Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zelezny

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The result was Nom Withdrawn and no consensus to delete. —Travis ^talk 03:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zelezny

This articles title should actually be Helena Zelezny but the ghits for that name are only 15, and if you use the hyphen (Helen Zelezny-Scholz) the results are 2. I believe this fails bio, so delete. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites print references which appear to be sufficient. Note that the subject of the article died in 1974, so Ghits are not a good measure of notability in this case. --Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Rename to Helena Zelezny, just needs to be wikified and it's fairly good to go. treelo _talk 00:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, per WP:GHITS, Google hits shouldn't be used in this discussion as they are not always an accurate representation of notability. The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and renamed, but if she's been covered in the secondary sources provided in the article, then by WP:BIO#Basic criteria, the article should not be deleted.--十八 01:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Helena Zelenzy and Keep. The print refs assert notability; also, given that she died back before the Internet really was in big use, Google hits don't matter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Possibly a poorly-translated copyvio, didn't think of that. Could be notable given the print refs, but it'd need a ton of work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow. I wasn't using ghits as a reason to delete. Where did I say I did? I was using google to find any mention on the articles title, or what the title should have been. When I didn't find anything of worth, I figured it should be here. Especially since the inline citations and references are not in english. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ of current article. Umm, everything in this article after the first two sentences is clearly a (poorly translated) copyvio of some reference work. It just can't remain in its present state, and there's not enough sourced, non-copyvio material even for a stub. Unless someone shows some interest in creating a proper article about the artist, it will have to go. Deor (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to keep per improvements in article. Deor (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move (very weak keep), and convert Zelezny into a dab page. Jan Železný, anyone? Or Vladimír Železný? Železný Brod? 9224 Železný? Grutness...wha? 01:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral it needs a lot of work, but the figure appears to be notable. It should be renamed to Helena Zelezny, however, and rewritten to aviod copyvio accusations. Happyme22 (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment. It was taken straight from here, a blog. Have an reliable sources been found? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the author of the blog post was "niels aage jensen" and the author of this article was User:Niels Aage, I think we can assume that they are one and the same. I still contend that the formatting—all-caps surname; section divisions "Works", "Bibl.", etc.—are indicative of direct copying from some source. Deor (talk) 01:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then lets go with WP:VUE as well. Fails WP:V. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some rewriting work and wikification, but otherwise seems like a perfectly viable topic for an article considering the availability of print references. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Whoops. I thought the references were on the subject, not about the subject. Searches of academic and news databases that carry material from that period of time don't seem to have anything on the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment looks like copyvio. 70.51.11.94 (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed by rewriting it; deleting it isn't the only solution to that problem. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep If the artists works are really in all the galleries listed in the article, then that is evidence enough of the artists notability. AfD hero (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Its been massively cleaned up. The references still appear to not be in english, but the articles subject appears to be notable. Great job everyone. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2008 (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.