Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Alač

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CJinoz (talk | contribs) at 08:27, 9 March 2017 (had missed the "also known as". Hard to judge based on language though.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Aleksandra Alač

Aleksandra Alač (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)

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)
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]
    Jack Frost: The WP:NRV that you refer to says in bold letters Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. No such user (talk) 08:12, 8 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]
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]
  • Comment - Ah, apparently I now need to be able to read Bosnian. Though I did chuck the first couple of google articles I found through translate when I looked the first time, and wasn't impressed... When I searched then (and again now): 3 news results, 1,040 google web results, 0 book results, and 0 world news archive (via a work database) results. To address these suggested sources one-by-one: 1) A third-rate media interview. Does not establish notability. 2) A series of photos tagged with the subject's name; most have no accompanying text. Does not establish notability. 3) Another series of photos tagged with the subject's name, some are of a meal. Some appear to be of a theatrical production she was in. None are of her alone. Does not establish notability. 4) A profile consisting of her name, photo and a short list of productions she has been in on a website which appears to be a general directory of theatre productions. Does not establish notability. 5) An interview about her life in general, and advice on matchmaking on some fourth-rate celebrity website. Does not establish notability. 6) A ~2 minute interview on youtube (in Bosnian), so I cannot assess its veracity. 7) An article on a fourth-rate celebrity tabloid website, which mentions her in passing as the new fling of some actor. Does not establish notability. 8) An interview with another fourth-rate celebrity tabloid. Does not establish notability (to give you some idea of what sort of website, the tagline of the next article is "Rumour has it, THIS REASON FOR COMING TO SERBIA Ana was in Belgrade for a visit to a gynaecologist". 9) 1.5 paragraphs in a 5 paragraph story on that weeks episode of the soap opera she's in on yet another fourth-rate celebrity tabloid website. Does not establish notability. Therefore, so far as I can tell not one of them provides "significant coverage in reliable sources..." I will freely admit though that I do not read a jot of Bosnian, so I am relying on a web translation, the opinion of a Bosnian colleague who has been bribed with coffee & chocolate to read through the sources as a second opinion (her opinion of the news sources; "I wouldn't wipe my arse with any of them"), and my browsing through other articles in the sources to attempt to assess what they are. In summary, I remain thoroughly unconvinced of the notability of this article's subject. --Jack Frost (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jack Frost: First, thank you (no sarcasm whatsoever) for the effort that you put in investigating this, which apparently also included a financial investment of yours :). I will largely agree with your analysis, that the subject is an actor in a few (notable, though) TV series and theater plays who achieved status of a minor celebrity, much of it through her physical appearance, and thus largely covered in tabloids more about her personal life than about her acting. However, I still think there are enough useful sources to make a start-class article and that the coverage (tabloids or not) raises above the GNG bar; Wikipedia is not only about the subjects we like. What I am (obviously) annoyed about is the total lack of attempt at WP:BEFORE by the nominator and several other editors with an apparent deletionist agenda who care much more about some MMORPG AfD-point-scoring than about site policies and reader benefit; quoting from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoran Terzić for one: My nominating articles that result in "keep" hurts my AfD percentage. I don't want to come across as a staunch defender of this bad article about a borderline notable actor, and Wikipedia can surely do without it... meh. I honestly don't care much; enough time wasted overall. No such user (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw, the "2) A series of photos tagged with the subject's name; most have no accompanying text. Does not establish notability." [10] actually is an index of articles tagged with the subject's name, of which there is a dozen about her. Hello! (magazine) (Serbian edition) is a trashy tabloid though. No such user (talk) 16:29, 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 the IP's clarification below. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 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]
Really? OK thanks for that, I've changed my vote. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PageantUpdater: No, neither of the sources I linked is a blog. Those are online editions of mostly printed publications, easily obtained from first 3 pages of (numerous) Google results. True, many are tabloids of patchy reliability (well, she's that kind of actress, if you know what I mean), but they demonstrate the subject's notability, which has been raised as an issue. Namely Blic, Večernji list and her home Belgrade Drama Theatre should suffice, as they pass the RS bar. As for updating the article, I could do that, but I'm kind of tired doing WP:HEY for AfDs on subjects out of my field of interest just because nominators can't be arsed to do follow the proper investigation before nominating. As for Jack Frost, who cites WP:NRV – see my reply above. No such user (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add Večernje novosti to the list: [11]. No such user (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion to update with sources was based on the fact you appear to understand the language and thus would have a better ability to assess any potential sources. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@No such user I do not think that this user even read [3] or [7], for example. The "reference" [3] is not about this actress rather about her father Aleksandar. The "reference" [7] is about the actress new love Milos Bikovic. The rest of "references" are more about the actress' personal life and appearance than about her achievements. In the "ref"-list we cannot see much (better say nothing) from movie and theatre critics about her acting performances and achievements.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've never seen a Wikipedia article that existed in 3 other languages be deemed to be not notable before. Seem to be enough Google News hits. 3,700 Google hits. Are you all looking at this properly? Nfitz (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear I'd missed the "also known as". It's really hard to assess the sources without understanding the language though. Strange that her most common name appears to be Anja yet the article is called Aleksandra --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aleksandra_Alač&oldid=769399967"