Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Alač


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 11:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Aleksandra Alač

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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)
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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, . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * Btw, the "2) A series of photos tagged with the subject's name; most have no accompanying text. Does not establish notability." 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)


 * 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)
 * Delete per the IP's clarification below. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom and per Jack Frost.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment 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)
 * The "references" are blogs from a bunch of third rated online tabloids.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Really? OK thanks for that, I've changed my vote.  --- PageantUpdater (talk) 06:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Add Večernje novosti to the list: . No such user (talk) 09:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @Nfitz Google search engine is not selective. Those three languages are actually the same language. Notability of this actress is just local and not focused to the actress professional profile. Her professional profile is not impressive therefore not notable.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, humans then have to go through the hits to determine if any of the thousands of sources meet GNG. Here's some more here and here. Serbian and Croatian are the same language - I think wars have started on smaller claims! Obviously very similar. Nfitz (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What's the point of you response? You offered two new Google searches which extracted info from all CDN locations, therefore multiplying unnecessary the same information many times. All I can see she had one or two main roles in some movies and theatre performances and supporting roles in a few other movies/performances locally in Belgrade Serbia or in Zagreb Croatia. Which way it might be worth of the world attention remains beyond my knowledge.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The two new searches were to provide more potential sources. Main roles in some movies and theatre performances? That could meet WP:NACTOR if the films and/or theatre performances themselves are notable. World attention is not important. If they are notable in any of the Yugoslav nations that is good enough. Or if they have a large fanbase or a significant cult following. If the tabloids are full of her, doesn't that mean she have a lot of fans? Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Learn about CDN first to understand Google search hits. WP:NACTOR says
 * Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.-No, Her films are not notable, not multiple
 * Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. -No
 * Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. -No--178.222.144.4 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure what a CDN is - nothing about it on ACTOR. Not sure you are evaluating properly, her film is notable (or else her Croatian film wouldn't have an English web page), but her role doesn't seem significant. Her television role in Ruža vjetrova seems significant, being a lead who did over 200 episodes, and the show is notable - but it seems unique, so multiple is not met. Does she have a large fan base - you say no ... but why is she in the tabloids with all the details about her personal life? It's hard to think of an American who'd be in the tabloids who we don't consider notable. Nfitz (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The main role in 200-episodes long and regionally broadcasted Ruža vjetrova alone should suffice. She also played supporting roles in The Scent of Rain in the Balkans (TV series) (confirmed by Blic, some 5 episodes according to IMDB). The roles in Montevideo, God Bless You! and sr:Ubice mog oca were rather small AFAICT but both were major productions and hugely popular. She also played supporting roles in some 15 theater productions by Belgrade Drama Theatre, a major Serbian theatre . As Nfitz says, her being all over the tabloids (even if we can't use them as RS) should suffice as proof of popularity/fan base/notability. I don't quite understand the apparent zeal to delete this article. No such user (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I couldn't give a flying toss whether or not this article was deleted or not. Quite simply, I recognise that I tend to be too verbose, with a strange habit of flogging the poor, common, comma to death in my writing and editing. Therefore, I contribute to the project in different ways; by participating in recent changes patrol, and by  attempting to provide another set of eyes on WP:AfD. Am I going to lose any sleep over the fact that this article continues to exist, or not, as the case may be; absolutely not. But based off my reading and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and the evidence I can find on the web, I have formed the opinion that the article isn't eligible to be included in the project. So I put forward my opinion, and I do so prepared to defend that opinion (as one should in a reasoned discourse) as well as change it. I don't know that I see a huge amount of zeal either for or against the deletion of the article; just a group of editors putting forward their ideas, prepared to defend them, in an attempt to develop a consensus. To an academic (of sorts) like me; it truely is a wonderful thing. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Nfitz= No such user. So, there is only one soap opera she played the main role in, Wikipedia requests many notable ones. ... her being all over the tabloids -- the tabloids all about advertisement and a cheap entertainment and they are by no means a proof a huge fan base; it might be the number of her followers on tweeter, for instance. How about the unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment? We clearly see that ms Alac notability fail all three Wikipedia requirements listed under WP:NACTOR. Moreover, neither of you two (or just one?) understands how the Google search engine works. The same tabloid article could be replicated over many, maybe hundreds, CDN locations and the Google search will hit all of them not being able to understand that they are the same. It is quite easy to see it if browsing the offered searches.--178.222.144.4 (talk) 13:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello indef-blocked user ; I see you are pretty knowledgeable about certain Špiro Kulišić, among other numerous fields of your expertise, apparently including Google search algorithms. Still not tired of throwing your pearls of wisdom to us mere mortals? No such user (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - meets WP:NACTOR with notable TV role and intense tabloid interest. Also meets WP:GNG with feature articles such as this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * One of those articles does address her profession. By itself not enough to signify notability. If the translation is decent, and it looks to be, it's written like a publicity piece, ergo questionable as WP:RS. Tapered (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Even, according to non-reliable ImDB, she hasn't "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," and so fails WP:ACTOR according that guidelines exact language. Further, some of the tv programs and movies listed in her article look like AfD candidates to me. I realize that translations exist, but when there are no English language references at all, it raises a red notability flag. This post definitely is intended to refute the previous keep recommendation. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree the one TV role she did - where she did 100+ episodes, was significant. After that we have other TV appearances, movie appearance which may be borderline. But note also her stage appearances. Two of the references I provided were for her appearance in "Peter Pan" which seems itself to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Two of those are WP:INTERVIEWs, and not incisive, which makes them far more problematic than you're claiming. The only source for her participation is IMDB—not a reliable source. I'm more willing to admit that she's probably notable, but see my longer 'essay' below for the structural problem. Tapered (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * However, the policy is not with you: WP:GNG Sources do not have to be available online or written in English., WP:V/WP:RSUE: Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. No such user (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well said, but not valid. There's no way to ascertain the WP:RS of the Balkan sources. There's not much cultural interchange between that area, and "the West." It's not like Der Spiegel, LeMonde, El Pais, or Corriere della Sera—there are no Balkan equivalents to these famous (and other not so famous) reliable non-English sources. The problem is best illustrated by The Scent of Rain in the Balkans. The article is poorly sourced, and a google search doesn't produce much main stream/reliable coverage. It's a best seller in the Balkans, and the few mentions in English are at least neutral—but not from known reliable sources. My point is that, for Balkan arts and entertainment, finding reliable sources is a structural problem because of the lack on interchange with the mainstream West. It's not Wikipedia's task to rectify the situation. Tapered (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment per my "delete" this actress's article links to many articles that are candidates for AfD. Tapered (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. I looked at the references in all four Wikis with articles, and found:
 * English: blog, IMDb
 * Croatian: 404, not in citation, 404, IMDb
 * Serbian: IMDb
 * Serbo-Croat: IMDb
 * I appreciate the difficulties of searching in Cyrillic, but in this instance there seems to be zero third-party WP:RS coverage whatsoever. If WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I imagine that a Balkan editor could and would have found it. Fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough RS to squeak through. IMDB (like Wikipedia) is not an RS. Inlinetext (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there were three other articles in other languages on this BLP that had decent, translatable sources, then I'd say let's close this and move on. However, there's no there here. She's a run of the mill minor actress with four Wikipedia articles, which just proves a tautology. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.