doesn't talk about what town she lives in, and I don't feel comfortable giving an unsourced town of residence for a young child. I considered asking someone who can see Facebook entries to cite it from there, but no newspaper has mentioned that personal detail. So, I took it out. My feeling on Facebook is it's a last resort when there is otherwise no website for someone, and since it's not even really hers but her mother's, it tripped my fluff meter. I think I may have less of a hair trigger about this than Drmies; the press is unanimous that she enjoys modeling; but I think the terser and less sensational this article is, the better, so I also left out the eye color and hair color that he removed, although they are standard in model infoboxes. (If I'd created this article, I'd have not had an infobox because she's so young that many of the fields are either best left blank for privacy or are going to change soon.) Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly agree that her Facebook account is not especially informative, but this is the only website she has. However, it does not matter at all who maintains her website or facebook account; the "official" accounts like that are frequently made and kept by people other than the subject/celebrity. Daily Mail is certainly not an appropriate source for anything contentious or gossip, but I think it can be used for trivial info, unless contradicts other sources... My very best wishes (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The town is in the FB page info (you can see it in the search bar). It's also mentioned and shown in Instagram posts and on her mother's FB, and of course it's in public records. That said, it doesn't really need to be mentioned in the article. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

In addition to her Facebook account, she has an Instagram account with 1.8 million followers and an extensive collection of photographs instagram.com/kristinapimenova2005 . Also notable is her appearance on the cover of Vogue Kids/Vogue Bambini in April 2015 link Ctmuva2000 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Many sources name her "The most beautiful girl in the world," including Yahoo, Mirror, Daily Mail, Inquisitr, Fashionista, Women Daily and Quora, as well as many social media accounts on Instagram, YouTube and Pinterest link Ctmuva2000 (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is information that should be in the article. Vogue Italia and Numéro Russia, too, and the recent article in Marie Claire Mėxico. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, she also appears on the current issue of InStyle Kids Russia magazine https://www.instagram.com/p/BTT_NVpDOIJ/?taken-by=kristinapimenova2005 She uses Instagram as her primary social media account where she updates frequently, and also has a Twitter account @SimplyKristinaP , although she does not tweet very often. According to her Facebook account, she currently resides in Calabasas, California. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The Twitter account is not her, but a long-time fan. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have added her IMDb page to the external links. It has the strongest consensus (only one user opposing) and has the advantage of linking to both social media pages. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

May I insert the paragraph about her appearance on the cover of Vogue and her reputation as "The most beautiful girl in the world" into the main article? I feel like it explains her significance a lot. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

These bits of information were removed by User:Drmies and User:JJMC89 respectively, so let's hear what they have to say about it. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if it's real information, and if it is sourced properly. BTW she can't be the most beautiful girl in the world, cause that one is sitting next to me. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The information must be reliably sourced. Social media and the Daily Mail are not reliable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand the title "Most beautiful girl" is subjective, but it explains why she has such a large following on social media. Ctmuva2000 (talk) 11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted as an attack or a negative unsourced biography of a living person, because it is a normal page that does not contain an attack and is well-sourced. Lyrda (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that similar versions of this page (just not as well sourced and lacking recent info on filming, interviews and tv appearances) have been reviewed many times on many language versions of Wikipedia and no other user, or reader for that matter, ever, has seen anything inappropriate. Lyrda (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

CSD tag removed. I saw nothing in the content that made this an attack on the BLP child model subject. If there is content disagreement, please discuss it on this talk page. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

User:TJRC reverted several edits without discussion.

• We don't normally demand sources for someone's name.The patronymic is an official part of a Russian name. See e.g. the articles of other Russian child actresses. It is normally not used except in official documents. See, however, here.
• The reliable source for the Vogue cover is, of course, the April 2015 Vogue Kids Russia issue itself. It is not required that sources are available online. You can see the cover in the RTL documentary though.
• No explanation was given in the edit summary for the removal of the topic's qualification as the most beautiful girl, which was adequately sourced. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC) Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the ping. My edits really were not without discussion: there are comments in the edit summaries, but for more detail:

On the patronymic: My comment was unsourced; this would be a good add if it had a cite, though). I would suggest that it be included only if you can show some source that shows that the Pimenova uses or otherwise recognizes or is recognized by it. An individual's name is one of the most critical pieces of biographical information, and if there's no source saying Kristina Pimenova has the patronymic middle name, Wikipedia should not be the place where that originates. That's basic WP:BLP and WP:OR. To the extent your position is that we should list a purported name that no reliable source shows being used; I definitely disagree with that.

