- 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 keep. – Joe ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sara Mitić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is unreferenced. She is not listed as a contestant at Miss Universe 2017. Neither of the external links mention her. Where is the evidence of notability? David Biddulph ( talk) 13:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The only specific concern of the nomination, that the article is unreferenced, is no longer the case.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Guilty as charged! :-)
David, I want to encourage you to do some research before nominations, check out
WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this nomination as the article is now sufficiently sourced.
gidonb (
talk)
23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I concur. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Guilty as charged! :-)
David, I want to encourage you to do some research before nominations, check out
WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this nomination as the article is now sufficiently sourced.
gidonb (
talk)
23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete being runner up in a beauty contest is not enough to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- And 1+1=2 but how do your AfD statements relate to the articles for deletion?
gidonb (
talk)
08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at this editor's edit history, we see rapid fire !voting in AfDs sorted alphabetically, typically spending one minute per AfD. When I studied this pattern a couple of months ago, I noticed that the editor never brings sources to the AfD. This means to me that this is evidence that the editor is not looking for sources. The !vote here is especially transparent as the nomination is not based on notability, nor does the !vote claim that the topic fails GNG. The editor completed this !vote in 1 minute 12 seconds. It is my opinion that this !vote is not a valid argument for deletion, so if the nominator withdraws under the advice of WP:BEFORE, the AfD can be closed under the authority of WP:SK. Unscintillating ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's an ongoing problem at many AfDs. gidonb ( talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With 4 sources, 2 national and 2 regional, fully focused on this model she clearly passes the WP:GNG. Nomination seems to fail WP:BEFORE. After thorough referencing and cleaning up the article, the question in the intro is adequately answered but all statements are no longer relevant. gidonb ( talk) 03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since then I've added several newspaper articles on Mitic and on shows in which she participated. There are many more. The early coverage seemed lacking as she went by Sari Mitić at that time. For even more references, also follow Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. gidonb ( talk) 15:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gidonb and the sources indicating notability. The nom needs to understand that current state of the article is means for improvement. Deletion is a final resort after due diligence has been done to determine if the topic is viable for an article. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gidonb, and per references. passes WP.GNG anyway now, even without beauty pageant participation. BabbaQ ( talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Article is no longer unreferenced. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The nomination was made in good faith, but I could find no sources (in any language which I could understand) to convince me that there were reliable sources. I realise that sources not in English are acceptable, but it needs to be left to those who understand the languages concerned to assess the acceptability of the sources. Obviously the article has changed out of all recognition since the nomination, and it is good that a number of apparently erroneous statements which seemed to be the main claims to notability in the version which existed at that time have now been removed. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime! All sources I added are reliable. Most also count to Mitic's significance, others just for referencing info in the article. Information that I could not confirm, I have removed. I kindly requested an anonymous contributor not to add speculative data. There is no question of bad faith here, just a recommendation to check better before AfD-ing. As under our policies there is no case for deletion, how about withdrawing? gidonb ( talk) 05:39, 29 November 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.
- 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 keep. – Joe ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
- Sara Mitić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is unreferenced. She is not listed as a contestant at Miss Universe 2017. Neither of the external links mention her. Where is the evidence of notability? David Biddulph ( talk) 13:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark ( talk) 14:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The only specific concern of the nomination, that the article is unreferenced, is no longer the case.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Guilty as charged! :-)
David, I want to encourage you to do some research before nominations, check out
WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this nomination as the article is now sufficiently sourced.
gidonb (
talk)
23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- I concur. Unscintillating ( talk) 02:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Guilty as charged! :-)
David, I want to encourage you to do some research before nominations, check out
WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this nomination as the article is now sufficiently sourced.
gidonb (
talk)
23:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete being runner up in a beauty contest is not enough to make someone notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- And 1+1=2 but how do your AfD statements relate to the articles for deletion?
gidonb (
talk)
08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at this editor's edit history, we see rapid fire !voting in AfDs sorted alphabetically, typically spending one minute per AfD. When I studied this pattern a couple of months ago, I noticed that the editor never brings sources to the AfD. This means to me that this is evidence that the editor is not looking for sources. The !vote here is especially transparent as the nomination is not based on notability, nor does the !vote claim that the topic fails GNG. The editor completed this !vote in 1 minute 12 seconds. It is my opinion that this !vote is not a valid argument for deletion, so if the nominator withdraws under the advice of WP:BEFORE, the AfD can be closed under the authority of WP:SK. Unscintillating ( talk) 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's an ongoing problem at many AfDs. gidonb ( talk) 14:12, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. With 4 sources, 2 national and 2 regional, fully focused on this model she clearly passes the WP:GNG. Nomination seems to fail WP:BEFORE. After thorough referencing and cleaning up the article, the question in the intro is adequately answered but all statements are no longer relevant. gidonb ( talk) 03:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since then I've added several newspaper articles on Mitic and on shows in which she participated. There are many more. The early coverage seemed lacking as she went by Sari Mitić at that time. For even more references, also follow Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. gidonb ( talk) 15:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gidonb and the sources indicating notability. The nom needs to understand that current state of the article is means for improvement. Deletion is a final resort after due diligence has been done to determine if the topic is viable for an article. -- Oakshade ( talk) 05:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per gidonb, and per references. passes WP.GNG anyway now, even without beauty pageant participation. BabbaQ ( talk) 21:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Article is no longer unreferenced. Unscintillating ( talk) 00:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - The nomination was made in good faith, but I could find no sources (in any language which I could understand) to convince me that there were reliable sources. I realise that sources not in English are acceptable, but it needs to be left to those who understand the languages concerned to assess the acceptability of the sources. Obviously the article has changed out of all recognition since the nomination, and it is good that a number of apparently erroneous statements which seemed to be the main claims to notability in the version which existed at that time have now been removed. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 00:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- Anytime! All sources I added are reliable. Most also count to Mitic's significance, others just for referencing info in the article. Information that I could not confirm, I have removed. I kindly requested an anonymous contributor not to add speculative data. There is no question of bad faith here, just a recommendation to check better before AfD-ing. As under our policies there is no case for deletion, how about withdrawing? gidonb ( talk) 05:39, 29 November 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.