Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Rad

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 delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Rad

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

Once the various blog links are stripped away, all the coverage we're left with is a puff piece in a local newspaper. That hardly seems to rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, the so called "puff pieces" you are referring to are references from respectable sources like ABC TV in Australia. Of course the links to her own social media presence are irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence of her invitation and contribution to major events worldwide. In the last year she has become significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. Mjspe1 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a puff piece, a single article in a local newspaper. Phrases tipping one off to puffery include "she looks like a scantily-clad pop star", "outspoken", "sharp-witted", "does not shy away from controversy", with much of the rest of the article occupied by her own quotes. That's hardly objective journalism, and hardly makes for significant coverage.

Now, all this proves is that she once attended a panel discussion. Last I checked, simply appearing on television did not make one notable. Also, how about using print sources, since this encyclopedia is based on them? In particular, reliable print sources attesting the relevance of her discussion appearance would help the article's case.

Other than that, I see zero evidence that reliable sources have commented on these "invitations" and "contributions" at "major events". We have a blog post, we have an opinion piece (where coverage of her is limited to the phrase "Cristina Rad is awesome"), and nothing else. Nothing usable. Simply getting invited to a couple of conferences and a television show is not prima facie evidence of notability; we need significant coverage in reliable sources for that, and it remains sorely lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I guess, you gotta do what you gotta do. However I am curious about a new generation of people who are notable for their online contributions. What about numbers of hits on videos? Surely at some point, if someone regularly gets massive numbers of views then that in itself makes them notable. After-all, wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. To the extent that she is notable, Cristina rad is certainly an 'online' personality. She has far more blogs devoted to discussion of her ideas than many officially 'notable people'. Thanks for your time - Mjspe1 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that wp:notability is basically a measure of availability of reliable sources with in-depth overage of (material on) the topic to create the article from. When we say "non-notable" we mean that they don't meet this criteria; it is not judging them. North8000 (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I disagree with the "local" part of this characterization of the Melbourne Leader, while having not reached a decision on the rest of it. The Leader, as I understand it, has a circulation of nearly 2 million readers, which puts it somewhere between USA Today and the New York Times in the United States. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not the place to advocate new notability criteria for viral media. Dahn (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ABC.au reference would be more likely to evidence notability for the article subject if it mentioned the subject of the article. While I have defended in part the provenance of this article from the Leader, it does have a press-release flavor, and it's the most reliable thing I've seen either mentioned or that I've been able to find. Would absolutely reconsider if more reliable sources (more a matter of history and editorial oversight than on-line vs. offline) were to be evidenced. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:29, 26 March 2012 (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.