Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dana Rogoz
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 since the nature of the sources here has been deemed insufficient for meeting WP:ENT guidelines. A request for userfy is granted, and the page will be moved to User:Consiliul/Dana Rogoz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dana Rogoz[edit]
- Dana Rogoz (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)
The subject lacks independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. I'll ignore the YouTube links, but let's look at what else we have.
- A self-submitted biography (quite close in phrasing to the current text, I might add) hosted by a kind of substandard NNDB.
- An article in a tabloid informing us that the subject loves to wear white.
- A search of stories that contain the subject's name and that have appeared on the site of some soap opera TV station. To get a sense of the level of coverage, I'll translate a sampling of titles. "Dana Rogoz ate snake, kangaroo, crocodiles and ants in Cambodia"; "Dana Rogoz suggests you wear an original autumn outfit"; "Adela Popescu and Dana Rogoz, in extremely sexy poses"; "Dana Rogoz spent a night in the desert, under the open sky, in India"; "Dana Rogoz is preparing a French menu for Christmas". I think you get the idea.
- About the above, I will note that Rogoz is an employee of Pro TV, the parent company of Acasă TV.
I will also note that in the past month, I have sent two articles about Romanian celebrities by User:Consiliul, who is fairly new, through successful AfDs. (Cristian Sabbagh and Jorge.) This would be the third. I hope this cycle doesn't continue indefinitely, and that someone drums some sense into him. (I suppose the formal name for that is adoption.) - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i'm Consiliul!
Dear Biruitorul, excuse me for my contributions, i didn't know how it's work on Wikipedia. I try to ask about uploading image on Wikipedia, but nobody want to help me. It's not unffair to delete all my posts, because i am begginer, and i know a think in this world, people help eachother. If you want, you can edit this posts of mine- Luminița Gheorghiu, Dana Rogoz, Jorge, Aurelian Temișan, Christian Sabbagh. Please help me, these are our celebrities, and i want to make them known all over the world.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consiliul (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:GNG, even if discoverable sources are in Romainian. In looking at the just the first page of Google News we have significant coverage in Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Realitatea (2012) Gazeta de Sud (2006) Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Gândul (2008) Egirl (2009) Evenimentul Zilei (2011) Evenimentul Zilei (2008) Realitatea (2012) and Showbiz (2011) and there are many more pages. Yes, the article's current state is rough, but notability is dependent upon coverage and not upon source usage, and addressable issues such as needing more use of found sourcing is a fixable issue not requiring deletion when we have someone arguable as notable to Romania. That makes this a "keep and fix". And to User:Consiliul: we were ALL new here once upon a time. Ask for assistance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania and someone will surely come forward to help in translation of the many available sources. Thanks for bringing Dana Rogoz to Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the level of coverage you brought in? Dana Rogoz spends her vacation in Turkey! Dana Rogoz cooks turkey for Christmas! Pictures of Dana Rogoz! Cabral will marry Dana Rogoz... live on TV! Dana Rogoz - adventures in Bulgaria! Dana Rogoz and her sport-themed 25th birthday party!
- This is great fodder for tabloids, but in terms of WP:ENT, falls way short. - Biruitorul Talk 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, but those few listed in my response were from only the very first of dozens of pages of Google News links. Bing News gives better translations. The information provided by the sources, even if not major or earth-shaking news by western standards, is more than a trivial list mention... even if the event being covered is minor... and will allow the article to be expanded and sourced accordingly. Dana Rogoz is not some commonplace janitor or waitress. She being so often reported on over many years in Romanian news sources, even if some of the coverage is for less-then-earth-shaking life events, meets WP:GNG. We would only look to the SNGs such as WP:ENT only if the GNG were failed.... and seeing years-long cumulative coverage I do not see that primary notability guideline as failed. Not being expert in Romanian cinema or television, I am not so prepared as you to dismiss Romanian interest in a Romanian film or television personage. Notable, even if "only" to Romania, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look a little more closely at the "dozens" of hits given by Google News, you'll see the majority come from Click! and Libertatea, which are tabloids, and which we really should not be citing.
- The point is not that an event has to be "earth-shaking" to merit our attention; but it should at least be quotable. And you're never going to find a legitimate way to mention in a proper article the fact that this individual cooks turkey for Christmas or had a sport-themed 25th birthday party. None of what you brought up can "expand" the article in a meaningful way.
