Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 6: Line 6:
==Women==
==Women==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Marcegaglia}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruthanna_Emrys}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ruthanna_Emrys}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homeward_Bound_(organization)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Homeward_Bound_(organization)}}

Revision as of 10:46, 20 August 2021

Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Women. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to People.

Purge page cache watch


Women

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Marcegaglia

Emma Marcegaglia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 10:46, 20 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.
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthanna Emrys

Ruthanna Emrys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any secondary sources that give her significant coverage, other than one of the two that are already in the article. The other barely mentions her. I did find a few "listicles", but they are focused on her works. Regardless, they are inadmissible as sources. The best possible source, other than those in the article, is entirely about one of her books. It barely mentions her at all and is dominated by a massive blockquote from the book. All sources published by Tor Books are also inadmissible, as it is her employer and publisher. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 09:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 10:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 11:07, 20 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.
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, SNOW. (non-admin closure) Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 09:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Homeward Bound (organization)

Homeward Bound (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about an organisation not yet shown to meet WP:NCORP most of the sources focus on a single event or routine press coverage most of which has been derived from press releases or interviews. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:49, 20 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.
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. Geschichte (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sevana

AfDs for this article:
Sevana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has only had one mayjor label release therefore WP:SINGER isn't met and there is not enough in depth independent press coverage for WP:NBLP Ferkingstad (talk) 09:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jamaica-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:47, 20 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 10:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Niniane Wang

Niniane Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coatracky CV style article about a run of the mill business person not shown to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NBLP. Most of the sources are either interviews or puff pieces derived from press releases. The subject hasn't one any notable awards outside of the usual listicle style top 50 or top 25 which are all puffery and hardly accolades. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:46, 20 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.
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. WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alanah Pearce

Alanah Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youtuber that fails WP:ANYBIO there's some mainstream press coverage but it focusses on a single event. There certainly isn't the in-depth criticism or analysis of the subject to provide enough WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NBLP. Ferkingstad (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what "single event" is being referred to in the nomination. Pearce is an established journalist with a history of notability; the majority of sources are specifically about her (i.e. not passing mentions) and cover several events in her career. It's not a particularly long article, but that doesn't mean it warrants deletion. – Rhain ☔ 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment A paid editing gang from India created this page for money. They get their money by going around nominating pages for deletion then contacting the subject of the page for a nominal fee. I have contacted the subject of this page and offered to help them in exchange for information on this Indian paid editing operation who use child labour and are financing the taliban.Ferkingstad (talk) 13:50, 20 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.
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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yesomi Umolu

Yesomi Umolu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACADEMIC all of the sources used are primary, ie interviews with the subject or content based on press releases from the subject or the organisations that they work for. There is no in-depth independent coverage offereing both the criticism and analysis required for a Wikipedia article. Ferkingstad (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 20 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.
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. Consensus reached is that the article passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Soranno

Amy Soranno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article, Amy Soranno, is not notable. The vast majority of the sources discussing this person are linked to a single event: a single instance of a series of "Meat the Victims" protests that the subject, along with many other people, was involved in. It seems that even the worldwide collection of "Meat the Victims" protests as a whole does not have its own article, and even if it did, the single instance would not, on its own, be noteworthy, as it seems to have only generated national news articles in Canada for about one day. Her activism seems generally common and un-notable, and there is no indication that she's engaged in activism of any kind since this Meat the Victims thing besides chaining herself to the front doors of her local bank. Another section describes Amy's purported illnesses, one of which is pseudoscientific nonsense, and none of which are unusual enough to earn her an article. The remaining section describes Amy's career as a "teen beauty queen", which, from the article, seems to have culminated in her participation in a local carnival's beauty pageant. MichaelKossin (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

— MichaelKossin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Her other activism has not been notable enough to warrant coverage from reliable sources, and the upcoming trial is again part of the single arguably-notable event the subject is tied to. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event --MichaelKossin (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notified @Thivierr: and @Mobrac04:, who are the creator and major contributor respectively, and were not notified by the nominator. Jumpytoo Talk 03:10, 21 August 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it looks like there's sustained coverage over a couple of years. It doesn't really matter how unique or noteworthy her activism seems to individual editors. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources seem hyper-local and cover her getting lyme disease or being in a beauty pageant. The rest are about stuff that happened when she was present at the event. Nothing terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:31, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:32, 4 September 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.
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. Opinions are divided. While the "delete" side would honor Ms. Liu's deletion request reported by the nominator, the "keep" side argues that Ms. Liu is notable and that no reason for deletion has been advanced, either in terms of Wikipedia policy or by Ms. Liu herself.

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, to the extent relevant here, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." Given that there is no rough consensus here, I must decide whether to delete the article in application of this policy or to let it be kept by default in the absence of a consensus to delete.

First, I must decide whether BLPREQUESTDELETE applies at all. Because that policy is intended to be applied by the closer, I am making this determination myself rather than following any consensus about this issue in this AfD. I find that Ms. Liu is indeed "relatively unknown", in part because she has not been the subject of media coverage as far as I can tell. I next must decide whether Ms. Liu is a "public figure" in the sense of BLPREQUESTDELETE. That phrase is a term of art in U.S. constitutional law, and means, according to SCOTUS case law, "a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs", or "those who have 'thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies'" (see Public figure#United States). Because Wikipedia is mostly written by Americans, and that particular U.S. case law has had a worldwide influence, I am interpreting BLPREQUESTDELETE's phrase "public figure" in accordance with it. Seen in this light, I am of the view that Ms. Liu is not a public figure because none of the aforementioned criteria apply to her. This means that the requirements for the application of BLPREQUESTDELETE are in principle met.

But I still need to decide whether or not I should delete the article, because BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that the article "may" be deleted, not that it must be. Although BLPREQUESTDELETE does not provide directions about which criteria should inform this decision, it implicitly requires that there must at least be some rational basis for deletion beyond the mere desire of the subject. If it were otherwise, BLPREQUESTDELETE would provide that articles must be deleted at the request of their non-public figure subjects, but it does not.

But in this case, no real reason for deletion has been advanced. In particular, Ms. Liu's notability is not contested. There is speculation that Ms. Liu may want the article deleted to prevent harassment, but this is not borne out by the article's history, which is short and unproblematic. Because I read BLPREQUESTDELETE to mean that I must not delete an article in the absence of a policy-based or at least rational reason for deletion, I decline to apply BLPREQUESTDELETE and the article is kept by default. Sandstein 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fang Liu (statistician)

Fang Liu (statistician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject, Fang Liu, has been in email contact with me and wishes the article to be removed or, if it cannot be removed, to be reduced down to a stub with the bare minimum of information about her. Despite repeated requests on my part, she has not provided any more information on why she prefers not to have an article about her. I disagree with this request: I think she is clearly notable, through WP:PROF, by multiple criteria: #C1, highly cited publications, and #C3, fellow of a major society for which this is a significant honor, the American Statistical Association; note that unlike GNG, PROF does not require independent sourcing (although in a sense the citations to her publications provide large numbers of independent sources). More strongly, I would like it to be the case (as it is for several societies in related areas but not yet for the ASA) that we have articles on all female ASA fellows; instead, deletion of this article would create a long-lasting or permanent hole in our coverage, and I oppose it. Therefore my opinion on this AfD is to keep the article. Nevertheless, it is within Liu's right to request a discussion of this deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, so I am initiating this discussion. Because this is a BLPREQUESTDELETE discussion, if it ends in no consensus the result may be deletion rather than a no-consensus keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom (which is a phrase I don't think I've ever used in a deletion discussion). She certainly meets WP:NPROF by being an ASA fellow, and in the general sense I agree that expanding our coverage to include more articles about women in STEM is beneficial to the project. The only information I see that is outside of the scope of her work is in the one or two sentences about her childhood and her parents' influence on her choice of undergraduate major, and as that is sourced to an interview with her, I feel that the "bare minimum" aspect of her request is reasonably met. --Kinu t/c 03:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sureDelete at subject's request. She works in a strategically sensitive area and gives no reason for wanting deletion. Otherwise I would keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. there's no personal information, and the area doesn't seem sensitive in the military-secret sense or the anti-government sense. (there have been one or two scientists in those areas which I've been willing to handle differently).If I'm judging wrong, she could send a confidential email to oversight, or to me directly as an oversighter, DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the world needs statisticians and she passes the threshold for notability, and no pressing reason has been given for deletion. There's nothing in the article that she herself hasn't already put in the public domain. If she's worried about specifics, like the attitude of her parents to her career, then although it's referenced, I would be sympathetic to its removal (it's not essential material). But mostly a comment that we should not be deleting articles because their subjects work in a sensitive area. WP only contains information that can be referenced, and is therefore, by definition, already in the public domain; if people really want to remain under the radar, they've got to keep out of the public eye long before things reach the Wikipedia stage. And in any case, since when has WP embraced censorship? Elemimele (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as others have said, clearly meets WP:NPROF, info seems to be publically available elsewhere anywhere, and no real reason given to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, she's notable, but she's not a high-profile public figure. It's perfectly reasonable for private individuals whose jobs happen to make them notable to request that they not have a user-editable page about their life featured on a prominent website. I'd also like it if women who are fellows of scientific societies all had articles, but that goal doesn't outrank the desire of any specific member of that group not to participate. As for her request not giving a reason, it might defeat the purpose of wanting privacy to disclose the reasons for wanting privacy. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Opabinia, who delineates the issue clearly. Women should not, against their will and without good reason, be forced to have a BLP on Wikipedia, a public forum where they are open to attacks by trolls and bullies . Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Though I don't have examples at my fingertips, this sort of situation has arisen before: a woman is notable by some guideline like WP:PROF, an article is created, and she requests deletion even though, to a bystander, the article seems to contain nothing that wasn't already in her faculty profile website. It's worrisome. I'd prefer not to have holes in the encyclopedia's coverage, but I also don't want the encyclopedia to make innocent people's lives worse. XOR'easter (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's nothing personally identifying about her in the article, other than very basic biographical information that could be gleaned by anyone who looked up her name. I do not see reasonable grounds for deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I would certainly !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, as the citation record looks like a (possibly weak) pass of WP:NPROF C1, and the ASA fellowship I believe to be enough for WP:NPROF C3. However, at this stage of the subject's career I think that notability is sufficiently marginal to honor a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE request. I make no judgement about potential later career notability. I share XOR'easter's concern about deletion requests from female academics. (Possibly it can be explained by a combination of the enthusiasm of WP:WIR and the social pressures placed on women?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which does not appear to require a subject to explain in detail to our satisfaction the reasons for their request, nor an amount of sensitivity of their work or a certain amount of personal information in the article. The sources in the article suggest the subject is low-profile and only recently became an ASA fellow, so WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE appears to favor honoring this request. I also think WP:BLP supports deletion, i.e. the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material - I am not convinced by this discussion that the burden to keep this article has been met at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. She is not so well-known that we must have an article on her and we should accede to her request. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without more detail of her concerns, she is notable due to her contributions and expertise, and WP desperately needs better coverage of notable women. Sidenote: it would be great to have more detail on what public health research the award referred to. The article is well-written, statements are sourced, and nothing is immediately apparent as sensitive. Of course, different things are sensitive to different people, so I would say that if she gives more detail about her concerns, to cut that material from the article with appropriate reminders to editors not to add it back in (unless the concern is something like threat to her wellbeing, in which case I'd very strongly argue to do whatever she asks). --Xurizuri (talk) 04:08, 28 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.
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. ✗plicit 23:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Gudiel

