Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Szilvia Molnar


 * 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. Dreadstar †  05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Szilvia Molnar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No claim to fame: a girl who wrote a few poems and short stories(?). Google search fails to support notability. One of her 2 cited awards is a split 3rd place in a Hungarian competition. Gregorik (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Quoting from the discussion page
 * "Precisely: modest achievements, and commensurately modest claims. And winning competitions in both Sweden and Hungary, and being published in multiple literary magazines in England, is no mean feat for someone her age." - Abondolo
 * Added secondary source. Interwiki is in two languages. ChessCreator (talk) 12:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Traffic stats also look good suggesting that the article is of use to many viewers. ChessCreator (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (Speedy.) Non-notable. No Google support at all (check for yourself, a few hits tops), 3 given links don't work, 2 others just point at title pages of lit. journals, one points at a 2-line excerpt. Page obviously COI (by close friend or self -- see Abondolo's talk page). Her 4-line bio at quickfiction.org is one of possibly hundreds of similar bios of students who write fiction as a hobby. Gregorik (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It's unusual to see someone give a delete on there own nomination, which is interesting. Are you close to this person? If the concern is about notability, rather then raising an Afd, using as given by the guidelines would of been sensible. PS I'm no way related to this page/person until I saw the nomination on the Articles for deletion log. The lack of Google coverage doesn't surprise me when you consider this is about someone writing in a foreign language and that coverage and awards are in physical publications and not the web. ChessCreator (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No, I don't know the subject (stumbled into her Hungarian wiki about 2 days ago) and we're obviously not related. Yet it's also blatantly obvious that in cases like this we need to tag for AfD on sight as the subject is clearly NN and does not suffice. See WP:NOT and WP:BIO. End of argument. Gregorik (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - excuse me. What has WP:NOT got to do with it? This is a biography. applies, it's in the BIO guidelines. ChessCreator (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems bizarre that 'notability' should be measured by Google searches. One would think that reading the texts themselves would be a more reliable guide. I have read some of these works, including the more recent 'Mine' (http://www.quickfiction.org/features/story.php?pk=54) and 'Recovering' (http://allthingsgirl.net/past/writings/writings-recovering-by-szilvia-molnar-2/) Jackleyden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Google is explicitly NOT a measure of notability. So thanks for bringing that up. Invalid criteria: Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking). ChessCreator (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I find this 'debate' amusing and disturbing at the same time: a probable sockpuppet (created, it seems, about 10 hours ago) and someone who's probably the subject's friend arguing for an amateur writer with no book(s) on her own -- all this on an online encyclopedia supposedly about famous folks. Check it. Well, more power to you. Excuse me, Szilvia, Jackleyden, ChessCreator and Abondolo. Gregorik (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Unsubstantiated claim of a socket puppet is not making your Afd case look sensible. ChessCreator (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2008 (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.