Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Kopta
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 Delete. Only one source provided, and it is not in depth. John Vandenberg (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Patricia Kopta
May be locally notable, but not to the level that warrants an encyclopedia article. One local newspaper story and a couple of YouTube videos are insufficient evidence of notability per WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete isn't notable on a national scale, doesn't deserve an encyclpedia article. Hatmatbbat10,a proud Wikipedian (Talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I went looking in WP:BIO, thinking surely I have missed the area where it talks about national notability required, and lo and behold, it's not there. Instead, what's there is information about independent sources. This person has them, so therefore, meets WP:BIO. Local history is still history; we write about the history of cities, neighborhoods, streets, and so on, even if the streets have not been heard about "nationally". If I'm missing something here, please feel free to point out the appropriate policy; otherwise, this appears to be keep based on multiple independent sources that are included within the article. --Lquilter (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Multiple? Where? The admitted source for the article was a single Post-Gazette story. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. If there is a more reliable repository for these videos than YouTube, than I'll reconsider. Until then, there is a single newspaper story as the basis for this article. That does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. If the story is lacking in sources, then there is an appropriate tag for articles that appear to be from a single source. I'm at a loss to understand why the article wasn't tagged as such. I also disagree with DarkAudit's assessment of the YouTube videos. This was one of the few times Pat was captured on video. In the case of a person who is missing and presumed dead, I think you must take that into consideration. This was a notable person that THOUSANDS of people knew about and ran into every day, and is an notable part of Pittsburgh city history. I recommend that this article not be deleted - and that the single source tag be added to the article (which is what should have been done in the first place). NickBurns (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Like I said above, if the videos had a different source than YouTube, like say one of the local TV stations or the Carnegie Library had a copy. Beyond that, it's still one story from one paper on one day that is the primary source. People go missing every day. It's a tragedy, but not encyclopedic. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment But you don't delete an entire article because it only has one source, especially when that source is a reputable, verifiable one. THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA HAS A SPECIFIC TAG TO ADD TO ARTICLES THAT SAYS, "THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM A SINGLE SOURCE". The first action that you should have taken in reference to this article is to add that tag. To jump right to deleting the article is, well, deletionist. Also, this was not just a person off the street. You appear to think that Ms. Kopta's notability is related to her disappearance. Much of the point of the article is that she was a notable figure in Pittsburgh for many years. NickBurns (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This should be tagged as coming from a single source and not deleted. Whether the videos are or aren't considered a reputable source (I feel as though they are), their content does suggest that she was notable in the region, and there's nothing in Wikipedia's policies to indicate that "national notability" is a requirement; from that point on it's a matter of opinion.VertigoXpress —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- It does require multiple sources, however. A single source like the one PG article does not meet WP:BIO. Tagged as "single source" or not, it still does not meet guidelines. An AfD will attract many more eyeballs to an article than a simple tag would. Who would even know that the article existed if it was merely tagged? If not for the random article button, I would never have found it myself. DarkAudit (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep This should be tagged as coming from a single source and not deleted. Whether the videos are or aren't considered a reputable source (I feel as though they are), their content does suggest that she was notable in the region, and there's nothing in Wikipedia's policies to indicate that "national notability" is a requirement; from that point on it's a matter of opinion.VertigoXpress —Preceding comment was added at 15:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment But you don't delete an entire article because it only has one source, especially when that source is a reputable, verifiable one. THIS IS WHY WIKIPEDIA HAS A SPECIFIC TAG TO ADD TO ARTICLES THAT SAYS, "THIS ARTICLE APPEARS TO COME FROM A SINGLE SOURCE". The first action that you should have taken in reference to this article is to add that tag. To jump right to deleting the article is, well, deletionist. Also, this was not just a person off the street. You appear to think that Ms. Kopta's notability is related to her disappearance. Much of the point of the article is that she was a notable figure in Pittsburgh for many years. NickBurns (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Like I said above, if the videos had a different source than YouTube, like say one of the local TV stations or the Carnegie Library had a copy. Beyond that, it's still one story from one paper on one day that is the primary source. People go missing every day. It's a tragedy, but not encyclopedic. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. If the story is lacking in sources, then there is an appropriate tag for articles that appear to be from a single source. I'm at a loss to understand why the article wasn't tagged as such. I also disagree with DarkAudit's assessment of the YouTube videos. This was one of the few times Pat was captured on video. In the case of a person who is missing and presumed dead, I think you must take that into consideration. This was a notable person that THOUSANDS of people knew about and ran into every day, and is an notable part of Pittsburgh city history. I recommend that this article not be deleted - and that the single source tag be added to the article (which is what should have been done in the first place). NickBurns (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Multiple? Where? The admitted source for the article was a single Post-Gazette story. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source. If there is a more reliable repository for these videos than YouTube, than I'll reconsider. Until then, there is a single newspaper story as the basis for this article. That does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 01:14, 1 February 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.