Patricia Gudiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With no significant coverage found in Spanish sources for "Patricia Gudiel" or Patxi Gudiel or Pachi Gudiel, it's hard to see any way in which this could be expanded significantly beyond the one-sentence BLP that it currently is. Match report coverage like this and minor Blogspot coverage is insufficient for WP:GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:40, 19 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.
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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Hernández (footballer)

Esther Hernández (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As part of my attempt to address the significant number of one-sentence BLP stubs on female Spanish footballers, I have tried to locate and add sources to many articles recently and listed some for deletion when a source search was not successful. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be even one of those borderline cases like Andere Leguina or Raquel Pinel. I have tried a number of searches, including using her nickname and in conjunction with the two clubs that she played for. With such a brief career, it doesn't look like she accumulated enough coverage to meet the bare minimum of WP:GNG. I found some trivial mentions in Marca match reports like this but you can't build a substantial article from stuff like that. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:54, 19 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.
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. No consensus to delete this and the unverifiability concern has been addressed in the AfD. The promo issues can be dealt with through editing. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca de la Garza

Bianca de la Garza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spam and Unverifiability Cureitlitte (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edit, however I'm afraid my research on the said personality might affect with the sense of reputation. Cureitlitte (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do those sources overcome WP:NOTSCANDAL? There does appear to be WP:BASIC/WP:GNG notability without an WP:UNDUE focus on Hajjar, who pled guilty to embezzelment after financing several of her business ventures, which led to her becoming subject to a lawsuit that resolved with a confidential settlement. Sources that independently support her notability without relying on allegations, innuendo, or rumor include Bianca de la Garza on Redefining Beauty, Raising Her Daughter and Embracing Her Latinidad (People 2019), Meet Bianca de la Garza: The woman moving up the ranks in late-night, (Insider 2015), and The anchors next door Newscasters David Wade and Bianca de la Garza maintain life as normal suburban couple in Tewksbury (Lowell Sun 2007). Beccaynr (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the care with which you have examined this BIO. Unfortunately I think that the sources you show are just as trivial as the one at present. My vote to delete is unchanged. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:49, 12 September 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linnéa Ågren

Linnéa Ågren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced BLP on a footballer that does not appear to meet WP:GNG. In Google searches and a Swedish source search, I found only a match report mention and two passing mentions in a Swedish football blog. I can't find any coverage that would pass any reasonable interpretation of 'significant coverage'. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:50, 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bybit Lydia Tsomondo

Bybit Lydia Tsomondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As a the mayor of a small town and a failed candidate for office, Tsomondo does not meet WP:NPOL. I was not able to locate any coverage of her that meets GNG - just trivial mentions in articles about other subjects. (And going by the username, if the account that created the article isn't a COI, I'll eat my hat). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. According to this article, there are about 300 people on the Central Committee, which hardly seems equivalent to a cabinet, which is 10-20 people each selected to be in charge of a particular portfolio of duties. And anyway, Zimbabwe has a Parliamentary Cabinet, so they're clearly different things. (Tsomondo has never been part of the Cabinet as far as I can tell.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:19, 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.
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. ✗plicit 11:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Carolyn Salter

Dr. Carolyn Salter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD deleted by article creator. Non-notable politician who lost House of Representatives election. Fails WP:NPOL as the subject has only served as the mayor of Palestine, Texas and fails WP:GNG as the subject lacks sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-winning political candidate. The sourcing provided/available is routine election coverage. (Also, an e-mail... what?) Nothing in-depth to suggest WP:GNG or any other notability criterion is met. --Kinu t/c 15:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Defeated candidates for the US House of Representatives are almost never notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for candidates to post their campaign bios/drum up support, and that is clearly what is being done here with the first reference being a link to twitter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A fairly routine defeated candidate. Doesn't even look like she had much of a following, and she's barely tweeting anymore... Nohomersryan (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they did not win; the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But there's no other claim here that she had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful candidacy, and no evidence that her candidacy was markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies in the sense that any significant number of people would still be looking for an article about her ten years from now just because of her candidacy itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed political candidate does not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I have created the article, after having seen the majority consensus, I, hereby in good faith, endorse the deletion.
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.
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. ✗plicit 03:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Souzan Safania

Souzan Safania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sourcing in the English & Turkish articles do not appear to meet guidelines as far as independence and reliability. A BEFORE indicates no coverage that would meet CREATIVE or GNG. Creator is refbombing without regard to quality in an effort to have the notability tag removed. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article doesn't mention even a single work in which she acted. If this person is a notable actor, there should be reviews of her work and discussions of the works that she has acted in that were notable. The article in Iranian Wikipedia also ought to be deleted for the same reasons. You can't just cite someone's Instagram page as the entire discussion of their career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's very hard to make a case for an actress who hasn't starred in a single notable production. Kind of like trying to argue the case for a sportsperson that's never played their sport. It should be a clear GNG pass really for us to have an article on them. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:56, 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.
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. Unanimously, minus the SPAs and socks. Sandstein 19:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anjali Phougat

Anjali Phougat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. She's a mid-level exec with a side hustle. Neither the day job nor the design work establish notability. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This person has achieved great success and her film won best short film award and she presented her collection on Cannes film festival and have significant coverage in reliable sources. Not everyone accomplish and get so many recognitions from international institutes by doing side hustle. very well deserved to be on the platform since she is inspiration to many fellow woman's and continuously working towards social causes. Kayle123 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— Kayle123 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Cabayi (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
— no longer true, as Kayle123 has made other edits. David notMD (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Based on my WP:BEFORE and a review of the article and its sources, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON for WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE notability to be supported by independent and reliable sources. There is a local FOX affiliate that names her fashion brand as one of several creating face masks for medical providers in 2020, a 2021 interview in The Tribune, a 2021 bylined Times of India article ("not only did she showcase her collection, but also won the best film award under the Global Short Film Awards category at the prestigious film festival") that is mostly an interview, a 2021 interview about her film in what may be a blog, and several posts 1, 2, 3, 4 from a website with an Ethics section that includes, "this policy should not be considered as universal for every scenario or as hard established rules", and "The news and information are sometimes reviewed by more than one editor and may include fact-checks." During my review, I removed sources listed as unreliable at WP:ICTFSOURCES and several other blog sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Based on my review of the article and its sources, it appears that we should give time to improve the article and support by adding more reliable sources as a community and should not vote for deleting the article. I see good press coverage when google this person and strongly recommend to give time and improve the article instead of deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliana000 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC) — Juliana000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
— Juliana000 and Kayle123 (above) have each been blocked as sockpuppets of Punjabier. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:23, 20 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.
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. Pburka's assessment has remained uncontested. Sandstein 19:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Empire

AfDs for this article:
Kitty Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded twice after the last AfD in December 2010, once in October 2018 and again today. Was redirected unilaterally in July 2014 for lack of secondary sources, but was restored at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_14#Kitty_Empire. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:17, 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.
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. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet the higher standard needed for a BLP. Seddon talk 20:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Winslow

Kim Winslow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Isn't notable besides being the first ever female UFC referee, and one of the worst MMA referees ever. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. "Per nominator" means you agree with the nomination, but your vote is the opposite. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's his way of saying that the topic's '1st ever female' and 'worst ever' statuses, as acknowledged by the nominator, already prove the subject is notable – a lazy and derisive dismissal of the nomination, with no attempt to back his own argument with sources. Avilich (talk) 19:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disregard - this comment was made by a now-blocked editor (for sock-puppetry and disruption) just 1 minute after their comment at a different AFD. They couldn't possibly have conducted a search for sources and their track record suggests an entirely different reason for seeking this article's deletion. St★lwart111 03:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor was unblocked at the time he voted and is currently unblocked. That's not a valid reason to throw out his vote, though your point about the speed of his vote is worth considering. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being the first woman to serve as a referee of a notable sport is absolutely a solid claim to notability in and of itself. But that - and criticism of her - means there is plenty of significant coverage of her including this, this follow-up to that (and this one), things like this, and various dirt-sheets critical of her work as a referee. Significant coverage doesn't mean "significant positive coverage" and while that is unfortunate for the subject, I don't think notability is in question. St★lwart111 03:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first woman referee in a very notable sport which is very very male-dominated is notable. And infamy is notable - if we say "one of the best" is notable, then so is "one of the worst". --Xurizuri (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you would think being the first woman referee of MMA would be notable, but there are no reliable sources that cover this in any depth. The sources linked above are horrible. A sensationalised headline in the bleacher report, which is basically a published rant from a dissatisfied fighter. The rest are worse. This is a BLP and we require much better sources than have been presented here to justify holding an article on someone. Not to mention given the nomination statement above it is an article likely to attract numerous BLP violations. Aircorn (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:1E. I also endorse Aircorn's comment above. Most of the sources are fluff except for the last one, fighthype, which, as an interview, is not independent of the subject and is too personal to be considered encyclopedic. Avilich (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, although the argument for deletion looks more convincing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is the GNG coverage? And especially if the existing coverage is negative we need to have strong sourcing for inclusion of that material in a BLP -- which this bio certainly does not have. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I thought it would be easy to show she's WP notable, but there is a lack of significant independent coverage. My search found lots of comments, overwhelmingly negative, but they're from unreliable or not independent sources. I don't agree with the "first x to do y is notable argument", unless the subject meets WP:GNG--and I don't think that's true in this case. Papaursa (talk) 13:16, 6 September 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.
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. Clear consensus that the article shouldn't be retained below. Inclusion in the list of supercentenarians appears to be sufficient so no merge required. Daniel (talk) 09:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine Ligny

Valentine Ligny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has nothing more than extremely trivial and non-notable content on the life of a person who has never done anything more than live to a very advanced age. Possibly the only useful paragraph in the whole article is the last one, and I propose that either the article be merged to a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians or that it be deleted completely. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in particular do you think demonstrate that GNG is met? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As others have mentioned, WP:BIO1E is an issue here. None of the sources seem to demonstrate why she is notable beyond her age. Inclusion in the lists mentioned by Melaleuca and Derby is sufficient. -Pax Verbum 07:07, 4 September 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.
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. No consensus to delete or anything other than retain, after a 2 week listing period. (non-admin closure) Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ulrike Frank

Ulrike Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Successful actress, but I couldn't back up the claims to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG with suitable sources - similar issues in her other language articles. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 24 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.
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) ––FormalDude talk 01:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucía Abello

Lucía Abello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. " It was deprodded by User:Virc587 (the creator) with the following rationale "prevent the proposed deletion". Thank you for the eloquent defense, but let's discuss this here now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is definitely not notable and the article is written in a promotional manner. Almost all the references are self published or otherwise unsuitable (Flickr as a reference? Really?). Half of the references are by Abello herself which is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. I appreciate that the article creator is attempting to improve coverage of women on Wikipedia, but that does not allow for notability rules to be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Piotrus:, thanks for writing. This is the first time I have experienced a delete proposal, I hope I am responding appropriately.

