Talk:Janet van de Graaf

==Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish == In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Untitled
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, perhaps User:, or other recent contributors to this article, will make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. — triwbe (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello? She's won nationwide comedy awards in a big nation. Isn't that enough? (Should she also appear in some video game or something?)


 * True, the article has no sourcing, but that's a different matter. Tama1988 (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is no source is exactly the matter. Without it it fails WP:V a core policy of Wikipedia, and should be deleted. I quote The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--triwbe (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, it's exactly the matter. But it's a different matter from the one you raised in this edit, in which you had the article say Does not show notability to be included (as well as other stuff). Meanwhile, your notice above says In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation, which I have to read several times for even a partial understanding, though I do like the eighteenth Century Capitalization of impressive Nouns.


 * The sourcing is terrible and for all I know the assertions of notability are mostly fraudulent. (I know nothing about this person.) The article richly deserves UNREFERENCED and/or FACT warnings. But the assertions of notability are there. Tama1988 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles
I have removed the  from the message above . it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, but the current version looks to me like a Righteous Stub Avic enna sis @ 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod
Although I only see one win and three nominations (instead of the claimed three awards), I believe that this win makes her notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)