Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoshana Rudiakov (3rd nomination)

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. Davewild (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshana Rudiakov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Last 2 AfDs closed as no consensus due to poor participation. Can I please ask that it is repeatedly relisted if it doesn't attract comments rather than just closed. This is the 3rd attempt to get a discussion about it, and it has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; it really needs resolution. Pinging those who have commented before: LaMona, Wikimandia, Kingturtle, 24.151.10.165, Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Probably notable but the article is a blatant COPYVIO of http://www.eroica.com/sr-artist.html so if the copied contend were removed there's nothing much left worth salvaging. On the other hand, ifsomeone were interesed in rewriting it and finding other sources, it could easily be kept. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve by (1 - repairing the citations, which are good, reliable citations any way; 2 - By adding some more content) The subject is notable and historical now. Educationtemple (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This pianist is notable and the topic is worth an article. Reviews in the New York Magazine indicate this. The article content however will have to go. It is both copied and promotional in terms of word choice. However it is not a candidate for deletion. It is adequately sourced and it indicates notability. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Its a borderline case at best, which is no doubt why its been stuck in AfD purgatory forever. One would expect that some obituaries would exist if she was notable (like her relative did [1]), but I can't find one even in the Stuttgarter Zeitung.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article as it stands does not make best use of the available material. We can get more biography from the existing refs, we can get a list of recordings, and here is a death announcement from the Stuttgarter Zeitung: Noyster (talk), 14:03, 10 May 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.