- 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Alice Bota
- Alice Bota ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A journalist, winner of a youth journalism award, but that's it. As a book writer - published one book, and it was co-authored with two other individuals. The sources present don't seem to provide in-depth coverage of her - what's there seems no better than the book publisher author's bio blurb. I don't think one minor journalist award (and yes, Axel-Springer-Preis is minor - it is not a household name, the article itself has notability issues as wrritten, and vast majority of recipients are red links here and on de wiki) and one-third book published merit passing WP:GNG or related criteria. At best, WP:TOOSOON - because with all due respect, this person is not doing anything worthy of an encyclopedic article, not yet at least. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing significant here at WorldCat or anything else for that matter, and quite honestly nothing actually significant as it is. Although GermanWiki has it, it's to my understanding GermanWiki has simply not maintained itself as it should recently, thus we'll delete this ourselves in English. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment to keep: I created the article because I try to fill red links. I prefer to see a blue link to a stub like
Alize Bota. The one book was not just one book but a book that coined a term in political talk and news. If you have to delete it please userfy, because I will have no time to expand it until next year, working on a FA. She will then be back for women's history month. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I fully support usefying. If a book is important, I encourage you to create an article about it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -
lots of news sources, though most are in German. The verifiable claim of winning of the
Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant.
AfD is not cleanup.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:GOOGLEHITS, please indicate which sources indicate notability. Your Google search returns lots of articles written by her, which don't give her any notability. In fact, of the first page of results, 8 are direct links to articles by her, one is not about Alice Bota but about "Alice, bota...", and the one remaining is apparently a forum(?). The second page looks like more of the same. Basically, for a journalist you shouldn't just point to Google News and say "but there are many hits for her name", as that only verifies that she is a journalist but otherwise is meaningless.
Fram (
talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try reading Ritchie333's comment again:
"The verifiable claim of winning of the Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)- Yes, by all means, try reading it again. The Springer award is a separate argument, which I didn't argue against. His other argument ("lots of news sources" with a simple Google News search) though is invalid. if someone makes one good argument and one bad, there's is nothing wrong with pointing out that one argument they used is bad.
Fram (
talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like SusunW has already covered this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means, try reading it again. The Springer award is a separate argument, which I didn't argue against. His other argument ("lots of news sources" with a simple Google News search) though is invalid. if someone makes one good argument and one bad, there's is nothing wrong with pointing out that one argument they used is bad.
Fram (
talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try reading Ritchie333's comment again:
- @
Ritchie333 and
Pigsonthewing: (edit conflict with
User:Fram... great minds, lol) You realize that those are primarily articles by her, not about her, and as such are no better than a
WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is one of classics invalid arguments at AfD? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 13:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of GOOGLEHITS, particularly the part that says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- You may be aware of it, but you clearly didn't understand it (or cared about it). The News search you gave as argument proves nothing about her notability. The individual sources given by SusunW, yes (and the subject is notable), but what you presented was a useless, lazy "just look at Google" argument. Fram ( talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of GOOGLEHITS, particularly the part that says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:GOOGLEHITS, please indicate which sources indicate notability. Your Google search returns lots of articles written by her, which don't give her any notability. In fact, of the first page of results, 8 are direct links to articles by her, one is not about Alice Bota but about "Alice, bota...", and the one remaining is apparently a forum(?). The second page looks like more of the same. Basically, for a journalist you shouldn't just point to Google News and say "but there are many hits for her name", as that only verifies that she is a journalist but otherwise is meaningless.
