Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislava Pak Stanković

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. Not one source has been proposed that offers significant coverage of the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislava Pak Stanković

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Media adviser to the President of Serbia. No indication that she is notable in her own right. Spinning Spark 17:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep media advisor is notable position. We have numerous articles on advisors on wiki. And artice was just created, it will be expanded. --WhiteWriter^speaks 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I share WhiteWriter's concern about it being a new article ripe for expansion, the fact is WhiteWriter has been around long enough to know notability does not work so simply as someone's appointment (thus this nomination can't be called BITEy for coming too soon). The mere fact that someone is a political appointee does not result in a finding of notability, especially with respect to recent political appointees (in this case, someone who has held the office for two months at most). The article as written reeks of being a CV, the storage of which is not within Wikipedia's goals. My search for sources on this individual has been hampered by the facts that (1) I cannot read Serbian, and (2) the sources I can read are not significant coverage of her in her own right. With that in mind, I would change my !vote to a keep if WhiteWriter or another editor can present a prima facie case that this individual meets WP:GNG. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable political staffer, fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no indications of notability here, fails WP:BIO Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is this media adviser position equivalent to White House Press Secretary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is completly the same!! I cannot belive people find this unnotable! --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources can WhiteWriter provide to verify that the media adviser is equivalent to the White House Press Secretary?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. 50,000 results on google positively attributed to this subject as this is for name between quotes, a number far greater than many "notable subjects". This does not include a further thousand for Станислава Пак Станковић, the Cyrillic counterpart for which I must add she has a healthy article on Serbian Wikipedia. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google results do not equal notability (although they might be an indication that something is there). Press secretaries frequently get their names in the press simply because they have delivered a press statement, ie, just doing their job. The Sebian Wikipedia article does not seem to have anything more than this one. Can you link to any of those results, English or Serbian, that actually discuss her rather than are just examples of her doing her job? If you can, and they are reliable sources, I might change my mind. Spinning Spark 07:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above. You hit the nail on head when you said "frequently get their names in the press" and "doing their job". Combine the two and it is impossible not to be notable. In like manner, not even the most arduous Facebook account holder with his thousands of "friends" can reach 50,000 - not even if every result points to Facebook itself and other social networks. That figure for a non-notable individual is astronomical. Conversely, we have countless articles on persons who achieved "fame" (quoted because I don't recognise the claim) through doing nothing other than appearing on Reality TV which in turn led to scandalous tabloid attention. It's not as if mere game show contestants have given anything to the world - poetry, music, philosophy, comedy, etc.. So you have to admit, the article is certainly borderline. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 50,000 hits, but 367, and 83 for the Cyrillic name, many of which are Wikipedia and mirrors thereof, or other unreliable sources. This is why we don't use the search engine test for making notability determinations. And you seem to be misunderstanding why frequently getting one's name in the press by doing one's job does not lead to notability: publishing a press release about one's employer and simply attaching one's name to that press release as the author does not give rise to a finding of notability. This would be like asserting someone meets WP:GNG because their parents published a birth announcement and their children published an obituary about them. It's two sources, largely about the subject, but it's flat out not enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my system is not producing your finding when I click the links provided, I see from the editing screen that you have attempted to link some kind of information but for some reason it lands at google's main page. We are not talking about a birth or death announcement but an active person known to many members of the public who follow the relevant topic. The figures I produced are correct, it is 50,000 on the search engine and not a single entry pertains to a different person of the same name. Wikipedia appears yes, but accounts for a mere fraction - and you must remember that Wikipedia and mirror sites always dominate the first results. Farther away we see her activites presented in sources such as Blic and other Serbian language publications. The notabilty factor is unequivocal, and in light of my argument on the more recent post that there are articles devoted to persons only to have become known from being contestants on reality shows thereby being less notable if at all notable (ie. I cannot name one without checking), anyone favouring deletion really will have to do better. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the last page of results to get an accurate hit count. Please read WP:SET. It's only 367 hits. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments count for nothing here. Why don't you link to at least one of these alleged 50,000 sources that confirm notability? That would help a lot more. Spinning Spark 22:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She's named at the end of the list on this report. She has presented in Serbia as well as people remember that. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of trivial mention doesn't even come close to supporting notability. As to the OSE arguments, they are not persuasive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A passing mention at the end of a news article about somebody else doesn't make her notable. Feel free to create a new article when there is more indepth coverage about her - not about the President, not about other people - which satisfies the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources number few but notability is certain. Especially if you are from ex-Yu. Zetatrans (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion there is enough sources to vouch for notability. Perunova straža (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then please present a couple of these sources and this discussion will be over. Spinning Spark 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Several keep !votes have made the claim that sources showing notability exist, but have failed to nominate any examples despite being repeatedly requested. In my opinion the closing admin should discount such !votes as unsabstantiated. Spinning Spark 09:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources!

Etc, etc. There is a lot of those, and much more to come. By each passing day we will have more and more material to add here, so it would be pointless to delete it, only to be expanded after it in next recreation... --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above appear to be significant coverage of the subject of this AfD. They are mentions, but mentions do not automatically presume notability. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as has been shown above the subject has received multiple mention in non-primary sources (whose reliability is questionable). However, none of those multiple mentions appear to be in-depth significant coverage of the subject, therefore the subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2013 (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.