Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Antal

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. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Antal

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

The sources seem to fall into three main groups: dead links ([1], [2], [3]), cruft ([4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), paid and blog interviews ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17]) plus a couple of miscellaneous items: a brief film review in a no-name publication and a pregnancy announcement in a tabloid.

I would submit that what is glaringly absent is the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" contemplated by WP:BASIC, and that we should therefore delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Links??

Hi. I started this article because I saw D'Ora - Antal's film - and was compelled to research her because I believe she made an important story. It appears you have a particular interest in Romanian subjects - are you not aware of her? I found tons of articles (that had translations) about her and she certainly appears to be a person of note. Also, none of those links were 'dead' links when I posted this article so I would very much appreciate any insight you have about what I may have done wrong that caused them to break. I will be combing through the article again to find out. Also, Not sure what you mean about paid articles?? I sincerely would appreciate you explaining this to me so I can get educated on how to spot such things - as I was not aware. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 16:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- The links I said are dead don't work for me. In any case, two of them are tabloid trash, so probably wouldn't add much to a claim of notability. This would be a canonical example of a paid interview, specifically designed to boost the subject's image. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul - I finding better links and removing the 'tabloid' ones (I did some more research this morning). I'll be working on this today and after work for me tomorrow... Thanks again - I always appreciate learning and having the opportunity to get better! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much for responding. I appreciate your time and help! I think I know what I did wrong on those broken links you are describing and I will fix them shortly; still not sure what you mean about paid for articles but I will remove the one you identified for sure! I'd love to know how to identify that kinda thing so I don't make the same mistake again! I'll be updating this article tomorrow! Thanks again... :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following User Biruitorul's Suggestions

Found five solid links to add to the new/updated link list that I fixed per suggestions here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 04:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akrumoftruth, please don't label each of your comments with first-, second-, or third-level headings (headings marked with "=", "==", or "===") in AFD discussions. In fact, it's probably better/easier to just avoid making subheadings entirely rather than worrying about specific levels. The reason to avoid them is that AFD discussions are transcluded into larger daily logs of AFD discussions -- in this case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 8 -- and using first-, second-, or third-level headings will break the table of the contents for the daily log pages by making it appear as if each heading is a separate AFD discussion for a separate article, even though they are not. I removed your heading formatting marks ("==") above in order to fix the broken table of contents in the daily log page; it might take a few minutes, or in the worst case, a few hours, before the changes propagate to the daily log page's table of contents. Thank you. —Lowellian (reply) 01:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Winged Blades of Godric - thank you for extending this discussion. I did my best to remove the links I'd posted that I believe originally caused this situation (still not 100% clear as to what the issue was, but I respect the process and always work hard to be a good contributor). I found several more links that I hadn't used originally that seem to better solidify Antal as a person of note. I will have more time this week to explore this article further and will continue to improve it. Thank you again - any insight you can offer would be very apprciated!Akrumoftruth (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akrumoftruth (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete no showing of the indepth coverage to pass GNG. We lack an article on the film, so I have doubts it is notable, and even if it is, I am not sure a seperate article on her is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - I am really not getting this! I appreciate you looking into this article User:Johnpacklambert - but if you did, are you not seeing the coverage of her film D'Ora - which is how I learned about her a few years back from BAFTA's (the British Academy of Film and Television Arts) support of that film and why I felt like starting an article about her - ? D'Ora is actually listed - as is she - in an article here about BAFTA that I found. Clearly she has gotten international attention for that film - which she wrote, produced and directed - and it appears to be of note because of where she is from and what she tackled in the film. Anyway - and as always - I do want to always be a student of wiki so, in sincerity John - I would appreciate you clarifying your proposed deletion of this a bit more so I can understand better your reasoning. Respectfully - Akrumoftruth (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juliancolton Thank you for re-listing. I have been keeping an eye on Delia as I am aware there is a new doc by here coming out (possibly out - researching). I saw a photo of her in OK Magazine last week and today I found an article that came out a few days ago from Watson Headquarters that pretty much says exactly why I felt compelled to write about this artist/filmmaker/advocate - "Antal has proved that anything is possible if you are passionate and believe in your vision." - anyway, I'm putting that link on her page now and keeping an eye our for more about this WE CANNES film. BTW, I do see now that I posted a few articles about her pregnancy when I first posted that I thought supported her credibility - and if that's why this deletion discussion started I do understand better now. OK, back to improving the article and thank you for extending this discussion... Akrumoftruth (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except that "Watson Headquarters" is an advertising agency for aspiring celebrities, not a legitimate news site. The fact that in 24 days of discussion you haven't managed to adduce sources conforming to WP:BASIC standards strongly indicates this individual just isn't notable, no matter how enthusiastic you may be about her. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul It is??? Please - I am asking in sincerity - show me how you identified it as a paid for advertising agency - I want to learn this because it seemed legitimate to me. I'm asking with a genuine desire to understand - I've never encountered this before in such a way. Thank you for any enlightenment you may offer. And btw, while I do think, or rather, thought Antal was of note, it was purely, and innocently of me that I began an article about her, so again, always the eager student - I would appreciate any response you can offer re identifying "advertising agency" type 'articles'. Thank you.Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biruitorul Yo - Just went and poked deeper into Watson Headquarters - I don't see anywhere where it is an agency? :-( - It just seems like a normal celebrity news and interview site that appears to have advertising and advice columns and reporters and tons of original content just like any other site and they certainly have loads of content about a variety of celebs and influencers - this is the link I am looking at now: http://www.watsonheadquarters.com/ and this is their about page: http://www.watsonheadquarters.com/about/ - Please trust, I'm not mad or frustrated you want this article deleted - just not understanding where you are coming from and eager to understand. Respectfully - Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First clue: the suffocatingly promotional language ("prophetic", "courageously", "defied all odds", "authentic", "natural explosive energy", etc). Second: advertising form, we brand you. It's pretty obvious what the company is about. Nothing wrong with that, just not appropriate as a source in a neutral encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a few other people to evaluate the quality of the article's sources and whether they comply with WP:BASIC and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines? There have been only three participants here thus far, and this discussion really needs some fresh eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having looked through each source and performed my own searches, I concur with the nomination. The General Notability Guideline is quite clear on the level of, and quality of, coverage that is required for a Wikipedia article to be accepted and most of the sources here are either gossip, advertorials or are about the documentary film rather than the person. There's no evidence of notability at this time. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Akrumoftruth You seem to be most interested in the film Antal did - D'Ora? Since the links you initially posted for this article do appear questionable, why don't you create an article about D'Ora because that film on quick glance does appear to have credible links? Charleslechien (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Charleslechien - thanks for the suggestion. Akrumoftruth (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2017 (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.