Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dvira Ovadia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Singularity 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dvira Ovadia

Dvira Ovadia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The article fails WP:BIO, fails to cite sources, and is generally just spam. Delete GreenJoe 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Its not spam. I have not added sources yet. It should be a TBD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryka 9999 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Concur does not meet WP:BIO rrcatto (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The article was just recently created TODAY. I am !voting "keep" because I would like to give the article a chance for becoming notable per WP:BIO. --RyRy5 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per RyRy5 - article is in it's formative stages. JPG-GR (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think the references are sufficient. --Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't create articles and hope they become notable. We create articles on notable subjects. AniMate 06:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep She seems notable enough, and the article appears to be a work in progress. I would AGF for now, and see what happens with the article. DigitalC (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the addition of references, how recently the article was created, and the visible effort of the author to expand it. Remember that not everyone writes in full length, my friends. Some folks, myself included, write in sections at a time, which can lead to just this very situation. --InDeBiz1 Review me! / Talk to me! 11:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Yes, she won a "reality" TV series, but it doesn't meet the "notable award" criteria in WP:BIO in my opinion. Beyond that, I don't think the subject is notable in her own right. PKT (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - references look sufficient. D.M.N. (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is now taking shape (WP:HEY?) and meets WP:BIO notability in my mind. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-sourced, verifiable, NOR and per WP:BEFORE should have been tagged for improvement before going to AfD 90 minutes after creation. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep reliable and verifiable sources in current version of article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contributions) 06:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Well sourced. Good article Bstone (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm changing my above delete vote to keep because since being nominated for deletion, this article has been vastly improved and cites from reliable sources have been supplied which shows that this person meets WP:BIO. rrcatto (talk) 08:16, 30 May 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.