Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristina Rad

Cristina Rad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Once the various blog links are stripped away, all the coverage we're left with is a puff piece in a local newspaper. That hardly seems to rise to the level of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish, the so called "puff pieces" you are referring to are references from respectable sources like ABC TV in Australia. Of course the links to her own social media presence are irrelevant. What is relevant is the evidence of her invitation and contribution to major events worldwide. In the last year she has become significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. Mjspe1 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a puff piece, a single article in a local newspaper. Phrases tipping one off to puffery include "she looks like a scantily-clad pop star", "outspoken", "sharp-witted", "does not shy away from controversy", with much of the rest of the article occupied by her own quotes. That's hardly objective journalism, and hardly makes for significant coverage.

Now, all this proves is that she once attended a panel discussion. Last I checked, simply appearing on television did not make one notable. Also, how about using print sources, since this encyclopedia is based on them? In particular, reliable print sources attesting the relevance of her discussion appearance would help the article's case.

Other than that, I see zero evidence that reliable sources have commented on these "invitations" and "contributions" at "major events". We have a blog post, we have an opinion piece (where coverage of her is limited to the phrase "Cristina Rad is awesome"), and nothing else. Nothing usable. Simply getting invited to a couple of conferences and a television show is not prima facie evidence of notability; we need significant coverage in reliable sources for that, and it remains sorely lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I guess, you gotta do what you gotta do. However I am curious about a new generation of people who are notable for their online contributions. What about numbers of hits on videos? Surely at some point, if someone regularly gets massive numbers of views then that in itself makes them notable. After-all, wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. To the extent that she is notable, Cristina rad is certainly an 'online' personality. She has far more blogs devoted to discussion of her ideas than many officially 'notable people'. Thanks for your time - Mjspe1 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]