Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriszta Doczy

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) -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 08:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kriszta Doczy[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable article; fails WP:GNG and has been tagged with these issues pretty much since it was created. Sudo Ghost 13:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, was able to find a decent independent fairly quickly on Google: [1]. I'm not an expert in the same are as Doczy, but I think these sources are decent enough to push her over the general notability bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That is not much of a reliable source, and if that is the best sources that can be found then it does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 04:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If an article on the subject, in a print based magazine with a circulation of 20,000 is not reliable, then most articles on Wikipedia will have to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see a single reference that makes this subject notable, and a local puffery piece in what looks like an alt-weekly paper isn't a very strong reliable source. I'm not saying it's an unacceptable source, and I did not say it was unreliable, but if that's the only notability the subject has received then the article is not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. Articles require multiple reliable third-party sources, and even with that reference it's a very weak claim to notability and I don't see that its anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. "Most articles on Wikipedia" do not rely solely on local alternative newspapers, so that's really not a good argument to try to make, because it's not an accurate comparison. The National Library below she interviewed Richard Foreman (I'm assuming it's the same one), and interviewers do not become notable in the course of doing their interview any more than newspaper authors become notable because they wrote papers, even if that article were to be archived elsewhere. - Sudo Ghost 10:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as so many works are never so selected, for a filmmaker's work to be selected for a national archive IS a indicator of notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hope we get more assistance from Australian-based Wikipedians who have greater skils in searching Australian news databases, specially as the National Library of Australia decided to archive a video interview.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's another detailed article about her in a much later issue of the same magazine here. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Realtime article plus reviews of her work indicate notability. Paul foord (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That source certainly could verify information, but it doesn't create notability as defined by Wikipedia, so how do you figure that makes the subject notable? The subject fails WP:GNG, a single local alt-weekly source doesn't create notability where there is none. - Sudo Ghost 14:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 7. Snotbot t • c » 06:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment National magazine published monthly - not alt weekly but 'Real Time ... are assisted by the Australian Government through the Australia Council, its arts funding and advisory body.(and) supported by the Visual Arts and Craft Strategy, an initiative of the Australian, state and territory governments (along with) the NSW Government through Trade & Investment - Arts NSW.' Paul foord (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2013 (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.