Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edith A. Moravcsik

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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Discussion about a page move can occur on the talk page, or perhaps simply boldly performed, per WP:COMMONNAME. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith A. Moravcsik

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left at article talk page: Reviewed under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed this article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. The article has only one source, and it is a directory type listing of her. Also, without such coverage to draw from, the article is just resume type material. I have nominated the article for review under Wikipedia's "Article for Deletion" process so that the community may decide.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She publishes as "Edith Moravcsik" not "Edith A. Moravcsik" so the finding tool won't work well. Using the former, I found some signs of independent interest in her work[1] but particularly this interview. Unclear if she meets NACADEMIC but the article would need improvement to demonstrate it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NEW I've added new resources! --Crosstor (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of those new links links strengthen the case for keeping. (They were added as external links.) North8000 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be kept then you can withdraw the nomination and close it.--KartikeyaS (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements in the article however it still needs further copyediting and references. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move if Edith Moravcsik is the name she publishes under not Edith A. Moravcsik it should be moved there. Her full name can be included in the body of the article.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw With the reference / link additions, they bring it close enough to where I would have not taken this to AFD. Article needs work but that's cool. North8000 (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.