Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nande Mabala

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nande Mabala

[edit]

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

Nande Mabala (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)

Sockpuppets and likely LOUTSOCK IPs are repeatedly eliminating a redirect, so instead of edit warring I am seeking an AfD consensus to establish a redirect to Miss South Africa 2023. The subject is not a pageant winner, and any notability she has appears to be WP:BLP1E for her placing in that pageant; the coverage that exists is WP:ROUTINE and there is no WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why redirect in the first place? Edit warring and sock are not ground for deletion. Deal with the users and IP adequately. I also don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. The subject is a model, just like how a musician can be a one hit wonder. She is clearly notable and discussed in multiple RS, meaning she pass WP:GNG. A simple Google search is enough, I'm not gonna try to reference the whole internet here. dxneo (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you supply the specific sources you believe constitute SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG? I didn’t find any in my BEFORE, just mentions of her pageant career that didn’t go into substantial depth. P.S. Editor disagreements over a redirect are indeed a valid reason for an AfD discussion per WP:BLAR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! I think I'll be back here on the 30th. Can't perform a full search rn, but she did headline multiple RS. Ciao! dxneo (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have seen a lot of secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. I'm wondering how you nominated this article for deletion because what didn't tally with I knew on Wikipedia. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] are enough to establish notability, as such it pass GNG [[Special:Contributions 102.91.92.110 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — 102.91.92.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Nope, your first, second, and fourth sources are tabloid coverage, and per WP:SBST, tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. The third source is a Q&A interview and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The fifth source is not an journalistically independent publication; it's a local booster/hotel room magazine. The sixth source, while not a Q&A, is composed almost entirely of quotes from Mabala and appears to based solely on an interview with her and is thus also a primary source. We're not at the point of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG yet. By the way, since this is the first time this IP address has edited Wikipedia, can I ask what accounts you've previously used? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we need to discuss this "interview is a primary source" thing, because that's where information normally comes from. If another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's "primary". If the interview was published by a reliable source, then it's most definitely reliable. dxneo (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not on my laptop so not going to type a full reply, but between this recent long discussion thread and WP:INTERVIEWS, there’s a robust consensus that merely being interviewed does not make one notable and that any content that is entirely or almost entirely dependent on an interview with the subject is not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I'll comment on the notability of the subject in the next few days. dxneo (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there are feature articles about her in the Sowetan, Dispatch, Worcester Standard, Star, and IOL. Plus coverage in the Sunday Times. Sure, a lot of the content is from interviews with Mabala, but these are by no means straight Q&A and are about as hard-hitting as you can expect of journalism about beauty pageants. I doubt that many models would pass WP:GNG if only investigative journalism qualified as secondary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Jlalbion (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of not appearing to bludgeon the discussion I’ll refrain from further comments in this discussion, other than to say that I reviewed these additional sources in my BEFORE and did not find them to pass the bar of independence (as single source interviews) or of SIGCOV (as tabloid coverage). I don’t edit much on beauty pageants and perhaps there is a local consensus at AfD on sourcing for pageant participants that I’m unaware of, so I’ll let the community decide without further input. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is an apparent consensus to Keep, there are valid questions on whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV. I think editors familiar with content creation know the limits of accepting interviews as secondary sources which depend on the content of the interview and if there is any independent content aside from the Q&A occurring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We still have a fundamental disagreement among participating editors on whether or not the sources provided supply adequate coverage of this article subject. At this point, a source review might help determine which side is on more solid ground.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Adding a source assessment table of sources presented in this discussion per Liz's request.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No The article is based entirely on an WP:INTERVIEW with the subject and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on the subject's social media posts and interviews with her and her mother, and does not appear to include independent reporting. No Article uses promotional language like "In a dazzling display of grace, poise and an unwavering commitment to social impact..." Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and the subject's social media posting and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes No Tabloid coverage is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:SBST. ✘ No
Yes Yes Short article, WP:ROUTINE coverage. ? Unknown
No The article is published by the subject's alma mater and thus not independent Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and the subject's social media posting and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes No Tabloid coverage ("celeb news") is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:SBST. ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on the subject's social media posting and does not appear to include independent reporting. Yes No Tabloid coverage ("celeb news") is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:SBST. ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on the subject's social media posting and does not appear to include independent reporting. No Includes WP:PROMO language like Nande Mabala’s journey has been undoubtedly nothing short of inspiring No Tabloid coverage ("celeb news") is not WP:SIGCOV per WP:SBST. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Source assessment table prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
No The article is a Q&A interview with the subject. Yes Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and does not appear to include independent reporting. No This is a hotel-room marketing/local booster magazine. Yes ✘ No
No The article is based entirely on an interview with the subject and consists almost entirely of quotes from her. Yes Yes ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, this is a nonsensical assessment. What is SIGCOV? What is GNG? Has the subject headlined multiple RS? Start there. To say sources are "entirely" based on interviews is something else too. Sources state her age, birth place, what she's known for, academic records, achievements and so on. Try again mate. dxneo (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I offered a source assessment since the closer asked for one. Feel free to do your own. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Next time don't be bias, be fair. Anyway, thank you. dxneo (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dxneo You've just accused me of bias without offering evidence. That's a serious accusation. Please withdraw your accusation or take it to my talk page or WP:ANI if you believe my actions are biased. I've articulated my rationale and pointed to discussions and essays that underlie it for why the interviews of the subject are not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you mean as in "what do they stand for?", "what are they being used to refer to in this context?", or something else i'm missing? because if it's that first one, the links are right there
would also appreciate some elaboration on what you think is nonsensical or biased about them consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 15:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I'm out. dxneo (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
in the meantime, delete for 3 main reasons
  • the sources, as dclemens noted, are at best of debatable usability, with only one having a chance of not not meeting gng
  • the article, as it is, is a little too promotional for something 9 lines long, and might need the tnt treatment
  • it's also way too short, which, for someone with this many sources (usable or otherwise), really shouldn't be the case
  • admittedly on the petty side, but i want to see how long it'll take for that sock to attempt to recreate it
...what do you mean that's not 3? have you tried cleaning your glasses? consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are we discussing notability or the length of the article? dxneo (talk) 17:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
both, as the entire article is judged in afd. as is, while nande might be notable (specifically as defined by wikipedia), sources establishing notability (specifically as defined by wikipedia policy) haven't been found at the moment, and the article could use at least two more lines of text when (and if) sources are found. as an example, gusttavo lima's article could use some work, but it's got at least 11 lines of text (maybe even more!), with citations for most of the claims made in it consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 17:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject did not win either beauty pageants she participated in and has not been discussed outside of those two pageants. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to have a separate article. The subject has not done anything outside these two pageants and doesn't have a career to speak of.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nande_Mabala&oldid=1269012713"