Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dora Tokai

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dora Tokai

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why the subject should be presumed notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Sources offered are two interviews lacking any secondary analysis and obviously WP:PRIMARY, an article about a bag she designed, not her, a trivial mention that she was in the running for an award and a webpage about the Miss Colorado pageants that doesn't even mention the subject. Googling turns up nothing useful. Also, though not a reason to delete, it appears the article may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY by an WP:SPA. Msnicki (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We need someone who can read Hungarian - this looks interesting and in-depth, though Google Translate has no doubt butchered it. I'm not sure. Looking at her press page I see she has been profiled and interviewed in magazines around the world, alongside the usual photoshoots and celeb spots. I am leaning keep, I think someone with this level of exposure and international coverage (in some internationally reputed magazines) would probably pass GNG, although she certainly seems swamped by her own promotional stuff/self published sources. Mabalu (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The FashionFave article may be somewhat butchered by Google Translates but it's clearly an interview, Mabalu, and does not contain any secondary analysis, only just softball questions. That makes it WP:PRIMARY and unsuitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the fact that she was selected for an interview is significant in and of itself, IMO. Mabalu (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your argument, that if they interviewed her, they apparently thought she was notable. But our guidelines ask for more specific evidence in the form of reliable independent secondary sources. From WP:GNG, ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."

This interview is primary. To qualify as a secondary source, it must contain secondary analysis. From WP:SECONDARY, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." For example, a 60 Minutes interview is secondary to the extent that it mixes their own fact-checking, analysis and other content along with subject's own words. See also WP:NOR#cite_note-3, "Further examples of primary sources include ... interviews".

Interviews like this one are not unlike a magazine publishing someone's article. The only real content here is the subject's own words. You could argue the magazine must have thought it was significant else they wouldn't have published it. But that wouldn't change the fact it's still primary and thus unsuitable for establishing notability. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth cover in independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how may times you relist it, independent sources cannot pop up out of the blue. Three weeks of AFD listing should be enough if anybody cared to rescue the article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2014 (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.