This article meets the necessary criteria for notability,

it has awards and distinctions cited in references 5, 10 and 11. It has indexed and referenced publications (12 to 21) and
it also has a strong profile in Gscholar, available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Luc%C3%ADa+Abello&btnG=

I will be very attentive to understand if you have another point of view and that we can improve this biography.

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virc587 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Virc587: With all due respect, having 'indexed and referenced publications' is not enough to meet the criteria. They need to be significant, which can be shown by being called such by other scholars, or by having very high citation numbers in a given field. The linked GSchjolar profile shows one book co-authored with 3 other people that have 53 citations, and nothing else in double digits. In my experience, that's too little by at least a factor of 10. Granted, those are subjective criteria, and we will see what others will say, but IMHO this is not enough to meet WP:PROF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep albeit rather weakly. It is always difficult to assess people who don't sit neatly in a 'typical' category. We have guidelines on notability of actors, sportspeople and professors, but we don't have a guideline for librarians. We evaluate business awards daily, but who knows which awards for librarians are meaningful? We have to think about what notability really means: it means do other, unrelated people actually listen to this person, has this person made a splash, not by self-advertisement, but by doing things that the world cares about? We might measure notability in strict ways described in the guidelines, but with odd professions, we have to revisit the underlying meaning to check our assessment is fair, given the opportunities available to the subject (e.g. sportspeople easily get in newspapers compared to architects, but can't get chosen for a gallery like an artist; each profession has its own public sphere). Abello has publications (lots), her name crops up all over the place when I do some Google searching, she's clearly doing a lot more than the normal librarianing; she has copious awards whose value is difficult to assess, but which are almost certainly meaningful. I can't think how, as a librarian, someone could make a much bigger impact on the public stage than she has; her impact is certainly, translated between the worlds of libraries and professorships, as large as a professor in a named chair editing a journal somewhere (who would have qualified as notable twice-over on those grounds), and translated to sports-speak, she appears to play for her national librarianship side at an international level. Elemimele (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The cookie-cutter prod made bland generic comments about the sources without addressing the fact that the article was translating from another language Wikipedia and that the many sources are all in Spanish — a language for which the nominator does not claim even minimal competence. This lack of language makes the nominator's claims unreliable and implausible. And the AfD nomination does little but cut/paste the cut/paste while insulting the page's creator, who does seem fluent in the language. So, there's not a credible case to answer. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sources are her own publications, the websites of institutions that gave her awards, or interviews, so they're not independent of the subject. This already addresses both points raised in the deprod rationale. The weak keep vote above probably overstates the difficulty of assessing notability. And the nominator's lack of fluency in Spanish is irrelevant since the article is in English. Avilich (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although also a weak keep. I think at least some of the sources (not many, I agree) are independent and reliable. In my opinion this coverage together with her work is enough to meet notability (barely). --Alan Islas (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only sources even approaching your description, 3 (very brief) and 5, are simply outlines of the subject's credentials in the context of her appointment to a local library. It's the sort of thing you mention if a person is notable, but does not itself establish notability. There's also the source in citations 1 and 9, a small profile of the subject on a government website. There is no wp:sigcov here. Avilich (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Abello meets WP:ANYBIO 2 on libraries and botanics, documenting the Chilean flora, is a very specialized topic but not for that less relevant, following Elemimele argument; also meets WP:AUTHOR 3 in my opinion. I don't agree with Avilich's argument about not being independent, she is a Chilean librarian and got awards from library associations from other countries than Chile, her own country like Spain, Peru and is part of an Iberoamerican group, making her work recognized internationally in her field which in addition I think speaks about not being on WP:MILL. The biography has independent, reliable sources from the public and private sector (references 1 to 5) and Flickr is a reference, as Trainsandotherthings mentioned but to illustrate her work documenting the flora in Chile with more than 10.000 pics of local species, something that can be useful to people looking for sources on the topic, not to claim notability as Trainsandotherthings wrongly understood the reference. Hiperterminal (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hiperterminal Which reliable source says her work on documenting Chilean flora is significant? And Flickr is not a WP:RS. The awards are interesting, but we need evidence that they are significant; we can't assume they are just because they exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus As before, I am not arguing that Flickr is a WP:RS or independent regarding Abello but is a proof of her prolific work. El Quinto Poder is. I am a librarian, involved in the library field, attending to conferences and meeting people regularly to see who is working on what, so I guess I have a position to know, the work of Lucia is quite unique not just on botanic, but the mix between libraries and environment; Piotrus if you know about any other librarian around the world, working on libraries and botanic I agree that Lucia's bio is not relevant but in exchange we should be writing that other person's bio, otherwise she is highly relevant for the library field for her work. On the other hand, now that you talked to me directly I want to support [[user:Andrew Davidson|Andrew]'s comment on WP:BITE, for me you have been very rude to Virc587 and at least she deserves an apology from you for mocking her. Thanks for your comments and very happy to read what do you think about it. Hiperterminal (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing how ANYBIO2 is met, it explicitly says a topic needs to be significantly covered like any other. The sources don't provide this significant coverage. Source 5 for instance is the very association which gave the subject her award (not independent). Source 1=2 is a small profile on a government website. Source 4 doesn't mention the subject at all; source 3 does it only once and in passing. In all, that's not much to go on. Avilich (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Following Elemimele´s argument, effectively the notoriety criteria in the library field could not be the same as other areas. It would not be fair to put a librarian versus a mathematician on the same level in terms of academic production and citation, for example. On the other hand, Lucia makes an intersection between library science and botany. Dismissing the reference to flickr when it becomes an instrument of visual documentation of the Chilean flora, which later is a resource to bring ideas about the preservation of natural heritage through libraries, is unfortunate. Virc587 (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was mentioned earlier that the article is written in a promotional way, but I don't think so; it tells of the particular work that Lucia (as a librarian and biologist) has done in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, from IFLA and the UN. I am a fellow librarian who particularly admires this biography because of the issues it addresses - closely related to SDG 13 (Take urgent action to combat climate change...), and SDG 15 (Promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems...). Just as it happens to me, I believe that Lucia can be a great reference for many more people in terms of actions that can be implemented from libraries in relation to the environment; even more so considering the current context of climate change and biodiversity loss with clear evidence worldwide. The visibility of their work is totally relevant for our field. Alina Sarli (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your account is brand new and with a single contribution: did you create it just to sway the vote here? Your entire comment is itself promotional but also nugatory: where are the relevant policies, and where are the sources that establish notability? Avilich (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich I added Lucia's bio as part of Wikiproject Women in Red. The editor(s) involved may be new as Alina Sarli; many thanks Avilich for assume good faith regarding her contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers. In AfD even anonymous users can vote so, why is a problem if she just create it to vote? She is starting to participate and is doing it with her own account and not using her IP address, I think that's on Alina's favor instead of against her as you presented it. Alina is an Argentinean librarian (not Chilean as Abello, to avoid any COI) and I can prove it but respect Alina's desire to not publish yet her own user page and that you assume her good faith but if you need it, please let me know. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a sockpuppet. The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACADEMIC says "as substantiated through reliable sources", and you also missed this unmissable statement in clear bold, "Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow". One of these general notes reads, "Every topic on Wikipedia must have sources that comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. Major awards must be confirmed, claims of impact must be substantiated by independent statements, reviews, citation metrics, or library holdings, and so on." So there's actually no good evidenc the subject meets NACADEMC. So again, where are the sources confirming that the subject or the award are notable? Avilich (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the article. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed above. Most are not independent and the rest are not significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The award is at a national level - why is it not appropriate? As I have indicated, it is appropriately sourced. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being at national level is not sufficient. It also has to be "highly prestigious". Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is the highest honour of the Chilean National Library Association. Why is that not prestigious enough? --159.196.100.171 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you could make this same claim about the highest honour awarded by any organization. Who says it is prestigious? You? Me? That's not good enough. We need a reliable and independent source that states this award is considered prestigious. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When all the information is analyzed, the context tells us that Lucía completes the notability. I do not understand the insistence on judging the prestige of an award granted by a national library association, but if the information is useful, The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). On the other hand, the fact that another country has appointed her an honorary member of the library association, as is the case of Peru, reinforces her recognition in Latin America. Virc587 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a national award that is the highest honour in her field of work is "not good enough". That's really surprising. --159.196.100.171 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not without good coverage in sources, per WP:NACADEMIC. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable source confirms that this is "the highest honour in her field of work"? (I fully understand that you may find this ridiculous question, sadly, there are plenty of spammers, hoaxters, and so on who abuse the system, hence we have such requirements). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The National College of Librarians of Chile was created by law (here the link to the law: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806), a law is not a reliable source?
You find here, in this debate, more than one user on whom you can identify that we are not spammers, like Hiperterminal (talk), Alina or myself . Still, you question the reliability of our area of work and knowledge. The criteria are understandable in light of what you explain, but the lack of context on your part to apply them in this debate, no. There is a lot of hostility, first in your treatment at the beginning of this debate and the lack of response the first time I consulted you, then in suggesting that we are spammers. It is not healthy to build a collaborative encyclopedia in this situation. Hopefully we can debate and argue from places that do not discredit anyone. Hugs. Virc587 (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not appropriately sourced. One of the sources is the awarding institution itself, the other is the government institution she works on. Neither is independent or significant coverage. Avilich (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Avilich & Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus I mentioned before, but want to write it here too: this biography is part of Wiki Women in Red, The editors involved may be new, thanks for assume good faith regarding their contributions, and please avoid WP:BITE newcommers and the idea of sockpuppet is not good faith at all. Maybe they avoid to use their own accounts because are afraid of your aggressive responses, just in my humble opinion. Please consider your votes and attitudes regarding this process. Hiperterminal (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hiperterminal, WIR is a noble project I fully support, but sometimes it produces content that is not eligible for Wikipedia. I also fully support BITE, but I don't think there is any biting here. Logging in and using their proper account is the best practice, if someone is not following best practices, they risk being criticized. Nothing more, nothing less. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Lucía has participated over the years in activities and events held in different countries. She has participated in CERLALC's International Network of Emerging Library Innovators program (https://cerlalc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/INELI_Modelo-ESPACIOS-PARA-LA-CREACI%C3%93N.pdf). CERLALC is the Regional Center for the Promotion of Books in Latin America and the Caribbean and is an intergovernmental organization under the auspices of UNESCO.

