Talk:Janet Van De Graaff

Notice: This article lacks WP:A to establish WP:BIO

In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Untitled

Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable source attribution in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, perhaps User:Mrsblink182 (talk · contribs), or other recent contributors to this article, will make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. — triwbe (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello? She's won nationwide comedy awards in a big nation. Isn't that enough? (Should she also appear in some video game or something?)

True, the article has no sourcing, but that's a different matter. Tama1988 (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is no source is exactly the matter. Without it it fails WP:V a core policy of Wikipedia, and should be deleted. I quote The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth--triwbe (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's exactly the matter. But it's a different matter from the one you raised in this edit, in which you had the article say Does not show notability to be included (as well as other stuff). Meanwhile, your notice above says In my opinion, this article either lacks sufficient Attribution that it satisfies the Notability criteria for Biographies, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation, which I have to read several times for even a partial understanding, though I do like the eighteenth Century Capitalization of impressive Nouns.

The sourcing is terrible and for all I know the assertions of notability are mostly fraudulent. (I know nothing about this person.) The article richly deserves UNREFERENCED and/or FACT warnings. But the assertions of notability are there. Tama1988 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Flagged articles

I have removed the [[Category:Flagged articles]] from the message above . it was flagged at least two months ago by Some Other Editor, but the current version looks to me like a Righteous Stub ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Prod

Although I only see one win and three nominations (instead of the claimed three awards), I believe that this win makes her notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rename article

Her name is Janet Van De Graaff - I'm not sure how to move the article to reflect that, but the current spelling is wrong. Uberbuber2000 (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Uberbuber2000, I have reversed your changes to the spelling for now, as the two links in the article quote "Janet van de Graaf". Do you have any reliable sources that back up your claim? If so, then the article can be moved. Commander Keane (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Commander Keane, my wife is her first cousin and that is how the whole family spells their name. The articles are often getting it wrong, with missing letters and/or capitalization. Uberbuber2000 (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Uberbuber2000: I understand your frustration but that sounds like original research which we can't accept. If no reliable sources can be found at all, a deletion may be appropriate. Commander Keane (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, what would count as an appropriate source? Here are a few which spell her name this way: https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Janet-Van-De-Graaff/, https://olathetheatre.org/janet-van-de-graaff-to-give-talkback-following-drowsy-chaperone-at-octa/. Further, in the Playbill list of the cast, her character is spelled this way too: https://playbill.com/production/the-drowsy-chaperone-marquis-theatre-vault-0000008180

Would this suffice? Uberbuber2000 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Uberbuber2000, I have made the change. I think a playbill is enough. It is disappointing that it appears Channel Canada and CBC news got it wrong, but plausible. If anyone has conclusive sources that the previous spelling was correct please chime in. Thanks for digging up the sources and persevering. Commander Keane (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, thanks for making the change and being patient with me as I found what you needed. I appreciate you being careful with this. Uberbuber2000 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Once we get 100% comfortable that we have arrived at the correct spelling, someone should fix the incoming links. Commander Keane (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@Commander Keane, at what point is that call made? I can slowly go through and update the links, but don't want to do it if there is a chance the changes are undone. 2601:8C3:858A:4570:4C37:ADE9:4D9C:6091 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Just commensense I guess. I would wait two weeks. You could be bold and do it immediately though. An alternative would be to get a bot operator to do it, saving time and getting a third opinion at the same time. Commander Keane (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)