- Insofar as this individual is known (and remember, fame ≠ notability), it's for her role in the TV series La bloc. But the fact is that that show is itself barely covered in the press, despite running for thirteen seasons. That says something.
- No one is claiming Rogoz is the equivalent of a janitor or waitress; merely that she's a third-rate celebrity with no place in an encyclopedia. And I'm sorry, but your insinuations about what I "dismiss" are absurd. Insofar as serious (i.e., non-tabloid) Romanian media has paid attention to her, it's been in cursory fashion. By all means let's have expanded coverage of Romanian actresses worthy of our time - Maia Morgenstern, Irina Petrescu, Anamaria Marinca, Maria Popistașu, Dorotheea Petre - and leave the tabloid grist aside. - Biruitorul Talk 03:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Something being authored in a Broadsheet or Tabloid-style short-form newspaper is not necessarily bad, and should not be automatically dismissed as if it was all sensationalist or inflammatory "Tabloid journalism". While certainly some tabloids are garbage, the bad ones do not mean that all are (ie: while all bee are insects, not all insects are bees). I do not appreciate your labeling someone who has caught the attention of broadsheets popular in and to her country as "a third-rate celebrity". You fine WAX comparisons notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not only about the most notable persons, and welcomes those less-than-most-notable when they can be determined as just notable enough, even if barely so. What matters toward inclusion criteria is enduring coverage of the individual over multiple years. The coverage you find in more "acceptable" mainstream publications, while brief, is somewhat-more-than-cursory, addressing the actress directly and in enough detail. The article will benefit from attention, certainly, and the project will benefit by its remaining to be improved over time and through regular editorial attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to do with format; everything to do with content. The main coverage of Rogoz is found in Click! and Libertatea. Without even knowing any Romanian, you can click those links to see for yourself what types of publications those are, and why an encyclopedic work should not be quoting them. - Biruitorul Talk 13:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Something being authored in a Broadsheet or Tabloid-style short-form newspaper is not necessarily bad, and should not be automatically dismissed as if it was all sensationalist or inflammatory "Tabloid journalism". While certainly some tabloids are garbage, the bad ones do not mean that all are (ie: while all bee are insects, not all insects are bees). I do not appreciate your labeling someone who has caught the attention of broadsheets popular in and to her country as "a third-rate celebrity". You fine WAX comparisons notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not only about the most notable persons, and welcomes those less-than-most-notable when they can be determined as just notable enough, even if barely so. What matters toward inclusion criteria is enduring coverage of the individual over multiple years. The coverage you find in more "acceptable" mainstream publications, while brief, is somewhat-more-than-cursory, addressing the actress directly and in enough detail. The article will benefit from attention, certainly, and the project will benefit by its remaining to be improved over time and through regular editorial attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, but those few listed in my response were from only the very first of dozens of pages of Google News links. Bing News gives better translations. The information provided by the sources, even if not major or earth-shaking news by western standards, is more than a trivial list mention... even if the event being covered is minor... and will allow the article to be expanded and sourced accordingly. Dana Rogoz is not some commonplace janitor or waitress. She being so often reported on over many years in Romanian news sources, even if some of the coverage is for less-then-earth-shaking life events, meets WP:GNG. We would only look to the SNGs such as WP:ENT only if the GNG were failed.... and seeing years-long cumulative coverage I do not see that primary notability guideline as failed. Not being expert in Romanian cinema or television, I am not so prepared as you to dismiss Romanian interest in a Romanian film or television personage. Notable, even if "only" to Romania, is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 14 June 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, czar · · 15:02, 18 June 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, czar · · 15:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As it currently exists, article has only 1 reference. Not WP:NOTABLE. APerson241 (talk!) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Someone being reported on for years doesn't matter if a big chunk of the coverage is about her vacation, her birthday, and cooking turkey. SL93 (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As notable to Romania "should" be good enough for en.Wikipedia, I would be happy to have this userfied back to its creator at User:Consiliul/Dana Rogoz AND am wiling to advise and instruct new editor User:Consiliul on how to use sources and fix the article in anticipation of a return to article space. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support proposal to userfy as per (and with kudos to) User:MichaelQSchmidt - sounds like the best solution all round. Mabalu (talk) 15:09, 27 June 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.