Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anna Rezan

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rezan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. I removed some inappropriate external links and some blatant WP:OR, but issues still remain with the article. I tagged it with notability but an IP keeps removing tag. None of the cited references demonstrate notability and the article remains a mess of original research and self-promotion. Her roles in TV and film appear to be very minor and not in notable productions anyways. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She is only covered in the sources provided in passing mention, lacking significant notability. Also, I restored the OR and Notability tags back to the page. Meatsgains (talk) 18:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an IP keeps removing the AfD notice from the page, which I've restored. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, easily meets GNG. The article need deep cleaning, but that is something that can be done.- Cwobeel (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether she is notable or not, but I do know that Cwobeel's comment should be given very little weight by the closing administrator, unless he or she substantiates the statement: just saying "easily meets GNG", without explaining why or providing verifiable sources, is of little if any value: see WP:ITSNOTABLE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't read Greek, but Google Translate shows that she's profiled in Greek Marie Claire, and interviewed in Greek Cosmo. I'm not sure about the other magazines, as I'm not familiar with them. Someone should ping editors who are familiar with Greek to help out on this. She may be notable. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're talking about?. It's not exactly a profile, it's about 4 paragraphs long and has a single quote from her. The Greek Cosmo article is a little bit longer, but it's rather brief. There's still no reliable coverage of her outside of Greece (that I'm aware of), and anyways these are just two short articles. Personally I don't think these two alone are enough to establish notability. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps for now at least as this seems enough for a current article. Delete for now at best and draft & userfy if needed as the current coverage is something....but not entirely convincing. This may become a better article but I'm not seeing the obvious signs yet. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A feature in greek Cosmo alone should be enough to show notability. The only deletion argument I can see is wp:TNT and it's not bad enough for that. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a feature, it's a brief interview: [1]. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject did make the cover of that Cosmopolitan issue so with the other magazine coverage seems to only just pass WP:GNGAtlantic306 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2016 (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.