Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sylvaine Strike

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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvaine Strike[edit]

[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)

A clear violation of WP:PROMO and no claim of notability established. AshMusique (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time that we deleted every single article that is sourced only to IMDb. We would not tolerate so many articles sourced only to a reliable source, to tolerate so many sourced only to one particular unreliable source undermines the overall reliability of Wikipedia. This travesty needs to end immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that such an undersourced article has existed for 14 years shows that Wikipedia needs much better safegaurds against abuse of the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and John Pack Lambert. It’s a scandal that this has existed for 14 years - and even worse, that an editor with clear COI issues added blatant promo material 2 years ago unchallenged. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - changing my vote based on new sources however significant sections will need rewriting to fix ongoing COI issue. WP:TNT may be more productive. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clear case of WP:BEFORE part c not being done. This article should've had an advert tag and should've been cleaned up in the 14 years it existed unsourced. I've began fixing it up with the sources I could easily find. Strike meets WP:DIRECTOR as (if you bother to google her) she is often cited by peers (ie. actors/directors in South Africa) as an inspiration (crit. 1). She has one of France's highest awards/recognitions for creatives (Ordre des Arts et des Lettres), so meets WP:ANYBIO crit. 1. Is the article in bad shape? Yes. Is that a reason for deletion? No. Do sources exist about Strike? Yes. Many of them. WP:DINC - Samsmachado (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced ... I don't see how this was nominated, and I'm perplexed at User:Johnpacklambert thinks this particular article is a travesty - once again raising concerns about their competency to participate in AFD discussions. Can you explain User:Johnpacklambert why there aren't any reliable sources for this subject? Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article had no references when all !votes prior to mine were left. So while neither JPL nor Cardiffbear checked whether sources exist by doing a simple google search, I don't know that this was necessarily incompetence. Samsmachado (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was totally unsourced when I voted. And it’s still a disgrace that it’s taken 14 years to fix it. The COI issue is also still a problem. Nevertheless I have changed my vote to reflect the new sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the comment was solely related to this article, then no, I agree, that it's no necessarily incompetence - and it was only JPL I was expressing concern about. But there's a long history here. Nfitz (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was sourced only to IMDb, which is not sourcing at all. The fact that anyone finds my objecting to articles only sourced to IMDb problematic is not a good sign for Wikipedia being strong on requiring reliable sources especially for biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert, would you like to change your !vote (as Cardiffbear88 did) in light of WP:NEXIST and changes made to the page? Or do you have new rationale for keeping your vote for delete? Samsmachado (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing now is adequate. I still hold to my view that we need to create a procedure that allows for a prod deletion against an article if it is only sourced to IMDb that can only be removed if a source other than IMDb is added to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.