Fram (
talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Ritchie333. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep She is now the lead editor heading the Moscow branch of Die Zeit [1]. Multiple in-depth sources in other languages. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. She was nominated for a significant journalism award in 2015 [12] and [13]. There are many more sources. I searched Alice Bota, her original name Alicja Bota, and Элис Бота because she is now in Russia. SusunW ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Most sources are in German, but the article over there appears stable and I see nothing here to argue that this individual does not pass WP:N. Her notability is established based upon multiple independent sources describing accomplishments in multiple areas of endeavour. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above. JAG UAR 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Ritchie333. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per SusunW's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 15:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 23:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Alice Bota
- Alice Bota ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A journalist, winner of a youth journalism award, but that's it. As a book writer - published one book, and it was co-authored with two other individuals. The sources present don't seem to provide in-depth coverage of her - what's there seems no better than the book publisher author's bio blurb. I don't think one minor journalist award (and yes, Axel-Springer-Preis is minor - it is not a household name, the article itself has notability issues as wrritten, and vast majority of recipients are red links here and on de wiki) and one-third book published merit passing WP:GNG or related criteria. At best, WP:TOOSOON - because with all due respect, this person is not doing anything worthy of an encyclopedic article, not yet at least. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nothing significant here at WorldCat or anything else for that matter, and quite honestly nothing actually significant as it is. Although GermanWiki has it, it's to my understanding GermanWiki has simply not maintained itself as it should recently, thus we'll delete this ourselves in English. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment to keep: I created the article because I try to fill red links. I prefer to see a blue link to a stub like
Alize Bota. The one book was not just one book but a book that coined a term in political talk and news. If you have to delete it please userfy, because I will have no time to expand it until next year, working on a FA. She will then be back for women's history month. --
Gerda Arendt (
talk) 07:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I fully support usefying. If a book is important, I encourage you to create an article about it. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep -
lots of news sources, though most are in German. The verifiable claim of winning of the
Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant.
AfD is not cleanup.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 10:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:GOOGLEHITS, please indicate which sources indicate notability. Your Google search returns lots of articles written by her, which don't give her any notability. In fact, of the first page of results, 8 are direct links to articles by her, one is not about Alice Bota but about "Alice, bota...", and the one remaining is apparently a forum(?). The second page looks like more of the same. Basically, for a journalist you shouldn't just point to Google News and say "but there are many hits for her name", as that only verifies that she is a journalist but otherwise is meaningless.
Fram (
talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try reading Ritchie333's comment again:
"The verifiable claim of winning of the Axel-Springer-Preis is particularly significant."
. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)- Yes, by all means, try reading it again. The Springer award is a separate argument, which I didn't argue against. His other argument ("lots of news sources" with a simple Google News search) though is invalid. if someone makes one good argument and one bad, there's is nothing wrong with pointing out that one argument they used is bad.
Fram (
talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Looks like SusunW has already covered this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, by all means, try reading it again. The Springer award is a separate argument, which I didn't argue against. His other argument ("lots of news sources" with a simple Google News search) though is invalid. if someone makes one good argument and one bad, there's is nothing wrong with pointing out that one argument they used is bad.
Fram (
talk) 15:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Try reading Ritchie333's comment again:
- @
Ritchie333 and
Pigsonthewing: (edit conflict with
User:Fram... great minds, lol) You realize that those are primarily articles by her, not about her, and as such are no better than a
WP:GOOGLEHITS, which is one of classics invalid arguments at AfD? --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 13:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of GOOGLEHITS, particularly the part that says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- You may be aware of it, but you clearly didn't understand it (or cared about it). The News search you gave as argument proves nothing about her notability. The individual sources given by SusunW, yes (and the subject is notable), but what you presented was a useless, lazy "just look at Google" argument. Fram ( talk) 19:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- I am aware of GOOGLEHITS, particularly the part that says "Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Books, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search."
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 16:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:GOOGLEHITS, please indicate which sources indicate notability. Your Google search returns lots of articles written by her, which don't give her any notability. In fact, of the first page of results, 8 are direct links to articles by her, one is not about Alice Bota but about "Alice, bota...", and the one remaining is apparently a forum(?). The second page looks like more of the same. Basically, for a journalist you shouldn't just point to Google News and say "but there are many hits for her name", as that only verifies that she is a journalist but otherwise is meaningless.
Fram (
talk) 13:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Ritchie333. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep She is now the lead editor heading the Moscow branch of Die Zeit [1]. Multiple in-depth sources in other languages. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. She was nominated for a significant journalism award in 2015 [12] and [13]. There are many more sources. I searched Alice Bota, her original name Alicja Bota, and Элис Бота because she is now in Russia. SusunW ( talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Definitely notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Most sources are in German, but the article over there appears stable and I see nothing here to argue that this individual does not pass WP:N. Her notability is established based upon multiple independent sources describing accomplishments in multiple areas of endeavour. Montanabw (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per all of the above. JAG UAR 20:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Ritchie333. Agathoclea ( talk) 09:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 12:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per SusunW's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 15:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- 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.