Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mădălina Diana Ghenea

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 no consensus. There's a large amount of coverage, but its quality as a source for an encyclopedic work is disputed and no real consensus has developed as to whether notability is really demonstrated. The dodgy writing style of much of the article does seem to give a bad impression, but there's ultimately no consensus that this article is best solved by deletion rather than improvement. ~ mazca ^talk 13:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mădălina Diana Ghenea

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

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

This individual is certainly somewhat "famous", but I'm not quite convinced that she's notable under our standards. Just look at the level of coverage here:

Directory entries or worse: [1], [2], [3], [4]

Fan bios: [5], [6]

Blog posts: [7]

Tabloid journalism: [8], [9], [10], [11]

If someone can present "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", great. If not, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and cleanup). We can also find several sources in Romanian language: Mediafax, Adevarul, Revista Flacăra. I don't consider these (or ProTV) to be tabloid journalism; of course, these are in the Life/Entertainment sections of the newspapers, but where would you expect to be a story about a fashion model? However, we need to clean-up the article of non-reliable sources and remove any information that cannot be found in the remaining sources or other reliable sources. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a tabloid. Read the WP article. Regardless of the profession, the accomplishments are trivial 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, tabloid writing. The subject might be notable, but the article would need a complete rewrite (see
WP:G11). If she is notable, it's probably best to delete the present article and wait for a serious encyclopedist to start a new one. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 04:40, 29 May 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, L Faraone 00:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is an article about a notable fashion model, information about her is most likely to be faound in the Entertainment section of the newspaper. Unreliable sources were deleted, parts of the article were modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zita Szeplaki (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources may be "tabloid journalism" but they meet GNG. 86.153.72.187 (talk) 09:03, 9 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, Dusti^*poke* 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 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,

SarahStierch (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Fails
WP:GNG, the article is poorly sourced written concerning a non-notable actress. Finnegas (talk) 21:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article needs improvement in style, grammar, and general flow. However, the subject appears notable and has a career path which should add to her notability. She will never be written up in the science journals so some care has to be taken sorting through the available sources to keep the article factual. --Stormbay (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Regardless of judgement calls regarding the sources, she certainly seems to be recognized in Romania, and through her relationship with Gerard Butler, has received some coverage outside Romania too. I find Stormbay's arguments compelling and a look at the Google News hits and general search results appears to support them. A rewrite and/or stubbing of the article seems appropriate though. The AFD for Dana Rogoz makes the point that being notable in Romania should be good enough for en.wikipedia. I was "leaning keep" at first, but in course of considering this and the sources (also searching for Madalina Ghenea without the "Diana"), I am voting "keep" Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "notable in Romania should be good enough for en.wikipedia" argument is a straw man, since that's not what's being argued. Few people outside Romania have heard of, say,
WP:CRYSTALBALL). If dating Gerard Butler is what makes her significant, then say that on his page - I note no mention of her there. We need usable sources if a convincing case for keeping is to be made. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, I'm not saying she's remotely close to being in the same league as politicians and bombers who helped trigger world wars. But she's clearly thought notable enough to have articles on at least three other non-English wikis - I was surprised by this too, and didn't notice that they had been AFD'd there. Yes, that simply means nobody has nominated them yet, but still, it surprised me. A lot of the sources on Google News are in languages I don't read or even know for sure what they are, and they do LOOK a bit tabloidy, but the sources solidly cover three years - 2011, 2012, 2013, and cover quite a lot of results - a scan through doesn't look like it's lots of copies of the same article rehashed in multiple papers. I am honestly not interested in the person, but being covered over a period of three years is hardly single-event notability. Translated, it may all be vapid stuff of no interest to superior intellects, but it is there. Mabalu (talk) 16:23, 28 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.