Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alana Valentine

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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Valentine[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Terence7 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly astounded that this was put up for deletion after the additions I was able to make to it. Unimpeachable third party sources, covering her and her work at length. including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation , documented national awards -- and two of her plays being used in the curriculum of of New south Wales. satisfies WP:AUTHOR three different ways. (the original article, was a copyvio description of one of her plays from a problematic user, an article I almost speedied as G12 before I thought to check Google News.) There are more plays to add, some others published works also, and I think a few dozen more reviews of the plays. I stopped when I thought i had enough to satisfy all possible good faith objections. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unimpeachable third party sources" like this, which is some personal website about one-act plays that doesn't even say anything about her except that she's a playwright? And this? It's on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation website, sure -- but it's nothing more than a one-sentence mention that Valentine will be speaking at an event. What about this one, an article from the Daily Telegraph? It's not about Valentine at all; it only mentions her name in one sentence.

Need I go on? If Ms. Valentine meets the notability guideline for creative professionals, this article still offers no evidence of it. Terence7 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination is absolute shite. I was able to find three full length articles discussing the subject with ease--and there are scads more I see out there. But everyone makes mistakes. If the nomination is withdrawn I will not put the nominator on my permanent list. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is "absolute shite." And putting me on your "permanent list"? What's that supposed to mean? Terence7 (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's appropriate to denigrate the article by making an implicit religious slur. I don't go around calling your articles absolute Sunny. EEng (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the funny one. Terence7 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(blushes) Glad someone got it. I was afraid I might get dragged before the ANI firing squad. 13:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Like a permanent record a la Violent Femmes. Now go look at the sources I added, admit you are wrong, and withdraw the nomination.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your "permanent record" remark. Terence7 (talk) 04:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will after you withdraw the nomination. You could figure it out via Google if you tried, I guess I'm testing your ability to research things. Its nothing nefarious.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you not make remarks that sound hostile and then try to use them as a bargaining chip to make other editors do what you want. And you're "testing my ability to research things"? Give me a break. Terence7 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you not make horrible AfD nominations. Let's call it even and go get a beer.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly a horrible nomination. Did you see the original version of this article? It originally wasn't even an article about her, it was about one of her plays... I tried to get that deleted, and then someone simply moved the article to her name.

If there's no evidence of notability, which there certainly wasn't when I nominated it, it should be nominated for deletion, especially when it's an article that has been around for years. I suppose this is a difference of opinion about Wikipedia generally; I see that you are committed to "saving" articles, which is great, but I'm of the opinion that an article should be deleted if there's no evidence of why it should be on Wikipedia. The onus should be on the creator to show that it can pass muster. Terence7 (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE says you should check to make sure its not notable before nominating. Really, we have so many crappy articles on notable subjects its staggering--tons of notable subject articles could be deleted just because no one has worked on them yet. And when it comes articles that are years old, the creators are often not around, and the articles were created when adding sources was almost a novelty.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the policy, but I respectfully disagree. Why not delete them, if the articles are crappy and no one has worked on them? Let somebody else who has the knowledge and/or inclination recreate it later. This is part of the reason why WP is bloated with irrelevant, poorly written, poorly sourced, and unmaintained articles. Terence7 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, Terence, that particular articles was clearly unacceptable when you prodded it: there was nothing to show significance, & apparently at least 99% copyvio, & the copyvio had been here for years. If I had not been willing to work on it I would have speedy deleted it, as I've done with one or two thousands of other copyvio. That's what I'm required to do, and I also personally think that's what must be done. But the quick check of google (initially, to find the playwright's web site) to my surprise showed so much potential, that I was willing to work on it. Not just to say someone else should work on it, but work on it personally. I hoped someone else would do still more, said exactly that, & so they have. Your deletion requests have had the best result possible--you called attention to a bad article (though you missed the signs of copyvio), & it got changed by the cooperative work of several people to a good one for an important subject we were missing. You succeeded in a different way than you intended, but that's the fun of Wikipedia-- once you start something, you never know where it will end. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can never delete them all, we are growing at a clip of about a thousand articles a day. Deleted articles get recreated in worse versions to start, not better. That's why I say we should improve them. 30 minutes of your time would have improved Alana Valentine and added to the quality of the project. Deleting her article really does nothing of significance.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple awards and a notable body of work. Meets notability. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article of course needs quite a bit of work, but it easily satisfies WP:AUTHOR. -Aaron Booth (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. The subject is obviously now shown to be notable, strong sources have been provided, no real point in keeping this AfD going. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:34, 15 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.