Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Alač

Aleksandra Alač

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

There are not enough sources here to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 15:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep. There are enough sources here to pass the general notability guidelines. No such user (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Except the questionable IMDb I do not see any other sources supporting the notability guidelines.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is one source cited (IMDB) and no other reliable sources available (failing WP:NRV). Based on those roles she has held, she does not meet the criteria in WP:ENT to justify the existence of an article. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. I cannot see any other justification to keep. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Let's get to the basics from WP:BEFORE: If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources.; Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability. The minimum search expected is a normal Google search,. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination.[...]or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Except in rare (WP:BLP, WP:TNT and WP:COPYVIO) circumstances, we don't delete bad articles (such as this one) about notable subjects. The subject has received "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. And very recently, the nominator has been (IIRC) topic-banned from nominating the articles of AfD because of his failure to put minimum due diligence. No such user (talk) 13:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been topic banned from anything. Beyond this, this is a BLP, so BLP issues apply, and so we should delete the article if it lacks reliable sources in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @No such user Google search is not a selective search engine. What you listed above are no more than blogs from some third rated online media (Glorija, Vecernji, Latinica etc)--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above, obviously language a difficulty but appears to easily meet GNG. And a minor clarification, no topic ban yet in place for the nominator, the ANI discussion is still open. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per Jack Frost.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @No such user: are you able to update the article with inline references to the articles you linked above? Unfortunately the language is a barrier to referencing the article appropriately or I would do it myself. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "references" are blogs from a bunch of third rated online tabloids.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]