Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Bădoi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. KTC (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bădoi[edit]

Alexandra Bădoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was speedy deleted then brought to deletion review, at which it was decided to list this at AfD for further discussion. This is an administrative action; I have no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly does not establish notability. Delete post-haste. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I added sources to prove the notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because, despite Vanjagenije's efforts, his sources in no way "prove the notability". Let's go through them one by one, shall we?
    • 1: Cancan: tabloid trash
    • 2: Click!: tabloid trash
    • 3: Libertatea: tabloid trash
    • 4: Jurnalul Național: borderline scandal rag, cannot be considered an independent source, as it forms part of the Intact Media Group, together with Bădoi's employer, Antena 1. In any event, what this puff piece tells us is utterly irrelevant in terms of encyclopedic notability: that she took road trips to various European cities.
    • 5: Viva!: tabloid trash
    • 6: someone's website (see WP:SPS for that)
    • 7: eva.ro: tabloid trash, a kind of Romanian online-only women's Daily Mail
  • Thus, in terms of sourcing, we don't have something that meets the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" standard set by WP:BASIC. If someone's coverage does not rise beyond tabloid level, that means the person in question is not fit for this project, because we are an encyclopedia, not a gossip rag.
  • Let's also look at the claims made by the article as it stands.
    • "TV anchor": false. She's a weather presenter, as stated in the very next sentence. She is not, and has not been, an anchor.
    • "previously worked as a model": would be significant if she met WP:NMODEL, but there's absolutely no evidence that's the case, and so it's irrelevant in terms of notability.
    • "In 2007, she participated in the Romanian national semi-finals for the 2007 Eurovision Song Contest" - right, and she finished in 9th place. Per longstanding consensus, only the winners of Eurovision national selections and their songs are generally considered notable. Finishing 9th doesn't add to a claim of notability.
    • "Together with DJs Snatt & Vix she composed and recorded the song 'Cold Shower' in 2011." - and? Did this song achieve notability, as defined by WP:NSONG? If not, irrelevant.
    • "They performed the song at the 2011 The Mission Dance Weekend in Constanța." - again, so what? Merely performing a song is not evidence of notability.
  • In sum, the subject is notable neither through the claims made by the article nor through the sensationalist but blatantly trivial sources presented, and this should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 03:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have verified each source, and second Biruitorul's review. The one (barely) creditable source is Jurnalul Național which, even without that conflict of interests (plus scandal-rag) proviso, is a one-event mention, still way below our notability guidelines. Dahn (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  15:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above excellent analysis of the sources. Seems to be non-notable in several different fields. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Biruitorul's analysis. — Joaquin008 (talk) 11:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexandra_Bădoi&oldid=1137552554"