In 2020 it was convened by the National Library of Colombia, to participate in the VII National Congress of Public Libraries (https://bibliotecanacional.gov.co/es-co/actividades/noticias/PublishingImages/en-la-rnbp/congreso-bibliotecas-publicas-2020/agenda_vii_congreso.pdf)

The Ministry of Culture, Recreation and Sports of Colombia has also relieved its work together with that of other countries:https://www.culturarecreacionydeporte.gov.co/biblioteca/internacional.html

Just a few weeks ago, IFLA, the International Federation of Library and Library Associations, convened Lucia to a conference on Emerging Leaders: Trends for the Future (Americas), at the IFLA international congress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKQS2zreQG0

Lucía's work was surveyed by the Integrated System for Monitoring and Evaluation of Native Forest Ecosystems (SIMEF), a Chilean national initiative that establishes a coordinated work model between public institutions and involves local communities in the monitoring of native forest ecosystems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKPTivcjoA&t=5s

Lucia's biography can be improved and added content, but would it really be correct to delete it? I am a librarian, and I feel that we lose a lot by turning off a biography that teaches our community about the impact that reading has on the preservation of the native heritage of a country, such as the promotion of Chilean flora through libraries. Are the notability criteria the same for a librarian as for a soccer player, a model, a TV host, a mathematician, a politician or a literary man? Her biography in Catalan and Spanish has not undergone any deletion proposal, I think this should also be taken into account.

National and international awards and recognitions are mentioned, but their prestige is judged without putting into context the diversity of the information provided. That is why I mention that the College of Librarians of Chile, which offers a national award, was created in this country by law (https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=28806). The fact that many times there is no public coverage in the press about this field of knowledge (library science), should not have a negative influence as at the moment. The information is still of interest to a specific community even if it does not have the popularity criteria of other areas, and therefore it is unfair to subject it to the same forms of evaluation without context. Virc587 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are either WP:SPS (youtube) or not independent. See also item 4 of WP:RGW. And please don't vote twice. Avilich (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but youtube contents are not Self-published sources.
I do not understand the statement "not independent".
I did not know that I could not vote again in relisted, as I said the first time I left a message about this bio, it is the first time I have faced this and I hope to learn. Hugs and I will be attentive to your comments. Virc587 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:USESPS#Examples of self-published sources, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my question was not aimed at you to refer me to the examples, but to explain it to me, because the videos that I cited from youtube were not uploaded or produced or organized by the person biographed. Thank you anyway. I continue to learn, although I do not understand the criteria with which you affirm something that it is not. Virc587 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The policy I linked explains all of that, self-published means author = publisher, not subject of the publication = publisher. Avilich (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well. So if you saw that in the two videos that I refer, the person who was biographed is not the editor, right? Not even his channel. In the first, the world's leading international organization on libraries, is the publisher. In the second, a naturalistic organization is the publisher. Please help me better understand the concept of self-published in these two cases. Thanks in advance. Virc587 (talk) 15:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand the claim that the award for Outstanding Librarian given by a national library is not prestigious. An independent news source, Soy Chile, lists it in the first sentence of a news article about Abello. Do we need to see the specific descriptive word "prestigious" applied to make it sufficiently prestigious? I also think WP:BITE is happening here: "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as 'sockpuppet'". Skvader (talk) 17:26, 7 September 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.
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. ✗plicit 03:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Petros

Brittany Petros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A mirror celeb with no current acting roles for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hojczy (talk • contribs) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:42, 17 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ramina Torabi

Ramina Torabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A version of this article was sent to draft at Draft:Ramina Torabi as it was a BLP with 20 fake references, all of which led to wiki websites that never existed. The creator has trimmed this down to 12 references, all of which are still fake wiki websites that never existed. The external links are both genuine but neither establish WP:GNG or WP:NMODEL, I am concerned about Lilit as they state their intention is to promote the artists that they feature.

I have searched "رامینا ترابی" as part of a WP:BEFORE but can't find any WP:RS showing clear significant coverage. A lot of the articles are either just passing mentions or simply regurgitating her Instagram pictures or user-generated content.

This may well be eligible for WP:G5 speedy deletion soon as an active CU request has been opened at SPI, which is heavily backlogged. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment : I have created all the sources. Therefore, I request that the page be created and the tag be removed. I will also add 20 new sources.E B R A M (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://lilit.ir/INDEX/ ? ? No She isn't mentioned even once ✘ No
http://www.nazweb.ir/307298-%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%AC%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%AF-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D9%85.html No No I can't see any author named or any reputation for fact checking No This appears to be a hyper-promotional user-generated profile page which is significantly identical to a lot of the others that follow ✘ No
https://photokade.com/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C/ No No No author or journalist. No indication from website that source is reliable. Interesting that she is declared as single here but other sources say she is married, which just indicates that this is a mess. No Another user-generated bio with same copied and pasted content ✘ No
https://business-search.info/ramina-torabi/ No A quick perusal of this website shows that it's 100% user-generated spam No No ✘ No
https://lilit.ir/52198/ No This website's aim is to promote the artists that feature in it so I presume there is some amount of COI here No No ✘ No
https://enfejar.vip/admins/ramina-torabi/ No Again we have to disregard this as it's yet another clone bio 'article' hosted on a betting site. Why are these all on betting sites?! No No ✘ No
https://pokerbama.info/other/ramina-torabi/ No See #6. Honestly, this is identical! No No ✘ No
https://www.moevir.com/model/ No No No Site doesn't exist ✘ No
https://niksho.com/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%AE%D8%AA%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%B3.html No ~ This website seems to have some regulated content but this particular post looks to be a copy-paste of some of the user-generated/sponsored stuff No Literally just reposting her Instagram photos ✘ No
https://saten.ir/167859/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA-%D9%88-%DA%86%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D9%87-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%B4%D8%AF%D8%9F-%D8%B9%DA%A9%D8%B3-%D8%A7/ramina-torabi/ ? No Website appears to be full of clickbait and spam. There is some authored content but not much. No No coverage ✘ No
https://www.shomanews.com/%D8%A8%D8%AE%D8%B4-%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%87%D9%86%DA%AF-%D9%87%D9%86%D8%B1-10/908602-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AA%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1-%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%84%DB%8C-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%B1%D9%81%D8%AA%D9%87 ? No Site poses as a news site but, upon clicking several articles, it's just a bunch of database scraping bio pages. I couldn't find anything that looked like it was produced by an actual journalist and not a database scraping bot. No Duplicates content from the other sources ✘ No
https://namagard.com/ramina-torabi-biography/ No No No Not an article. Just duplication of the exact same content as sources above. ✘ No
https://mejene.com/model/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C/ ? ? This is a Persian fashion mag. I can't see any indication of how much fact checking is involved but there is actually an author declared here, which is at least something. ~ Some coverage. Author appears to write about other things so can believe that this wasn't just posted by Torabi's agent/marketing team ? Unknown
https://farsiha.ir/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%87%D9%88%D8%B1-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7/ No No I couldn't find any indication of any professional journalism anywhere on this site, which is full of clickbait and user-generated copypaste bios No Routine coverage ✘ No
https://behtarin.bio/ramina-torabi/ No No Blog No Copied and pasted bio posted by 'user0037' ✘ No
https://iranmodeling.net/ramina-torabi/ ? ? Appears to be reputable somewhat No Barely any ✘ No
http://esfahanemrooz.ir/69637-%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%A8%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C.html ? No No Absolutely nothing to add on previous spam bios ✘ No
http://timekhosh.com/2019/05/04/%D8%A8%DB%8C%D9%88%DA%AF%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%81%DB%8C-%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C-%D9%88-%D9%87%D9%85%D8%B3%D8%B1%D8%B4-%D9%85%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%AD%D8%A8%D9%87-%D9%88/ No No Blog website which is full of user-generated spam bios of 'celebrities' No ✘ No
http://www.mevia.ir/ch/%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%DB%8C%D9%86%D8%A7_%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A8%DB%8C_%DA%A9%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA ? ? ? I haven't downloaded the video as I don't trust the website and don't think it's safe. ? Unknown
https://rayanworld.com/20200609102725001/Ramina-Torabi-the-model-migrated-to-Turkey?subarticle=10 Yes Yes No A collection of photos. The captions are all generic and don't discuss Torabi. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spiderone's extensive list as there's no evidence of GNG and while COI editing isn't prohibited, this comment from the creator that they "created the sources" and want help registering the page leads me to believe we're just here for their promotional purposes. Star Mississippi 13:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment However, I got all the sources right. Therefore, in my opinion, according to the comments on the page, it should be revived. And remove the label. thanks all.E B R A M (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*keep .I fixed all the sources that had problems.E B R A M (talk) 14:50, 17 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.
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. Source assessment shows at least some non trivial independent reliable coverage by each source, which can be combined to meet notability guidelines per WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prerna Kohli

