Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diva Zappa (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ( X! ·  talk )  · @080  · 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Diva Zappa
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable individual individual. Lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:ENT  ttonyb (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ghits and Gnews are not germane. I've provided several reliable sources, and the subject of the article satisfies WP:GNG. Some of the sources are not online, this does not negate them. Dead trees still exist. :-) Furthermore, the article has been improved (with improved sourcing) since the previous AFD. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – I am not sure why you would think GHit and GNEWS are not germane to the discussion.  It is debatable this is substantial coverage of the subject of the article.  The last two may be, but an article written at the time of her birth is probably not.   ttonyb  (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because a general numbers count doesn't matter when reliable sources have been provided to establish WP:N according to WP:GNG. The article written at the time of her birth is provided for WP:V of a certain factoid, not to establish notability. The article from the knitting magazine is a complete, 2 page interview with the subject and the one in Women's Wear Daily contains a good 4-5 paragraphs about her. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – The nomination states, "GHits and GNEWS of substance," there is nothing that refers to the number of hits. Yes, it means I looked for substance not numbers. I did not say the WWD or the Knitting article lacked substance, only that, "It is debatable this is substantial coverage of the subject of the article."   ttonyb  (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, my mistake. However, according to the GNG: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Seems like at least 3 of the provided refs fulfill this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems to be sufficiently referenced now. Her activities were noted also by other US media: LA Weekly, People, NY Times. The content is verifiable with reliable sources and the information could be useful for our readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think whatever issues existed at the time of the nomination have since been resolved, by the looks of the article at present.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 10:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow/Speedy Keep. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow/speedy keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), or withdrawing it, that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I have no issues with that suggestion to keep.   ttonyb  (talk) 16:57, 4 February 2010 (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.