- 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 no consensus. This discussion has been relisted twice and has now remained unresolved after a month. The point of contention mainly revolves around:
There seems to be no agreement on either of these points. Seddon talk 23:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyuta Slavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The subject is known for presenting a TV show for kids since a long while. However, I couldn't find any other accomplishments or any good sources. Moreover, there is no article in the Ukrainian wiki. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can anyone clarify what these are: 1, 2 (rather substantive from the looks of it), 3, or 4 (where I think she is just name-cheked). These are all recent news articles. On face value (with reference to WP:NOENG), they certainly look like coverage in reliable sources. St★lwart111 03:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- First is run-off-the-mill coverage of a new song (80% of the text is direct citation of her), second and third sources are interview pieces, hence not reliable, while the fourth is also a photo gallery and direct citations of her related to her releasing a new music video. I would say none of these sources qualify towards Wikipedia:GNG. nearlyevil665 06:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hence not reliable"... why? A source is either a reliable source or not. A reliable source quoting someone or interviewing someone means it might be a primary source (rather than a secondary source) but it doesn't cease to be a reliable source just because it interviewed someone. If anything, WP:INTERVIEW suggests that a decision by a reliable source to interview someone is the very definition of coverage. The material might not be relied upon for contentious claims in the article, but that's another matter entirely. St★lwart111 10:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You would have to go a long way to convince me that glavred.info and hochu.ua are respected sources for entire interview pieces with musicians on their seemingly tabloid-quality entertainment section qualify towards satisfying WP:GNG. That being said even if these were reputable sources I would still very much be reluctant to accept two entire interview pieces as a pass of GNG, especially in the light of complete absence of other sources. I'm interested to see what other editors might have to say about this. nearlyevil665 11:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't ask that they be respected, only that they be reliable. Independence is about independence from the subject. She didn't interview herself. Again, you accept that she has been the subject of "entire interview pieces", so what part of that doesn't constitute significant coverage? And these are just links from Google's "recent news" in English. If you search for her name in Russian/Ukrainian there are many more articles. But I'm sure your WP:BEFORE searches brought up plenty, yes? In which of the article's talk page discussions did you raise these concerns? St★lwart111 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote after reading #3. It's not an interview. The readers have submitted their questions and the subject has answered some of them, like a conference. More importantly, there is an introduction explaining who she is and what she does. Therefore, this specific source looks good. The 3 others don't. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stalwart111: The sources you presented satisfy independent and significant coverage in reliable sources. Interviews can be deemed significant coverage and they are acceptable anyway, with a mix of other sources. I haven't had a chance to review the references in the article yet. As you pointed out WP:NOENG is applicable to this situation. I have Google Translate so I was able to read these articles satisfactorily in English. I wasn't going to get involved with this AfD. But, oh well, here I am. I will Ivote below. Thanks for you efforts. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 4 sources mentioned above appear to be mostly interviews and quotes, so not independent enough to pass the independent requirement of GNG. Please ping me if additional sources are found, I'm willing to take another look. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why so? She didn't interview herself... St★lwart111 11:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be the norm at AFD. I've seen this in other AFDs and this is how I was trained to new page review. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can only suggest that either the training or the conclusion drawn were incorrect. These aren't self-published reflections or personal blogs, they are reliable sources choosing to give a subject significant coverage by interviewing them and transcribing their views. Primary sources for content verification purposes, perhaps, but claiming they aren't independent is a stretch. St★lwart111 23:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- . — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look substantive to me. The best sources have already been posted here. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the ones not posted are definitely "more than trivial" as the guidelines require: https://www.intermedia.ru/news/360988 https://glamurchik.tochka.net/274166-anyuta-slavskaya-zapisala-fit-s-shvedskoy-pop-zvezdoy-80-kh/ Pinging Novem Linguae for another look as they requested. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These are promotional texts to accompany a new single. Promotional is actually worse than trivial. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom (WP:GNG not met; WP:SINGER not met), and per Novem Linguae (regarding mostly-interview coverage). An interview is not unreliable or non-independent simply because it's an interview, and interviews in combination with regular reporting-style coverage can definitely reinforce a good look for SIGCOV, but there's a big problem when there isn't much potentially relevant coverage in the fist place (which is the case), and what coverage there is is mostly interviews. This view does align with policy. We can, and need to, look whether the coverage is significant on a per source basis, and not only as a general impression. Interviews are often long, and are something we'd generally call non-trivial, but they're very rarely in-depth. If you couldn't take a published text and derive a few factual, own-voice content points from it, that could (ostensibly) be incorporated here, it isn't really an instance of in-depth coverage, and generally you can't do so with interviews: obviously, an individual's views, and their claims (unless they appear somehow reinforced by the interviewer, editor...), are not good references for factual claims on Wikipedia, and can't form a backbone of an article. Keeping based on an argument that what's presented here is significant coverage would be kind of unfortunate. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not unfair, but we are talking about interviews like this that involve in-depth discussions of national policy (and other things) where the subject is being simultaneously interviewed by multiple people (thus the format). Yes, the information presented by her would be a primary source for the purposes of verification (we shouldn't for example, have extensive detail of her view on the subject of national identity and music based on that source, even though we could). And her activities are reported on in national newspapers like this which can be used to verify the details of coverage like this (also in interview form) which confirm she hosted a show on Kyiv TV (redlinked in the Television in Ukraine article). St★lwart111 05:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and read the entire interview. Two points that might be useful to note: 1) Questions were submitted by semi-anonymous users; 2) The entire piece is the subject discussing a regional youth project - I don't see the article as significant coverage of the subject, but rather of a project initiated by her. If anything, these sources could attest to the potential notability of the project, not herself. nearlyevil665 09:20, 18 August 2021 (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.