Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoltan David

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. AfD withdrawn; nominator agrees there are sufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan David

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

Sorry, just not a notable designer, the only reference is to a press release Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note for an administrator - Based on the comments and actions below, I WP:WITHDRAWN--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 06:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources exist to demonstrate notability. Won award in 2009 1 and another in 2005 2. Although this ref is a blog and not really a reliable source, it lists some of the awards he has won - surely more than enough to establish notability 3. He has also patented a inlay technique 4. I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there. Mabalu (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object if you want to add those good references. The current article has none.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, the sources exist. The onus is on the nominee to add these sources in, especially if you think they are valid sources. This is not the article improvement workshop, as I saw someone say on another AFD I was involved with, and while some of your nominations appear to be valid deletes, there are some such as thus where basic Google searches would have thrown up sources to consider. A nomination for deletion should not be treated as a substitute for article improvement. I would suggest checking what sources and info are out there first before nominating for AFD, that is good practice, especially if you are going to nominate a number all at once. ,Mabalu (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and points taken. Although there can be no doubt that my AfDs have resulted in numerous deletes or substantial improvements - many as you suggest, by me after other editors express support!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus I was on my phone when I commented above hence the typos (so I couldn't just go in and edit the article there and then). I have no problem with improving articles, although jewellery is outside my area remit so I hesitate to tackle these ones. Anyway, back to focusing on the AFD as this is getting off topic. Mabalu (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article edited/expanded, sources added. Mabalu (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2012 (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.