On the Vogue For Kids cover: My comment was Instagram's not an acceptable source. If you can't find a real media example reporting this fact, if you need to reach to Instagram, it's not worth mentioning. I have no problem including it if it can reliably be sourced to an actual Vogue For Kids reference; but not an Instagram or other social media post. If no reliable source is mentioning it, Wikipedia should not be the place that does.

On the "most beautiful girl": I think you've confused me with someone else. I didn't remove that. For what it's worth, I'm pretty much with the positions stated by User:Drmies and User: JJMC89 above; as long as it's reliably sourced -- and the Daily Mail and social media do not count as reliable sources -- I'm okay with it. TJRC (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You did remove 'most beautiful girl' with your reverts. The Vogue Kids ref was already there, you merely needed to copyedit. No source is needed in articles for a Russian patronymic because it's automatic. Just check the thousands of other pages about Russians, you will find no source anywhere. Nonetheless I provided a source above, which you ignored. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you point out the edit you're referring to where I removed the 'most beautiful girl' thing? I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that, but I'd be happy to discuss it if you can point it out.

I disagree that there are "automatic" accepted unsourced additions to a person's name. An individual's name is one of the most basic bits of personal information, and it shouldn't be altered in a BLP article without a source. What policy or guideline are you referring to? When I deleted it ([7]), there was no source. As I said, I don't object to it being included with an actual reliable source.

Do you have a source for the Vogue Kids? I know there's an Instagram post, but have you checked the actual Vogue Kids magazine or if it exists, website? Or are you just relying on the Instagram? At the time of my deletion ([8]) there was nothing except the Instagram post, which is not acceptable. TJRC (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Just noticing that Guido den Broeder was indefinitely blocked. But I do not see his latest edit here as anything problematic. All these links can be convenient for a reader interested in the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

So, why exactly is Kristina Pimenova notable enough for an article? Trivialist (talk) 19:53, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

There's some discussion above, but most of the arguments in favor seem to come from two now-blocked users, Lyrda (talk · contribs · logs) and Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · logs). My own guess, which frankly shouldn't count for much, is that she's probably notable, only because I've heard of her outside of Wikipedia, and it's unusual for me to recognize the name of a model. For what it's worth, the article was deleted at AFD before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristina Pimenova. The current article was mostly the work of Lyrda, who edited it extensively in draftspace earlier this year before moving it back to article space in April. TJRC (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• KristinaPimenova019.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• KristinaPimenova019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm,, well, hm

To an extent I believe this is 20% true as it is indeed on famous birthdays - some celebrity site - on Wikipedia’s blacklist. Still as I said it’s a 20% chance. (We need a news article!!!) 94.102.51.26 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Height?

Kristina Pimenova's height has been changed 4 times in the past few days [9], [10], [11], [12]. I saw the 6 inches and the previous IP and made the mistake of assuming that the feet were the same (they weren't), so I have unreviewed my own patrol through pending changes patrol. So, what exactly is her height? I'm not seeing anything in the article that directly supports any height (please correct me if I'm wrong), so maybe a discussion here is nessecary? Since this is WP:BLP, and she's 13, I'm removing height until a reliable source can verify it/consensus is reached here. Clovermoss (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard about this, which can be found here. Clovermoss (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

You could have checked the history of the page. Almond Plate (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Almond Plate: I did, and I noticed that the height was inconsistent and frequently changed. I did not notice the original sourced material, but I have brought up it to the BLP noticeboard. Two other editors there thought that height shouldn't be included when I brought this up earlier. I'm not whether or not people will change their minds/if others will add their thoughts to the discussion. The sourcing for a WP:BLP is important, so I'm leaving it to people more experienced with this kind of thing to give their input before doing anything else myself. Clovermoss (talk) 22:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. A discussion about the inclusion of height as a parameter should be (and has been) held in general elsewhere. It's something that gets vandalized frequently, but it's not considered controversial as such. Almond Plate (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@AP 20191223: What do you mean by elsewhere? I think that the BLP noticeboard is an okay place to bring this up, because someone's height could be controversial.

