Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meital Dohan

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, WP:SNOW.The Undead Never Die (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meital Dohan[edit]

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

Non-notable actress seems to fail WP:ENT. EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC) EyeSerene^talk 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn thanks to MichaelQSchmidt's fantastic work in improving this article. EyeSerene^talk 06:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any other sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography aside from IMDb.Keep - Since sources have been found and the article has been written appropriately to Wikipedian guidelines, I suppose the article can stay. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I have seen less notable actresses BLP's surviving. --BweeB (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO[1] and WP:ENT[2]. While the article itself needs work for style and tone, the actress and her work and awards are verifiable and do seem to get coverage in sources[3][4] which would allow article improvements. I think this will be my improvement focus for tomorrow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources seem to be passing mentions (ie cast lists and the like). Is there anything that would support our requirement for meeting every clause of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:BIO? EyeSerene^talk 11:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  While nice, the GNG is not the policy, and is only one the many means by which we determine if something may be worthy of note. The pertinant part of WP:BIO is WP:ANYBIO's stating this person "...has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". And while that fact requires verifiability, the verification does not itself have to be significant coverage.
  
  And as this article is a work in progress, a presumption that those many "seeming" mentions will lead to something more substantial is reasonable. I do not read Israeli, but I will see what I can find, as notable in Israel is just fine for en.Wikipedia, and our requirement per WP:ENT means verificability of the many notable productions and a presumption of coverage, even if not immediately found or in English. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interestingly, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs offers a comprehensive article.[5] More a-comin'. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The paragraphs in the Playbill article covering the Anthony Neilson stageplay Stitching (in which she had a starring role) contain something more than a mere mention,[6] and offer decent information suitable for mandated verification. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article about her in Los Angeles Times,[7] covering her background and her role in Monogamy, is also one that represents significant and in-depth coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though brief, the article about her in Israel21c also addresses her directly and in detail.[8] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Village Voice spoke in depth about her original stageplay Bath Party.[9] That and others show her meeting WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The New York Times also was one to devote a complete review of Dohan and her work in her play Bath Party.[10] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And too, The New York Times spoke directly and in detail about her performance in the Anthony Neilson play Stitching.[11] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Monsters & Critics also offers in-depth and significant coverage of this actress.[12] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would ask that editors and the nominator consider how the article and sourcing looked when first nominated [13] and compare that earlier version to the improved version after I have addressed concerns.[14] I was able to find and the requested significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so as to confirm meeting WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE. I believe my original reasons for !voting "keep" have been born out through only a little effort. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MichaelQSchmidt has proven its notable without any reasonable doubt. Not sure if the nominator can withdrawn this sicne one other person did say Delete. Dream Focus 15:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators can change their minds and withdraw anytime. A sole delete will simply hold off a "speedy" snow keep close. That sole delete !vote has been notified of the article improvemnents, but appears to have not made any edits since before the notice was placed.[15]] Our choices are either to be patient or to not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 14 August 2011 (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.