Prerna Kohli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual, fail of WP:GNG. Awards cited in the article are non-notable. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 14:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • [22] [23] seem to be reliable sources; I'm not clear why the award is non-notable; we often treat things like 100 Women (BBC) as suggesting notability. Furius (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That first TOI source has no byline and appears to be the same promotional bio that appears on her website in the "About" section. Per the second TOI source, the awardees "were selected by the women and child development ministry", and the President hosted a lunch for them, so this may need some clarification if the article is kept. Other sources in the article include what seems like an advertorial from Silicon India, which states in its About Us section: "Siliconindia has cemented the US-INDIA technology boom and provided the most relevant and critical content for this ecosystem by projecting stories of burgeoning entrepreneurs, outstanding technologists, and accomplished CEOs, along with business analysis and opinions specifically impacting business and technology in India and the U.S. [...] Over the past 22 years, the edition has recognized thousands of such companies and has become a powerful platform for proud entrepreneurs," a Tedx Talk she gave, a link to purchase the book she wrote, and the citation for the book she wrote. On the other hand, there are sources in the article that suggest she may have WP:BASIC notability as an expert, e.g. Free Press Journal, 2021, India Today, 2020, TOI, 2016, and there are twenty links to news articles I have not yet closely reviewed on her website in the Other Media section that might further support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability. The References provided here either paid articles or press releases look at 'Free Press Journal', 'Siliconindia' and India 'Today'. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO.GermanKity (talk) 10:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This source assessment table reviews sources that make a WP:SECONDARY assessment of her as an expert, including articles from mainstream news sources listed on her website, as noted above, and others found during an online search:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
How safe is your daughter? (The New Indian Express, 2013) Yes Yes ~ At p. 4 of a long article about the sexual assault of children in India, Kohli is quoted for her opinion as a psychologist, and shares details from her work with a client; at p. 5, she is quoted as a psychologist for her opinion and shares details from her work with another client. ~ Partial
20s is the new 40s! (Times of India/Entertainment Times, 2015) Yes WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. ~ quoted twice as a child psychologist for general statements, including about "Today's kids" ? Unknown
Understaffed and overworked, Aligarh prison guards lead stressful lives (Times of India, 2016) Yes WP:TOI The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. ~ Brief reporting on her past and future work in jails, and quotes her opinion on contributing factors to guard stress. ? Unknown
Food de-addiction is the new thin (The New Indian Express, 2016) ? This article is entirely based around Kohli, and reads like an advertorial for her "one-of-a-kind food de-addiction centre at Gurgaon, where she plans to counsel food junkies" Yes Yes ? Unknown
There Is A New Body Type In Trend And It's 'Rib-Popping' (Outlook Magazine, 2017) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a "leading psychologist" for her opinion on the fad and anorexia nervosa. ~ Partial
Dhinchak Pooja’s ‘Selfie maine leli aaj’: Why are cringeworthy videos so popular? (Hindustan Times, 2017) Yes Yes ~ quoted as "a Delhi-based clinical psychologist who has worked extensively with patients suffering from social media addiction." ~ Partial
Four things you should know about smell (The Hindu, 2018) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion, including biological differences and genetics. ~ Partial
In-law and out of love (Deccan Chronicle, 2018) Yes Yes ~ quoted as a psychologist for her opinion after "Queen Sofía and her daughter-in-law Queen Letizia of Spain were arguing in public." ~ Partial
Arjun Rampal And Mehr Jessia Part Ways, Here's How You Can Deal With A Divorce The Healthy Way (Doctor NDTV, 2018) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs quoting her as a psychologist about divorce, i.e. "we spoke to psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli as to how two people can have a positive and healthy attitude towards a divorce." ~ Partial
HT Brunch Game Show: Your childhood buddy, your girl friend, or your dog— who is really your best friend? (Hindustan Times, 2020) Yes Yes ~ "Psychologist Dr Prerna Kohli has been an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and is a member of a nutrition committee" [...] "Kohli, a four-time gold medalist, clinical psychologist and a social worker. She lists five rules to being a dependable friend:" ~ Partial
Worried about your kids’ mental health? Here’s what experts recommend (Hindustan Times, 2020) Yes Yes ~ quotes her opinion as a clinical psychologist ~ Partial
Don't let the walls close in (India Today, 2020) Yes Yes ~ "Other experts also observe similar issues. Dr. Prerna Kohli, a Clinical Psychologist who is an adviser to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights says," ~ Partial
Losing a parent: Here’s what families can do to help children deal with grief and loss (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ substantial quotes as "Clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in Dr Prerna Kohli — who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee" ~ Partial
Prince Harry undergoes EMDR for dealing with past trauma; here’s everything you need to know (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs of her opinion/explanation: "In order to understand more about EMDR, indianexpress.com reached out to Dr Prerna Kohli, a clinical psychologist, author, and founder of MindTribe.in, who has also been an advisor to the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), and is a member of the Niti Aayog Nutrition Committee." ~ Partial
Snow White and her social media filters: Why is India still obsessed with fair skin? (The Indian Express, 2021) Yes Yes ~ several paragraphs of her opinion, after being introduced as "an eminent psychologist and founder of MindTribe" ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
There also appear to be additional independent and reliable sources available, similarly quoting her as an expert in varying amounts of depth. Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote, I wouldn't consider The New Indian Express to be reliable, they are already suspected to carry undisclosed advertisements masked as news and their article seems to affirm that suspicion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:54, 31 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.
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. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lucile Randon

Lucile Randon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, just like many other longevity pages, is purely unnecessary. Out of four paragraphs, one is only one sentence, one is pure statistics, one is life information, and one is about her COVID-19 infection. Her article can be easily merged and made into a mini-bio at List of French supercentenarians. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I would say this fails WP:BIO, under WP:BASIC, because its just trivial coverage of a person, focused entirely on two elements - their long life, and their survival of COVID-19. Unless someone could examine the article's subject some more - background, history, other notable elements (beyond those covered) - I don't think this article is notable enough to remain on Wikipedia.GUtt01 (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Changed my mind on this, based on a good point in this discussion by Furius. Apart from being a good stub, I think the concern is for the lede of the article and a couple of sentences, which could just be amended and changed since they do appear to be original research without appropriate citations. GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles cited on the page easily pass WP:GNG and she is the second oldest person in the world. There are plenty more sources and there is plenty more information about her life on the fr.wiki page. Furius (talk) 12:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While I might not want to read up about a person who has lived a long life, I would say that, regardless of this, such an article would only really be worth the mustard of notability, if there was more on the subject themselves, beyond being the longest-living person (regardless of first or second in that respect). Other than being the oldest to survive COVID-19, I would expect a bit more than this on the article:
What was their occupation?
What was their life like?
Did they make other achievements?
Did they witness significant events in their life?
Not having such details just doesn't make the article notable enough. Without that personal life information and maybe some other worthwhile information to make such an achievement seem more notable than it sounds as it is, it hardly seems right to have this article exist on the merits of being a person who lived longest/second-longest, and survived against COVID. GUtt01 (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(a) All of this is covered in the French wiki article, supported by reliable sources - she was a governess to the Peugeot family and others in the 1910s, converted to Catholicism and became a nun in 1923, and worked in hospitals in that capacity from 1945 until 1979. (b) The point is that there are multiple reliable sources in English and in French for this figure, so it passes GNG and is notable. You can't just create new criteria for notability and Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup Furius (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a second check of the article, I think the grounds for deletion just got eroded by your argument.GUtt01 (talk) 07:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about deleting it completely - I agree that the subject is notable. Too notable to be deleted, but not notable enough for a standalone article. There's nothing in the article that can't be merged into a mini-bio (similar to what's there already in the article, just in a section of the page List of French supercentenarians). As for the French wiki article, why, I might change my mind if you translated that French to English! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you find some translator program or webservice on the internet? GUtt01 (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through the French article and, apart from a few facts, there's basically nothing that isn't already in her article here. MattSucci (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don’t we add those facts? Fakescientist8000 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that info regarding the name and occupation of her father and details of her sister are necessary. MattSucci (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's called padding. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 10:35, 19 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Del Pepper

Del Pepper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a long serving council member and several times vice mayor of Alexandria VA. Her political career does not amount to a WP:NPOL pass. She may be a GNG pass but the Washington Post coverage here is really “local” so this is doubtful. Bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG. The articles about her retirement are particularly persuasive and go well beyond routine campaign coverage. WaPo pieces are acceptable whether or not they're local: WP:LOCALINT was rejected. pburka (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails notability guidelines for politicians and the fact that the local paper is a notable national one does not change the fact that their coverage of this subject is an example of local political coverage that does not lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the original author I still think that she has had quite a few pieces written about her over the decades, is mentioned in dozens of news stories, has been recognized by the VA legislative branch (just added to the article). Some of the articles, particularly the AIDS-rights bill seems to go beyond just local even if written by the WaPo. Browsing through other city council members who have active, long standing pages hers seems at least middle level notable (and above average for most city council members who don't go on to hold higher office). Skynxnex (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete local coverage (even from the Washington Post) does not suffice to establish notability. The AIDS-rights article was focused on the policy itself, not Pepper's role in enacting the policy. Edge3 (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "local coverage" criterion as applied to people was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Archive 2019#Local sources, again where it was advocated in relation to "write ups in very obscure sources, like city-wide or parish-wide magazines". The criterion was not included even for that very limited scope. If it had been incorporated by analogy with WP:AUD it would be the narrow circulation of the newspaper, not whether the person is only known close to the place of publication, that would matter. WP:N and WP:NPOL are guidelines and people are free to disregard them if they like but to claim that references by the Washington Post are to be discounted is firmly against our guidelines. Thincat (talk) 09:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm not aware of any applicable guideline in this area that prohibits the use of local coverage: NPOL is quite clear that meeting the GNG is enough, and WP:AUD-style restrictions on the GNG have been rejected numerous times. And coverage like this and this is certainly enough to meet the GNG. There's thus no guideline-based reason to conclude that Pepper is non-notable: after all, we're not paper, so there's nothing preventing us from including well-sourced articles like this one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, She has received a significant amount of coverage in the Washington Post, and it is not our job to arbitrarily declare that it does not count since she is from the D.C. Metro area. Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:38, 6 September 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.
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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anncharlott Eschmann

Anncharlott Eschmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's just not what the South Asia Institute is [24] - it's a degree-granting academic institution under Heidelberg's umbrella, with multiple faculties and its own academic chairs, so closer to something like the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. She also appears in Stache-Rosen, German Indologists. Biographies of scholars in Indian studies writing in German; with a summary on Indology in German speaking countries. 1981, 2nd ed. rev. by A. Stache-Weiske. (1990) pp. 131ff. and there is probably more information in (but I don't have access to) Tripathi, Gaya Charan & Kulke, Hermann, Religion and society in eastern India : Eschmann memorial lectures (1994), which honoured her posthumously. These factors incline me to keep. Furius (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:54, 23 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.
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) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 03:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Bradford

Virginia Bradford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear if the subject passes WP:SIGCOV or WP:NACTRESS. Only sources are a biography written by a family member which lacks independence, and IMDB which is not usable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. 4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 15 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.
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. Sandstein 08:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ainjel Emme

Ainjel Emme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. .116 in spotify. No fans, no social media. Not a music star. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a BLP that was unreferenced, so the content was removed. Post up WP:THREE that are in-depth, independent and WP:SECONDARY that shows she is notable and the Afd can be closed as a keep. Currently there is no references on the article. scope_creepTalk 18:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the stripping, it's entirely unsourced. It's just to provide context for other AfD participants. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I just noticed it was yourself that stripped it down. It really needed it. Some mess. Producers don't do very well on Afd unfortunately, so see how goes. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a procedural matter, and the nominator may have simply missed the albums. The albums are not notable just because nobody has yet nominated them for deletion. You could vote here to delete the musician AND the two albums and Admins would take it under consideration. Regardless, the two albums have no reliable reviews that I can find (the AllMusic entries are just empty placeholders) so I have redirected those two articles to the musician's page. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Her own releases were largely unnoticed and don't justify their own articles (see my comment above). But for her behind-the-scenes career I agree with Binksternet above. The article needs to have some more reliable sources about her production work but those endeavors seem to have received enough coverage for a basic stub article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The urls references are a Youtube video with 222 views, so it is non-notable, an instagram profile which fails WP:SPS, a blog entry which non-RS, another Youtube video which has 825k but it is another artist. The context is Ainjel Emme did the vocal product, which is a poor references. None of that sastifies WP:SIGCOV nor WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 18:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references:

Not one in-depth source has been added that is in-depth, independent and secondary that can satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 11:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:27, 31 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.
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. ✗plicit 00:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantina Pirkas

Konstantina Pirkas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACTOR. I am unable to find significant discussion of her in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not even point us to anything that would have been a significant role in a notable production, even one that we can critique and show was either not significant or not in a notable production. While academics of theatre/acting can be notable for such, we would have to have substantial publications, or being the head of a university, or being editor-in-chief of an academic journal related to acting/theatre that is considered a significant publication, none of which we are even close to seeing indicated. This is the largest failure of actress notability I have ever seen for an actress, and one of the most extreme failures of academic notability I have ever seen for an academic. Of course if we applied a rule like the football notability rule to academics, the academic equivalent might be met here, but that is not at all our rule, so clearly no notability guidelines are met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 19 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.
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. There seems to be sufficient consensus that the thorough analysis of available sources is not quite enough to satisfy GNG at this time. The article can always be restored later if the subject receives significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources; as required by GNG. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bogart

