Deletion of Valeria Lukyanova (2nd nomination)

Comment: I think "educator" is a stretch and is perhaps a bit of a misrepresentation. The vast majority of coverage (as you can see with a basic Google search) relates almost entirely to her looks and I think it's strange that the article doesn't reflect that. Why not call her a model and acknowledge her additional "spiritual" work, rather than call her an "educator" and try and play down the dozens and dozens of reliable sources that give her significant coverage for her "work" as the "human Barbie". To be clear - there's nothing wrong with an assertion of notability on the basis of her looks, in my view, especially if her looks have resulted in her receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. How is that any different to any other model? She probably says it best herself - ''"I use my appearance to promote my spiritual ideas"''. There's really nothing wrong with that. But a self-promoted, 20 minute "documentary" really isn't enough to buy into the "spiritual guru" claim, especially given the apparent lack of spiritual followers. Best to frame the article in an honest, neutral way that doesn't give  weight to the few sources that discuss her spirituality over the many, many sources that give her coverage for her looks
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: kind of a , as she's only notable for one reason, but I don't really think looking like a Barbie doll is an "event" so I think it's acceptable to have an article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ONEEVENT)

Comment: I think  is a more applicable principal to discuss here than , as there is no "event" here, and Lukyanova has herself (apparently) sought media attention, which means she is not a "low profile individual". Both of those are express requirements for BLP1E to apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While I'd like to see this subject and most reality shows disappear from the cultural consciousness, this topic unfortunately meets  guidelines
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: per . That she is an "educator" is irrelevant. She blatantly fails . That she is a "spiritualist" is grossly insufficient to sustain any notability either; otherwise, we could include every pastor in the world. That she is a model (of no particular fame) is irrelevant as well. An actress? Show me her "movie" listed on imdb.com. I'll save you the time; it isn't there. Neither is she herself listed there. The only reason we are here discussing her is because of her manufactured Barbie-like look. That's it. Nothing else in the article has even a hint of notability in it. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. Just her appearance. Does this make her unique? No. In fact, there are LOTS of women in the world who have attempted to be human barbies (http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/international/2013/08/21/angelica-kenova-russian-human-barbie-doll-refuses-to-comment-on-plastic-surgery/ Angelica Kenova, http://www.celebcosmeticsurgery.com/tag/jenny-lee/ Jenny Lee and many more). And just so Barbie isn't without the love of her life, there's a human Ken doll (http://justinjedlica.com/ Justin Jedlica). Hell, there's even a how-to guide on how to be a human barbie http://www.wikihow.com/Be-Like-Barbie, complete with a video on how to do the makeup. Do we add articles for every person in the world who decides to do something with their appearance that strikes people as unusual? We have human vampires (http://thestir.cafemom.com/beauty_style/126358/woman_takes_vampire_chic_to Maria Jose Cristerna), human anime dolls (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/anastasiya-shpagina-anime-cartoon-pictures-photos-surgery_n_1929012.html Anastasiya Shpagina), and more. Just because someone spends hours a day trying to look like a doll or some such doesn't make them notable. Famous? Sure. Notable? No. There's a distinct difference between the two. Plenty of people are famous due to single things. That doesn't make them notable by itself. You need more than that. That she has gotten some recent press about it is insufficient as well. The press isn't anything about her additional actions in the world; it's still all about her appearance. If the criteria were solely whether someone still gets mentions in the press, then we'd have an article for Corey Worthington. This is a clear failure of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:ACADEMIC||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: clearly passes . As is so often the case, folks here confuse notability with celebrity
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: clearly meets GNG, with tons of international, significant coverage about her. She also was the main subject of a documentary which after a quick  appears to be notable for itself
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)