- Alexandra Bădoi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Article "Alexandra Bădoi" was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury as A7 [1]. I reviewed it previously, so I had it in my watch list. The article was nominated for speedy deletion (twice, without informing the author) by User:Biruitorul. Soon after that, I objected to deletion both at Biruitorul's talk page [2] and at the article's talk page. I received no answer, and the article was deleted by Anthony Bradbury. The reason I objected to deletion is this: although the article did not contain any claim of significance, the person (subject of the article) was obviously notable. Google News search returns more than 17.000 hits [3] and Romanian Wikipedia has a well sourced article about the same person [4]. WP:CSD allows administrators to delete articles with no discussion in certain cases, but it does not say that the article has to be deleted if it meets one of the criteria. In this particular case, it was obvious that the article may be improved and referenced easily. I've been doing a new pages patrol for some time, and I participated in hundreds of WP:AFDs. In cases when a simple Google News search returns many reliable sources, the article is always kept. So, I can guarantee that this article would survive an AFD discussion. I tried to resolve the issue with deleting administrator (User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Alexandra Bădoi), but with no result. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a stub-stub, but I'd say being a TV anchor is a claim of notability. And the topic pretty clearly meets WP:N. restore. [5] is a reasonable source as far as I can tell with Google translate. There are many others. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have speedied it too; the only prose in the article was "Alexandra Bădoi (born December 6, 1988) is a Romanian singer, model and TV anchor." I can't think of any profession that's an assertion of notability by itself other than astronaut. Even if the article subject merits an article, there's good reason to speedy articles that don't show why they do; Wikipedia is not a repository of external links to Facebook. In cases like this, the path of least resistance is usually just to write a new article that asserts notability more clearly. —Cryptic 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cryptic: Would you delete it although I contested the deletion on the talk page and pointed out that the person might be notable? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd do nothing for an hour or so, to see whether you (or someone else) did anything to improve the article. If not, I'd then move it to either draftspace or your userspace, depending on the wording of your objection. —Cryptic 00:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse for two reasons:
- 1) The article, as it stood, did not provide a credible claim to notability. Merely being a singer or a model does not make one notable; neither does presenting the meteorology segment on the nightly news (which is what Bădoi does).
- 2) Although we are assured repeatedly above that the subject is "obviously" or "pretty clearly" notable, that is in fact not so obvious at all. This, far from being any kind of credible source, is a puff piece in Libertatea, a tabloid. (And no, I don't mean the page size, I mean it's a scandal rag on a par with the Daily Mirror or the National Enquirer.) As to the rest of that "well-sourced" ro.wiki article (written, I might add, by a PR flack), we have: Bădoi appears in sexy poses on Ibiza; a post on a tabloid-y blog; a puff-piece/blog post hosted by a site whose owner is sitting in jail; and the incredible news, from the same dubious source, that Bădoi has launched a new video clip. (Crucially, the last two sources are written by her employer, Antena 1, so they hardly count as independent coverage.)
- In other words, the subject is fit for the tabloids, but not fit for an encyclopedia. I hope this stays deleted, but if not, I will promptly take it to AfD. - Biruitorul Talk 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it's clear A7 was applicable. I can't speak Romanian, so I can't comment on the Romanian sources. Certainly it's true that there appear to be a lot of possible sources; the content "could" be userfied if someone wanted to make a proper go of it (seems unnecessary with basically no content). WilyD 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment whether or not the subject may be seen as notable, notability was not averred in the article. Hence it seemed to me that A7 applied without argument.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and send to AFD, A7 is for clearcut cases. The article does not have to stress notability, only "importance", and a few seconds of verification would have shown that there is enough out there that this is not an obvious or clearcut case. It may still be deleted at AFD, but CSD A7 is not a shortcut to delete articles that might not survive a deletion discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Overturn TV anchor is an adequate claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. The claim above that you have to be an astronaut for such a claim is absurd. We have numerous professions which are considered notable — professional sportsmen; politicians; professors — and TV anchor seems a reasonable fit with entertainer. I'm not convinced that astronauts count for much now, actually. Andrew D. (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Andrew D., this statement is rendered somewhat hollow if you read through my statement above, which I shall restate more clearly: she is, well, not an anchor at all. To quote the tabloid rag Click! (about the most prestigious level of coverage Bădoi has managed to garner): "in 2007 she was selected, following a casting call, to present the weather on Antena 1". If you've ever watched the evening news, you'll know that the anchor and the weather presenter fill two different roles — the first hosts the entire programme, while the second points at a screen for five minutes near the end of the show. - Biruitorul Talk 07:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We seem to be here to review the A7 speedy deletion, not the merits of the topic. I am not sufficiently familiar with Romania to have an opinion about that. Andrew D. (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, we are here for that, and part of that review entails verifying the assertions made in the original "article". Had the "article" asserted the subject was, say, an Olympic athlete or a member of parliament, would you have agreed she fills WP:ATHLETE or WP:POLITICIAN without any verification? What she does is amply verified by the, shall we say, source I presented above: "în 2007 a fost aleasă, în urma unui casting, să prezinte vremea la Antena 1" ("in 2007 she was selected, following a casting call, to present the weather on Antena 1"). In other words, she's not an anchor but a weather presenter, and it's illogical to base a vote to overturn on the idea that she's an anchor when, clearly, she isn't. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