Andrea Bogart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim to notability seems to all be based no one role. Successful actress, but I couldn't see the coverage or significance to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years; hopefully we can now make a decision. Boleyn (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My guess is that this subject is borderline on notability. Primary notability probably comes from the General Hospital role (which was actually significant), and from her more recent Lifetime movie work (the article is out-of-date, and doesn't look to have any roles Bogart has done since 2017). But my guess is that this is the kind of career that is not going to generate much in the way of independent coverage... So likely borderline on WP:NACTOR, but I'm guessing the subject will be a "miss" in terms of WP:BASIC... I will try to remember to monitor this discussion, but I'm not ready to !vote at this time. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 21:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't think the WP:INTERVIEWS that were added count as secondary reliable sources. They offer very little WP:INDEPENDENT commentary on the subject. Overall, subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her roles have mostly been one-offs/bit parts. Not notable -Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bit-part actor. Non-notable. scope_creepTalk 08:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant role in major soap opera, several recurring roles on TV and main roles in Lifetime channel films. She also had film roles, including lead role in The Last Run opposite Amy Adams and Fred Savage. So she meets WP:NACTRESS. Sources were added, there is enough coverage. Kirill C1 (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There really isn't – 3 of the 4 sources you added are mere passing mentions. Nothing that has happened in this discussion moves me off what would likely be a "weak delete" vote. This subject is just not going to clear WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, she satisfies WP:NACTRESS and is certainly not a bit-part actress as was stated above. [33], and here is not a passing mention [34]. Here is another source - I think the fact that such reliable website writes about her is the indication that she is notable [35]. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, had a role in a major soap opera and has received significant coverage.Jackattack1597 (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She may be borderline at WP:ENT but, when you look at the interviews with her, she would meet WP:GNG.
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTRESS. All of the sources in the article or mentioned above are either trivial mentions of the subject which are not in-depth and are brief mentions; are unreliable self-published websites; or they are interviews which do not count towards notability because they lack independence and are too closely connected to the subject. There are zero sources in the article which are both independent and in-depth which is what is required to meet GNG. Likewise, contrary to what others are claiming, she also fails WP:NACTRESS as we have no proof that any of the other roles beyond General Hospital are notable. This is evidenced by the lack of independent sources saying so. Promotional publications and press releases are not independent RS. We need independent critical reviews of her performances to prove criteria 1 of NACTRESS; otherwise it's just personal opinion not backed by evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is that such websites as Deadline write about actors' new roles if they are notable, and the proof that her roles are significant is that it is mentioned that the actress got role (and there was written more than here [36]), and in subsequent news the fact that she appeared is cited, so she is known by these roles. She also appeared in recurring role in Emmy winning series, and in above mentioned film she had a star billing (billed before Vyto Rugynis). There are also actors that have one significant roles and are notable. And I would also argue that critical reviews are needed for criteria 3. Kirill C1 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Spoilertv.com and Deadline are promotional sources and are not considered independent coverage because they are essentially repeats of WP:ROUTINE press releases which are not independent of the shows and actors they are helping to promote, or are regurgitations of WP:TABLOID type content. In other words they are not useable materials for proving notability under Wikipedia’s policies at WP:SIGCOV or WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mentioned it to show that Deadline wrote more about her than this website. She also appeared had a star billing in several films, including aforementioned film and film with Kathleen Quinlan [37] (her name is on poster, that probably shows it is significant role). Kirill C1 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Deadline, along with Variety, THR and Wrap is used precisely to demonstrate notability, otherwise there would be no reliable sources to provide notability for actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are tons of entertainment publications of quality. Variety is one, so is Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, as well as general newspapers. Deadline is typically not a good source. The issue here though is the sources are not in-depth enough to prove notability. Further, a film poster doesn’t prove anything. Lots of non-notable films get made. This particular film has no wiki article, and I’m not sure was ever released into theaters. I can find no independent sources reviewing the film or which indicate that the film itself was notable, let alone any of the actor’s performances. Again we need an independent review of the film demonstrating the role the actress portrayed was significant to pass that guideline. Trivial mentions don’t count. Read WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • First, it's not like there are only three cinema publications of quality. Second, I have written that Quinlan stars in it (and also Lin Shaye). There is another film that has reviews and were Bogart's name is on poster. If the role is starring, it is significant per se and if it is in notable film it satisfies the criteria, there are significant supporting roles and even roles in episodes may attract coverage. There are multiple sources that combined demonstrate notability. Kirill C1 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source analysis. Given the pushback here; I have decided to give a detailed source analysis which clearly shows we lack enough RS to justify keeping the article per wikipedia's notability criteria. All of the sources and the external links from the article are included, as well as all additional sources presented so far at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis
Source Independent? Significant Coverage? Reliable? Pass/Fail Notes
"Andrea Bogart". Hollywood.com. Retrieved 2016-05-28. Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Essentially a credits list likely provided by the subject, their publicist, or taken directly from IMDB
Michael Fairman (December 17, 2011). "Andrea Bogart talks about her exit from General Hospital!". Michael Fairman On-Air On-Soaps. Archived from the original on July 1, 2016. Retrieved 2016-05-28. Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN As an interview source is directly connected to the subject and therefore lacks independence. Self published tabloid website run by actor Michael Fairman with no editorial oversite; not considered reliable RS per WP:Verifiability and WP:TABLOID
"Emily Bergl Upped To Regular On Showtime's 'Shameless'; Andrea Bogart To Recur On 'Ray Donovan'". Deadline Hollywood. March 13, 2014. Retrieved 2016-05-28. Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Press release of new role; most likely paid for and provided directly from Bohemia Group and Intelligence Artists Agency. Lacks independence and not RS per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ROUTINE
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestravelguide/2020/03/23/from-cocktail-classes-to-an-arts-salon-try-these-virtual-hotel-experiences/?sh=37755e44657a Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Trivial mention promoting the subject's yoga classes which directly link to her self written self promotional Facebook posts; very brief and clearly self promotional
NCIS Exclusive First Look: Who's Tony Chatting Up on the Beach in the Bahamas...? ? Red XN Green tickY Red XN Very brief mention of the actress highlighting a picture of her in a bikini. Likely provided directly by the NCIS producers and paid for to promote the show; even if independent not significant RS
https://2paragraphs.com/2017/06/who-is-wife-heather-in-the-wrong-neighbor-on-lifetime/ Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN https://2paragraphs.com/about/ is an essentially pay to promote media content engine; it therefore lacks independence and is not considered reliable RS; most likely paid for by the subject or her agency
This Lifetime Original Will Make You Appreciate Your Noisy Neighbors Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Independent film review in Bustle (magazine). This source is good.
HAWAII FIVE-0 Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Much like IMDB or wikipedia, site can be altered by anyone with an account.
WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women at IMDb Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN See WP:IMDB
Eades, Chris. "Andrea Bogart Is "So Grateful" For Her Time on GENERAL HOSPITAL". Soaps In Depth. Retrieved 5 September 2021. Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Steinberg, Lisa. "Andrea Bogart – Cheer Camp Killer". StarryMag. Retrieved 5 September 2021. Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS. Also fails per WP:TABLOID
Turano, Sammi. "Seduced By My Neighbor's Andrea Bogart Interviewed". PCM World News. Retrieved 5 September 2021. Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN As an interview lacks independence to be considered a RS.
https://www.nerdsandbeyond.com/2019/09/23/andrea-bogart-on-this-weeks-episode-of-in-love-with-michael-rosenbaum-and-chris-sullivan/ Red XN Red XN Red XN Red XN Unreliable website; paid for PR which lacks independence; not in-depth enough to be significant
https://www.tvovermind.com/andrea-bogart/ Red XN Red XN | Red XN Red XN Trivial fluff website; not clear if the site is independent or accepts money to promote subjects; not likely to reliable; WP:TABLOID applies
https://deadline.com/2015/09/powers-enrico-colantoni-andrea-bogart-snowfall-1201562096/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID
https://www.spoilertv.com/2014/03/ray-donovan-season-2-andrea-bogart-gets.html Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN lacks independence and significance as a WP:ROUTINE press announcement; content likely provided by and paid for by the subject or her publicist or the network; WP:NOTTABLOID
    • There is certainly a problem here - half the sources are deemed unworthy only because they are 'likely' to be not independent. Deadline Hollywood is a good source, and is used in great many Wikipedia articles. Casting news are frequently used in Wikipedia article as source, and you can not properly write career section for actors without them. My main concern is - if the sources are needed to cover the topic (in this case the actress) and interviews are not good, the news about actor specifically are not good enough, recaps and sneek peeks of TV shows are not good enough, random news about actors are not good enough, and the mentioning of the role actor played is not significant enough, then what could theoretically be used to establish notability? We can just disqualify all the possible sources and delete most articles. Then, the rule says that sources can be combined, and together they may be enough to write the article. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I do not agree with the description of the sources and the approach seems too critical to the sources ('likely provided', 'likely paid'), the person still has enough significant roles and hence passes WP:Nactress. There are several reviews you can find in the Internet. Kirill C1 (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Кирилл С1 You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD. I strongly urge you to read WP:GNG. We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there. "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Ultimately, I don't think you have a strong grasp on what makes a quality source per wikipedia policy, as evidence by your defense of sources that are clearly not reliable or independent.
Not all sources that are permissible for use in building article content are equally usable or valuable towards proving notability. For example, GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." Deadline Hollywood routinely prints press releases, and we explicitly exclude those from counting towards notability per GNG policy. Likewise, interviews are directly "produced by the article's subject" and are also not usable towards proving notability. This doesn't mean that we can't use those sources in writing articles, it merely means we can't use them to justify keeping an article at AFD. The problem is not with my analysis but with your failure to accept wikipedia's written policies at WP:GNG. My analysis is not unusual, but standard/typical practice here at AFD for evaluating source content when we are measuring it against notability standards. As it stands, there is only one quality source currently in evidence which can be used to prove notability because there is only one source that is independent, reliable, and demonstrates significant coverage. Typically we require a minimum of three sources that demonstate independence, reliability, and significant coverage to prove notability.4meter4 (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To give you examples of quality sources for actors and entertainment in general: Variety, Entertainment Weekly, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, books written by someone other than the subject or someone closely connected to them that are not self published, etc. are all quality sources in entertainment. They write original content, don't print press releases, have editorial oversight, and don't accept payment from the people whom they are writing on. This demonstrates independence and reliability.
To give you examples of poor quality sources: tvovermind.com, www.spoilertv.com, deadline.com, www.thefutoncritic.com, 2paragraphs.com, tvline.com/ are all sources with little or no editorial oversight; most routinely print press releases; most routinely accept money from the people they write on or their agents. In other words all have problems with independence and reliability.09:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
"You are fundamentally misunderstanding the basics of evaluating sources at AFD, and the basics of understanding how we prove notability at AFD." No, I am not. I participated in and have read enough discussions to see that some guidelines are interpreted differently, that are different approaches to establishing notability. Filmakers whose work was reviewed in reliable sources were proposed for deletion, even academy-award nominees were proposed. There are different perceptions what significant is. If we read that the purpose of Wikipedia is creating widely accessible and free encyclopedia, and giving access to the sum of all human knowledge, we will doubt that deleting the article about the actress who co-starred in films with Jason London, Amy Adams and had recurring TV roles. "We are not interested at AFD in proving anything but notability as defined there." - but if we understand that the actor is notable by looking at his roles, do we need to look at the sources so thoroughly, especially since there are more sources in the article than in many other articles about actors. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since when Deadline Hollywood is poor quality? It is not worse than Wrap, or DenofGeeks, or Screen Rant. In truth, there are more reliable sources than 4 mentioned, and even more top sources. It was written by you that the news about her was likely provided by network - how so, if the news consists of two casting pieces about project on different channels.Kirill C1 (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources are referring to Deadline - "according to deadline" while reporting news [38] [39], [40], also Slashfilm, Space.com, Vulture, and others. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the deadline pieces are press releases. Cast announcements are press releases. We can't use press releases as proof of notability at AFD. Further WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are not valid arguments at AFD. At this point I am not going to respond any further because of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR obstructionism.4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, I disagree with this view in a "narrow" sense – reports like this in Deadline Hollywood do somewhat contribute to "notability" in that they can be used to establish "significant roles" under WP:NACTOR. But they are almost always "passing mentions" and are not "significant coverage"... Again, the important metric in the case of WP:BLPs is WP:BASIC, which easily trumps WP:NACTOR as the actually relevant standard, and again I agree with the broader argument that this subject has not received enough "significant coverage" to actually pass WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 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.
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. Michig (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Tingting