By the way, is there any particular reason your signature says "Almond Plate"? That is the username of an editor blocked for sockpuppetry, so if you're not them, it might be useful to use a different signature so people like me don't get confused and ping the wrong person in discussions. Clovermoss (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I've removed it. Let's add it back when an independent reliable source writes about her and her height. We're not obligated to fill in every data field in an infobox because it's there. Of course, 13 year olds do tend to grow. So, whatever we add will always be wrong. Some people are notable for their height. She isn't. --Rob (talk) 00:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: As you say, you are very inexperienced. Sometimes - quite often - users on Wikipedia get blocked who are innocent. You made the wrong call here, resulting in damage to the article because the deletionists are everywhere. Keep it on your watchlist and maybe you'll learn. Almond Plate (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@AP 20191223: I disagree with your interpretation of my actions. I do plan to keep this article on my watchlist, but having a discussion about things does not mean I caused damage to the article. As for blocks, if you are Almond Plate and believe that you were wrongly blocked for sockpuppetry, you should fill out an unblock request, not evade your block. Clovermoss (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobility-2?

Why is Kristina Pimenova Notable? I’ve, personally, have never heard of her except under the google search “most beautiful girl in the world”. I understand that women’s daily magazine called her that, but women’s daily magazine is not a notable source. How would a notable model have nobility from a non-notable source? Kristina’s fame may have come from other sources such as yahoo!, but it doesn’t make sense as to why yahoo! would report months later on a barely known magazine. [13]https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/is-8-year-old-kristina-pimenova-the-most-beautiful-104422161308.html ( I apologize for any referencing errors I’ve made) Lillygreen1219 (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am pretty sure a lot o sources said that, not just two. She is not all that as she was acting in three movies/games and has been public however since she’s only been on her Instagram. I assume that’s on Wikipedia’s block list however back then it would have been a better time to write the article. ‘You personally’ it is possible to find out a lot more by researching more.

https://instagram.com/testing.if.this.works 94.102.51.26 (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Image

Wait so the image on Wikipedia’s here is the only copyright free image we can use.. that must be hard as it doesn’t really represent her https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kristina_Pimenova_“Be_a_Joelle”_05.jpg 05 suits her better 94.102.51.26 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m really pushing for image 5. I may change it in a few days if no response. However it looks more unprofessional. 94.102.51.26 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Her notability is as a model, so a photo showing her in that capacity is preferred to a candid shot. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I understand, so since she’s a model it needs to show her that way. So there’s absolutely no way to get a new image unless I go to Russia and ask if I can take a photo with the licence for Wikipedia? What about lowering the quality of new photos of her which are copyrighted? Certain logos on Wikipedia are copyrighted but lowers the quality’s for education and prevent piracy of the image arguments.94.102.51.26 (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Article will need a bit of improvement

I noticed she has a sister Natalia pimenova - we will need to cite that in later but I’m concrete sure I’m correct. She can’t be a half sister because the parents are the same. Google even has its own info page - and it doesn’t get it from Wikipedia. Instagram and etc are not reliable sources, we need something else however she was just in the background so there isn’t nuch info on her Ps she was with Pepsi but sadly I can t find reliable sources. Twice actually94.102.51.26 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Unknown sources from Wikipedia mirror

http://en.wikisage.org/wiki/Kristina_Pimenova However it does have about her living in California - not LA HOWEVER this is cited. Shall we leave this be? Is it wrong to use the sources they mentioned? A lot of the stuff is not verified which is why the Wikipedia page is better 94.102.51.26 (talk) 23:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Daily mail online has a LOT of information and quotes but it’s sadly banned - it doesn’t behave too much opinions however. I do believe she is a half sister we need Yahoo 94.102.51.26 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

You can use that page as an aid to finding reliable sources. But 1) don't cite to the page itself (it is not a reliable source; 2) Don't cite to any source they cite to unless a) that source itself is a reliable source, and b) you have confirmed its content as actually supporting the text you seek to add.

It's not at all sad that the Daily Mail is prohibited; it is not reliable. See WP:DAILYMAIL ("The Daily Mail has a 'reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication'"). TJRC (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Since 2014?

i mean now yeah but that is quite old. It’s probably quite biased but i guess . Thank you for the insight. Instagram does not appear on the block list so anything Kristina says on her official account with millions of subscribers has to be true right ?94.102.51.26 (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Not really. You can't generally believe everything anyone says about themself; much of what people say about themselves is pretty promotional or otherwise self-serving. Uncontroversial things (such as a person's birthday or other unremarkable statements) are usually okay; but use caution. WP:BLPSELFPUB has some guidance on this. Since you mention Instagram, you might also want to take a look at WP:INSTAGRAM. TJRC (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)