Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annesu de Vos


 * 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. The article has seen none of the necessary improvement to rebut the "delete" !votes. As a courtesy to the page creator, I will proactively userfy instead of outright deletion. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Annesu de Vos

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The speedy deletion template was removed by supposedly a different editor than the creator. There are conflict of interest issues admitted to by the editors concerned and possibly sock puppet/meat puppet activity. As well, there has been some bad faith accusations on the article talk page about myself having an agenda for nominating the article for deletion and legal threats for merely edited the article and nominating it for deletion. The main issue with the article is that there is no apparent notability per WP:GNG. Only one reference has been provided and although it is in Afrikaans, it is apparent that the link does not actually mention the subject. If it can be pointed out where she is discussed, I'd happily take back this particular point. In the end, there is no real claim to notability other than supposedly being the youngest published poet in South African history. I don't believe that by itself establishes notability as children and teens publishing poetry or any other writing is not that uncommon. The article then discusses what she is planning on doing, pursuing a career in screenwriting an completing a course in screenplay writing, which is commendable but hardly uncommon in Toronto. Editing issues (removal of templates, bad faith accusations, sock or meat puppetry, ownership claims on the article) aside, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG and does not have the reliable sources necessary to establish notability.  freshacconci  talk to me  03:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The French, Dutch, and Afrikaans Wikipedias have articles on the Eugene Marais Prize, which the subject apparently won in 1981. This seems to be confirmed by this page. However, whether that is enough to confer notability is an open question. According to that same page, it's not the highest prize one can receive for SA literature, and it's given out for debut works. ... disco spinster   talk  03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - I find no interviews, no third-party biographies, or anything else that would support a claim of notability high enough in level to meet requirements. There are mentions and listings, but nothing substantial. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent lambast patrol records 06:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The following was just posted to the article (and was reverted as inappropriate), likely by the author, so I'm posting it here. I have no opinion on the merits of this discussion, but for completeness, I'm posting the comment. I do, however, note that the article was quickly nominated for deletion within a day of its creation. Anyway, here is the comment from the article: "Please note that this article is incomplete. There are multiple references, interviews etc. for this author whose work has been in the South African literature curriculum at grade school as well as university level for more than 30 years - these references will be entered as speedily as possible. Compiling this author's Wiki has been made more complicated by the fact that she has lived in Canada for more than 25 years and most of the references to her early work, interviews, articles on her etc. occurred in a foreign country and foreign language (Afrikaans). In the course of my research I have had to enlist the help of all who could assist me with missing information including the author herself - to the best of my knowledge doing this for a research project does not violate the Wiki rules in any way shape or form. I will remove this notice once my work is complete and I request that I be given a chance to complete it. Other editors will be assisting me so please do not block this project or delete anything until the entire body of work is accurately represented and please do not make judgements on a literary history if you have no expertise on the subject and do not even read the language! I request that I not be subjected to any more obstructive deletion notices - I will remove this notice once my work is completed. - PD"

Regards, Electric Wombat (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would, just for the record, be completely comfortable arguing that this should be kept if it were properly referenced to reliable sources. A literary award does not have to be its country's highest honour for its winners to count as notable, nor does it have to be for established writers rather than emerging ones — the only requirements are that the award is notable, and that the writer's article is properly referenced to reliable sources. However, what I see here is one reference to a Tumblr post, one to an article which mentions her name in passing but fails to be about her in any meaningful way, one which completely fails to mention her at all and one which is just to the front splash page of an organization whose name happens to be mentioned in the text. (And furthermore, for some reason if I type her name into the search bar on that organization's web page, I get taken to an article which is titled "Annesu de Vos (1964–)", but which has a biography of Johannes Petrus (Jan) Spies, rather than Ms. de Vos, as its actual content.) Which means that as things currently stand, we have a complete verifiability fail — but we still have a writer who probably would qualify for an article that was properly referenced. Delete if the article is still in its current state by close, although (a) I'm willing to switch that to a Heymann keep if the referencing improves, and (b) even if it does get deleted the creator should be encouraged to work on a better version in his own sandbox (maybe even consider userfying this page for him as a good faith gesture). Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep A handful of entries at Google Books shows some notability from the 1980s and early 90s. Support of use in schools seen here not a lot of support but not totally unverified either. Given available evidence give it some time to develop and not rush to delete, revisit in the future. -- GreenC  04:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2014 (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.