Ai Tingting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news reporter, fails WP:BIO. No relevant results when searched on Google. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 06:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article completely fails to make any plausible claim of notability for this person. All we know is that she is a reporter but there are hundreds of thousands of reporters worldwide. Is every reporter notable and eligible for a Wikipedia biography? No. Only those who have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The current references are passing mentions, not significant coverage, and in a source that shows no indications of reliability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7, no indication or claim of importance; completely non-notable ROTM reporter. The source cited provides no coverage of this person, not to mention that it's obviously non-RS (WordPress blog site of some sort?). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:00, 15 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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chattertocks

AfDs for this article:
Chattertocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No secondary sources except for one minor award. Internet search reveals little to no independent coverage. Page has already been deleted before.Josefaught (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 29 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.
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. ✗plicit 13:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Mower Provost

Emily Mower Provost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe the subject meets either the WP:NPROF criteria or WP:GNG on her own. Only being an assistant professor, she doesn't ding point 5 or 6, and I don't believe her awards are sufficient to ding point 2. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I wrote when accepting this as a draft in 2020, she clearly passes WP:PROF#C1 by having multiple heavily cited publications. Also the nomination statement is factually incorrect; she is an associate professor (tenured), not an assistant professor (untenured), although the job title is not very relevant for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not an outstanding citation record among automatic emotion/speech analysis researchers, but sufficiently above the median currently and guaranteed to produce further impactful work in the future. JoelleJay (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI have added some of her activities on editorial board on the page. She is on several editorial boards including high impact factor journals which enters into WP:PROF#C8. But I am no expert in the field so happy to hear other opinions. Lainx (talk) 19:19, 15 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.
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 procedural close There is no impediment to any editor carrying out a merge and redirecting one article to the other. There is no pressing reason to delete the page, and if any information is reused in a merged article the page history must be kept for attribution reasons. SpinningSpark 11:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Gakuya

This article is the exact same as Mercy Wanjiku Gakuya. I propose that this article should be deleted and the older article including the politician’s full name should be kept.--Emily19911991 (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Mercy Gakuya was created in December 2019. Mercy Wanjiku Gakuya was created in June 2020. Therefore, this article is older by 6 months and not created after the other article as asserted by the nominator. I'm not sure AFD is the proper forum for this discussion, as it would seem a merge proposal is in order per the process discussed at Wikipedia:Merging. This is a clear case of WP:OVERLAP, and it really should have been brought through the merge proposal process. Should this be a procedural close or should we just deal with the merger here?4meter4 (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AfD is not the proper venue for this. It's actually so uncontroversial you don't even need a venue; you can just merge the info and create the redirect yourself. Curbon7 (talk) 22:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:17, 15 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ogenna Ekwubiri

Ogenna Ekwubiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a model who has won non notable titles, sourced to various promotional pieces. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I think this is one of the three times Nnadigoodluck has violated their topic ban on biographical articles thus far (I’m not so sure though) I do know MER-C blocked them for violating their Tban sometime in the past. If I’m not mistaken this was one of the articles DGG & I flagged as “possible spam” again I can’t really remember the details due to the fact they Nnadigoodluck “cleans up” his TP's manually and too often I might add. In any case there has been an extensive discussion on if or not the current parameters for accessing the notability standards for models are beneficial or counter productive, following the current parameters, this doesn’t seem to scale through. Furthermore sources used in the article largely fall under “churnalism” Having said I note at least two sources there seem to be accurate, however not enough. A WP:BASIC argument could have been made here but I see too many “mere announcements” for anything cogent to come out of that. FWIW, I’d initiate a site wide RFC on if the parameters for accessing models ought to be changed. Celestina007 (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think there is any reasonable way to say that her awards are ones that imply notability . Celestina, is my impression right that the newspapers and magazines listed don't really count as major sources? DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 19 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.
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Yinka-Banjo

Victory Yinka-Banjo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a teenager who was briefly famous for excellent exam results and being offered lots of scholarships but isn’t otherwise notable. I think WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  – Definitely think it should be deleted because teenager isn't the first person famous for exam results. Stuti Khandwala of India was equally as famous.[1] Also, subject's exam results are not exclusive to them.[2] [3] [4] Does not meet Wikipedia biography standards. Geronimo98672 (talk) 23:13, 26 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oluremi Akintola-Samuel

Oluremi Akintola-Samuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional BLP based on promotional sources. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 14 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.
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. ✗plicit 03:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Cleasby

Emma Cleasby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor bio Orange Mike | Talk 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 20 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sobaszkiewicz

AfDs for this article:
Barbara Sobaszkiewicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted due to failure of WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG after the NTENNIS guidelines were revised to exclude 10k and 25k ITF wins. User:Fyunck(click) raised some excellent points in the previous discussion and, as far as I can see, absolutely nothing has happened since that makes her any more notable than she was before. No Fed Cup appearances and no coverage found in a Polish source search that would count towards GNG. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could you comment on why "In 2013, she played for Poland at the XXVII Universiade in Kazan, Russia where she won the bronze medal in womens' doubles" is not sufficient for NTENNIS or WP:ANYBIO#1 (The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor) or #2 (The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field)? Mind you, I am not saying it should be, but it sounds "nice" for someone like me who knows nothing about this sport. I concur Polish sources have no SIGCOV of her, and I nominated her for discussion on pl wiki (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2021:08:14:Barbara Kapaś). I'll report anything of interest said there, but I fully expect people to raise the same question I did (isn't "one bronze medal" an indication of notability?). For the record, I do have serious issues with spamgraphies of minor sportspeople who attracted zero attention in media and just have participated in few niche events, but then, the same is true for people in other fields too we write articles for, and just say that some niche elected politicians, CEOs or scholars are notable due to the virtue of having some particular post or such (the problem is just much more accute for sport bios, since they form what, like half of Wikipedia biographies in existence...?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is never going to be that clear for tennis players due to the relatively low participation at AfDs. The Universiade isn't mentioned anywhere at NTENNIS so we can't say that this player meets NTENNIS even if she did win a medal. I did raise a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis but, again, participation was low so hard to draw any clear consensus. I think NTENNIS would need to be reworded to include the Universiade if we did want to go down the route of presuming notability for its participants. In my opinion, there would need to be some sort of convincing argument that most if not all players that get a medal in this student event pass GNG. With regards to ANYBIO, this is an interesting point and I don't think that it gets raised often with sportspeople. I could definitely see #1 applying for ATP Awards or WTA Awards and #2 applying for anyone in, say, the International Tennis Hall of Fame but, then again, such people almost always pass GNG anyway. It'll be interesting to see what comes back on pl.wiki in any case. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone: FYI, the pl wiki discussion was closed quickly as apparently pl wiki's equivalent of NTENNIS I was not aware of does lists winning a medal at Universiade as sufficient for notability. Knowing very little about this event I am abstaining on whether it's overly inclusive or just right; I remain concerned that there is no evidence of media coverage of her career. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's certainly a very different NTENNIS. I would also say that winning a medal at the Youth Olympics doesn't make you automatically notable, although many such people pass GNG or NTENNIS anyway so it's a bit of a moot point. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone I don't have much of an opinion here (and in fact I am leaning to delete myself given the lack of coverage, which suggests that sadly nobody cares about the Youth Olympics outside the participants and those closely connected to them...), but I'll just note the discussion at pl wiki ended with a near universal keep. Interesting how different groups of Wikipedia volunteers arrived at different conclusions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In looking at her article she is not even close to being notable per Tennis Project or NSPORT. I can't speak on whether she has reached GNG by some other means. Has she ever played on the WTA Circuit? No. Won a WTA tournament? No. Played in international Fed Cup? No. Perhaps entered the Olympics? No. WikiProject Tennis has a pretty low bar for automatic notability and she fails. Editor Vecihi91 has created a whole bunch of articles over the last year that have had to be deleted. This looks like another. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Five gold (and some others) medals of the Polish championship (2011-2013). [41] [42] Nedops (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the 6 criteria at WP:NTENNIS would this count towards? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of them. The world of sport does not end at these 6 criteria :) Nedops (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that this is the second time that this player has been up for debate and still there is no evidence or even a suggestion that she might meet GNG, which is ultimately the guideline that she should meet. We have policies like NTENNIS and GNG for a reason. NTENNIS allows enough GNG-failing articles to be created as it is, I really don't see the point in lowering the bar even further. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It's also a completely unreliable predictor of GNG, as is the case here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 06:52, 1 September 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.
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. What The Supermind wants to tell us does not amount to an argument for keeping the article, insofar as it is even understandable. Sandstein 10:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiia Kotliar

