Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

Karin Van Der Laag

edit
AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Karin Van Der Laag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted (WP:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag) and I don't think the new article addresses the notability concerns. I also don't see articles about the subject since the previous AfD that would add to coverage such to satisfy N. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe that the subject (and the creating editor, who are the same person) deserve better than what may appear from the previous opinions to be a lack of consensus. My feeling is that more policy based opinions are required one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is difficult. It's coming down to, for me, whether to withdraw on account of the SAFTA award, which as I'm looking up and trying to verify, does not exactly scream to me as a "well-known and significant award or honor". I did find an article from news24.com but the limited coverage of the event doesn't induce confidence. And I don't even see any press releases or the regular congratulatory statements made about the subject following the award. I'm open to withdrawing, but at this time I still don't think see it, but I am happy to be convinced otherwise. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure the article is very clear on this. It says "in 2011" but that must refer to the television season. The article for the 18th South African Film & Television Awards says that it will be hosted in October 2025, yet the 17th was hosted in 2023, so I don't think this is held annually, (see South African Film and Television Awards § Ceremonies). I'm not sure if the subject would have then received one for 5th South African Film & Television Awards or 6th South African Film & Television Awards. Aside from the news24.com coverage, which isn't the most RS as there appears to be some spelling inconsistencies and mistakes in the article, it is mostly WP:UGC in any of my search results of SAFTA keywords and the article's subject that is used to verify any award wins. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I will not express a formal keep/delete opinion because I have been involved with seeking, often failing, to set the creating editor on the correct path. While I view the creation of autobiographies as unwise they are not prohibited. This one certainly feels correctly neutral.
    Notability is a different matter. An actor who plays a part for 12 years ought to be notable, but, if she is notable, why is there so little about her in reliable media? In the absence of that coverage her notability seems to hang on the SAFTA award. That award is problematic. News 24 suggests she was not the recipient, other media suggest that she was.
    Is the award itself of sufficient notability for winners to be notable? Did she win one?
    Unless further policy based opinions for retention or deletion are given here to clarify matters I don't envy the eventual closer of this discussion. I believe that a 'no consensus' close would be the worst of all possible worlds even if it is the only close possible. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say, to that end, there was a previous AfD that found her not notable. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobby Cohn In a similar manner to the fact that we view notability, once established, not to diminish over time, we should also view notability as an attribute which can only increase (or remain unaltered). Thus participants in this discussion should be asked to consider whether there is additional referenced or reference-able activity leading to a different decision from the prior discussion.
    The articles then and now are different, The subject is the same. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 13:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified: User talk:S0091, User talk:Theroadislong, User talk:Mushy Yank, User talk:Cocobb8. Reason: These editors participated in the previous discussion. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I moved this from draft because I thought it had slightly more than a 50% chance of surviving an WP:AFD. I also have doubts about the award and it's notability and whether she actually received it, generally significant coverage of her is lacking. Theroadislong (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Isidingo. The award was in the context of that show and could, perhaps, be mentioned there. Other than that, there is no claim to independent notability. If the subject became notable in the future, the page history (such as it is) could be used from the redirectt to build a new article, but there is nothing to say here at this point. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems like a very suitable solution. Theroadislong (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict): Not at all opposed, this seems like an excellent ATD per Sirfurboy above and Alalch E. below. My analysis does not see this subject meeting the GNG, NBIO, NACTOR, etc. I also think that the aforementioned awards are not a "well-known and significant award or honor." However, everything seems to be within the context of that show, and I agree with Timtrent above, notability does not degrade over time,[a] we absolutely can keep the page preserved with it's history and new credible claims of notability can be assessed in their totality with this and the prior conversation. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ I apologize if my curtness above was taken as rudeness.
  • Redirect to Isidingo. WP:SNG says: ... , topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria which includes WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR, which are the only relevant SNG criteria that may apply to this topic, says: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Without good enough sources, we can't have a suitable biography of a living person. A WP:BLP must Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources ... If there are no reliable sources to summarize, and we can only have an entirely non-transformative, non-summarizing, fragmentary listing of raw facts, this is not legitimate encyclopedic material.
    Notability as such is already only a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice".
    GNG is a notability criterion based on a belief that this presumption is justified when the topic has been significantly covered. GNG being equal to "merits an article" is a rebuttable presumption in any given case, because it may actually be that the topic does not merit an article even though it has been significantly covered: [Meeting a notability criterion] is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.
    Passing ANYBIO or NACTOR while not passing GNG introduces a second level of presumption: It is a presumption that a topic merits an article as "worthy of notice", because, even though a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified, it is presumed that it exists, because of the inherent properties of the subject (and just needs to found over time). Here, the subject may pass ANYBIO and NACTOR, but at the same time, editors don't seem to think that a suitable volume of significant coverage exists, despite good efforts to find it. It really does not seem to exist.
    This should probably lead to the conclusion that the presumption is rebutted on both levels: The topic would have merited an article as being "worthy of notice", but a suitable volume of significant coverage has not been identified; and while it was provisionally presumed that it exists (on SNG grounds), when this presumption was examined using available evidence, it was concluded that it really does not exist. This should practically mean that writing an encyclopedically worthy biography is impossible. And it does appear to be impossible. Readers will need more and we should decide that they deserve better than being served this article for a long time to come (the sourcing situation may change in the future of course). —Alalch E. 15:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karin_Van_Der_Laag_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1251663628"