Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timea Nagy (activist)

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. (non-admin closure) Ya sh ! 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timea Nagy (activist)

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

there is not enough to establish notability other then her connection to the famous Tara Teng Legacypac (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the above. Received some local coverage but no lasting significance. AusLondonder (talk) 07:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No lasting significance? She figures prominently in this CBC piece from three weeks ago. As she does here, in the Toronto Star from the same period. And then from last year, we have this article and this one, which are reliable sources, from smaller Ontario markets, and was in 2013, from the other side of the country. So that's ongoing notability over three years. I don't understand how WP:NOTCRYSTAL doesn't apply to an argument that someone is in the news now, was last year, and the year before that, etc., will surely not be so in the future. Keep. She does in fact meet WP:GNG. ~~I don't even see any mention of the dreaded~~ Tara Teng, which should have nothing to do with whethjer Ms. Nagy is independently notable or not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no of course. There Teng is. In fact, this particular article is a real link fest for many of the other articles that have shown up at Afd. Again, though, Neelix has done a lot of good work, too. And notable organizations or people should be judged on their own merits. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable per Shawn in Montreal. Notability is not temporary. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easy call: there are multiple instances of significant coverage of the subject person in mainstream, independent, reliable news sources more than sufficient to satisfy the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG. A careful review of WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE for the nominator is in order here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk)

Take a look at this edit where an IP is claiming to be the subject and blanking most of the article for the safety of her family. Of course only a full delete will get rid of this information. Continuing to have this article is revictumization of this person. [1] Legacypac (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, that comment was in 2013, at the start of her notability as a spokesperson on the issue. She just finished doing a new set of press interviews on the matter in late October. In the 3 years since, she's clearly become comfortable discussing this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is rather worrying, but the post is old. I do feel we should be flexible, though, in removing some content like this when requested in exceptional circumstances. The encyclopaedia would not suffer from the removal of this article. I feel that having a BLP for a (relatively unknown) victim of crime is invasive and does constitute victimisation. However, it may be true that Nagy no longer feels this way (if it definitely was her/her family posting in 2013). AusLondonder (talk) 21:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really add anything but you can check out this story on her press conference in Toronto, last month. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, KEEP but let's trim it down at least. Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a certain amount of "let's-nominate-all-the-antiprostitution-feminists,-even-though-we-don't-really-have-any-reason-to" going on me-thinks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist: see this thread just archived at ANI, and perhaps this subsection in particular. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Vintage Feminist - As a member of WP:WikiProject Feminism I can assure you that I would oppose such a thing and I do not believe it to be occurring. AusLondonder (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've seen the ANI that User:Rhododendrites mentioned now. I still think the AfD net has been thrown a bit wide on this one though. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, With several distinct reliable news sources, it meets WP:GNG. The discussion is coming out to be WP:NPOV.Kavdiamanju (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dirtlawyer1 essentially outlined everything. AFD is not cleanup nor should it be used to promote nuking the article. If the topic is notable and its contents are supported by reliable sources, then we start to tread into POV when discussing removing wholesale sections of it. Mkdw ^talk 19:19, 15 November 2015 (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.