Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nande Mabala

Nande Mabala

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

(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]

Keep: Although some of the sources are questionable, there is enough coverage in mainstream news to meet notability. Rublamb (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was fairly discussed here, her career history and all. Here is her acedemic record from the University of Western Cape. Headlined multiple RS as mentioned before. Enough to support keep. dxneo (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]