Anastasiia Kotliar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show they meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 14:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No even 1 and 2 sources fully covered about her biography and career. These withstand the article themselves. The Supermind (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the first is a non-reliable source, and the second is a primary source, neither of which go to notability.Onel5969 TT me 23:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both detail about her career and life and you have to see the content of site, not necessarily the site itself. You can see inserted references contents that have identical information about the subject. That can pass GNG. The Supermind (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look [43]. Again shows identical information. The Supermind (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone with the relevant languages comment on the several Ukrainian and Russian language sources cited in the article? Also on the nature of the Smoloskip literary prize? Furius (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can read Russian and google translate helps. Source analysis as follows:
  • source1 - student report of a university event published in a university publication. Neither independent nor RS
  • Source2 - I wondered why an arts site with just 2 reporters could manage so much content but in the about us section they confirmed that they accept user generated content and submissions. Given this, a long over detailed piece with no byline does not feel at all independent or suitable as an rs for notability,
  • source3 - aggregator source that appears to be a mirror of the ua.wikipedia page but with no byline I don’t see it as independent or reliable if it predates the ua article, the later is a copyvio
  • source4 - university site again
  • source5 - a uk based ukrainian aggregator site that is another wikipedia site and this one clearly lists wikipedia as the source.
  • the award might be notable but we have no article and ua has lots of red links in their article. I’d suggest we were better trying to get ab article on the award off the ground rather than trying to use that to justify a blp with no rs and lots of indications if self serving sources. ′′′delete′′′ Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Could you see this please? The Supermind (talk) 19:35, 28 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.
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. ✗plicit 12:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aniela Allotey

Aniela Allotey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable individual who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them thus a GNG fail. A before search predominantly search turns up only hits in primary sources and uner generated sources, see here and and here and in mere announcements or mention her in passing see here. Hence ]]WP:SIGCOV]] is definitely not met.. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as TooSoon; I think @Celestina is right about sources. All I can find (apart from her degree and social-media sites) are copious nearly-identical announcements that she's to become the host of a show (from March this year; to my mind, these count as a single announcement as they probably all stem from the same press release). She may prove notable when she's been in post for a bit, or later in her career, if more people write about what she does, but it hasn't happened yet. Elemimele (talk) 18:16, 13 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.
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. Daniel (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Boyd

Leah Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested with no reason given. In fact, the subject fails WP:GNG - there is one and only one source with significant coverage: the Christianity Today article. The subject also fails WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants). StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I'm going to adapt what I previously argued on Holidayruin's page when they questioned the notability (tagging them so that they can voice their concerns here): Being profiled in the flagship publication for American evangelicalism is certainly significant and notable. That feature alone I'd argue is enough to demonstrate notability in this case. The additional mention in The Economist, which is significant coverage, helps bolster that. The Madison Record is certainly a reliable source. That source also helps bolster the notability provided by the CT source. I agree that the pageant reporting itself would not provide notability, but those sources are being used to make verifiable claims about the subject, not support notability (although they might also bolster the notability of Boyd as supplements to the CT report).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How in the world does the mention in The Economist constitute significant coverage? StAnselm (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure it does, I forgot about that sentence when I posted and in retrospect I think I was wrong on that point.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you created the article in good faith, but I think you a demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:GNG when you say that the CT article is "enough to demonstrate notability in this case." Rather, we require multiple reliable sources. CT is a reliable source with significant coverage; The Economist is a reliable source but clearly not giving significant coverage. So it all comes down to whether The Madison Record article[44] is suitable as a second source. This is a very local newspaper (which doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article, although it should), and I don't think the sort of coverage it is giving Boyd is significant by WP standards. StAnselm (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had this sentence in mind: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." The Madison Record certainly is reliable, but the question here is whether the information is significant. I'd argue that on its own, no, but given the national-level coverage in the biggest evangelical publication, it helps support notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should clarify: The Madison Record coverage is significant. That it is local news doesn't matter. But given that it's about a high-schooler, I'd want to see sources about the individual afterward, especially if they are more notable for what they've done subsequently. And that is what the CT source demonstrates. I'd argue that just the CT source alone might be enough, but with the Madison Record coverage, there is definitely enough coverage for it to be considered notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Epicgenius who reviewed this article for DYK, Maile66 who removed the notability and referencing tags from Holidayruin, Hartsseeks, who removed the prod tag, 2600:1011:b0e8:2f2c:d1d8:ddd0:17e5:6aa4, who placed the prod tag, and Magnolia677 and MB, who also edited the article significantly.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Remove article. Reposting my thoughts on the matter from my talk page, from July 31. I had added "Notability" and "More citations needed" templates which were swiftly reverted, and shortly afterwards the conversation on my talk page happened.

"The article is about an individual who is most notable for being a state-level beauty pageant contestant and running a Twitter account with 20k followers. She's probably a lovely individual but this does not meets the standards for WP:N. Regarding the sourcing and again per WP:N, only the Christianity Today source would be a reliable source to get information from for a notable figure. Going through the rest of the sources, one is a unnotable local-level profile on a high schooler, one is her own personal website which should not be used as a source, the The Economist article is unrelated to her and would be considered original research (WP:NOR), and the rest are simply beauty pageant results."

I think I mislabeled the Economist piece as original research, but its place in the Wikipedia article is still ill-fitting and inappropriate as giving a quote on an issue generally does not seem notable enough to befit the speaker's Wikipedia page (unless their word is widely important or the statement itself became an important issue). Holidayruin (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not every statement in an article has to be notable, but rather supported by a reliable source, per WP:NNC.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
comment significant coverage in Christianity Today. User:StAnselm are you prodding articles while logged out, and then nominating while logged in? would that be appropriate? --Hartsseeks (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No - why would you think I am 2600:1011:B0E8:2F2C:D1D8:DDD0:17E5:6AA4? (And why would I bother doing that?) Anyway, everyone agrees there is significant coverage in Christianity Today - but that's not enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. StAnselm (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:07, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging Spiderone as well since they rated the article for the requisite WikiProjects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:48, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 04:30, 30 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.
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. Consensus seems to agree that the subject meets the basic criteria for notability. (non-admin closure) Coolperson177 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aparajitha Raja

Aparajitha Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a student leader; not clear whether there is enough in the sources to make her wiki-notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the fact that she's a student leader is relevant to notability either way? AISF is an organisation with several million members, so only the question of whether there is sufficient coverage seems to be material (and I admit that this is questionable). Furius (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. More discussion needed about whether the articles meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG or is WP:TOOSOON
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon talk 00:09, 4 September 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.
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. Daniel (talk) 07:17, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Arliss

Julie Arliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neither WP:PROF or WP:BIO appear to be met. The only coverage in RS are extremely brief mentions [45] [46] (this may not even be an RS in terms of establishing notability). The other references cited are primary sources and my own searches did not find anything else. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pburka: Presumably you mean NAUTHOR #3?. Personally, I don't consider those reviews sufficient to demonstrate that the book is a "significant or well-known work". The New Humanist in fact suggests the exact opposite we can dispatch a final brutal kicking by judicious selection of a few choice quotes. We would have an enormous number of BLPs on our hands if every author reviewed in publishers weekly merited an article. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I mean, and a review is significant coverage whether it's positive or negative. Per WP:NBOOK#1, books are notable if they've been the subject of two or more reviews. This means several of her books are notable. We could create pages for each of the books, but since we already have pages for the authors I'm happy to just mention them there, instead. In my opinion, it's better to cover books on author pages rather than authors on book pages, as it avoids some BLP coatrack risks. pburka (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NPROF. She is a secondary school teacher, her main impact stems from a co-authored book which does not qualify for WP:NAUTHOR. For her to qualify she would have to have multiple books that are independently reviewed and are her own work. Her GS profile shows very little citations / impact in the field meaning she fails WP:NPROF. The journal in which she publishes does not appear to be peer reviewed and is likely not a scholarly publication. --hroest 18:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little on GS, no pass of WP:Prof. Organizing conferences does not make a person notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, per SmartSE and hroest. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Obviously no pass of WP:PROF for a high school teacher with single-digit citations. The case for WP:AUTHOR is less clear-cut, with multiple reviews for what is essentially a single two-volume and two-author work (The Thinker's Guide to God / The Thinker's Guide to Evil) with a more-notable coauthor. If it were really two separate books, or had many more reviews, it might be enough for a weak keep from me, but as it is I think it falls a little short of the mark. The negativity of the reviews also makes it harder to argue that they are significant works. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete In addition to the concerns raised by David Eppstein, the reviews mentioned above include a single-sentence mention (AS Level) and a journal with unclear editorial standards (Frontier Missions). For a WP:AUTHOR pass in the humanities, I'd look for a strong JSTOR presence, and there just isn't one. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 14 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.
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. ✗plicit 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mia Eve Rollow

Mia Eve Rollow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. When I searched, I found nothing but passing mentions of this woman, nothing in-depth. I did find one article from the Southern Maryland chronicle about her winning an award, but the article most of the article about her and there was nowhere near enough content to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. She is simply not notable. Helen(💬📖) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this one is a bit tricky as she and her collaborators are working in decentralized groups that do not necessarily generate process for the members. She co-founded EDELO, which might be notable and worth of a standalone article, but I am not seeing enough material to make her notable under her own name. it seems like the same situation with her EDELO co-founder, Caleb Duarte. --- Possibly ☎ 02:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick check of Google with Books "on" turns up a chapter in Collective Situations: Readings in Contemporary Latin American Art, 1995–2010 edited by Bill Kelley Jr., Grant H. Kester (2017) (the editor both discusses and interviews Caleb Duarte; they both reference Rollow's work) and a 2 page discussion in Black Power Afterlives: The Enduring Significance of the Black Panther Party edited by Diane Fujino, Matef Harmachis (2020). Checking for "news" returns some coverage of art installations in Germany. That's the results of a trivial check in English, without doing any serious digging. Since not all of their work is done under the name EDELO, I would favor keeping two separate pages. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mary Mark Ockerbloom:, the book chapter is, as you mention, an interview titled "interview with Caleb Duarte of EDELO Residency", so it is primarily not about her and also not an independent source. Having her collaborator mention her in print does not have value notability-wise. Regarding the Black Power Afterlives source, I cannot see it. Could you share roughly what it says? --- Possibly ☎ 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – EDELA itself has generated a bit of coverage (and thus could be notable on its own), but none of that coverage seems to discuss Rollow in any detail. A few single-sentence trivial mentions don't help, nor do comments by her colleagues. If in-depth coverage can be identified I'll gladly reevaluate, but what I'm finding isn't enough to meet the GNG. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:11, 27 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.
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. I'm sure she looks very nice in her swimsuit, but it's not evidence of notability :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Samra Huseynova

Samra Huseynova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. Her role in "Let It Remain Between Us" (Azerbaijani: Aramızda qalsın) wasn't one of the main roles in the series. NMW03 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. NMW03 (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, there is a high chance of paid editing because the creator of the article trying to keep (and create) it in Azerbaijani and Russian Wikipedia. NMW03 (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and this [47]. Removing {{UPE}} template and legal threat. NMW03 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 17 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.
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. ✗plicit 12:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sybil Drew

Sybil Drew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable filmaker. Sources cover her films and book, however none which are independent provide significant coverage of the subject herself. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmmaker Sybil Drew is significant because she released a documentary film in 2020 of significance that "chronicled" and documented the building of one of the largest Industrial Parks in the world[5], and the largest Solar Farm in the midwestern United States. It is an important film because it is one of the only films produced so far that shows the city of South Bend, Indiana and background of current political rising star and possible future US president Pete Buttigieg[6]. Because of it's educational and cultural importance it was recently included as a US Public Library System documentary film selection for 2021. [7] RodelAudio (talk) 11:31, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.dnaindia.com/education/photo-gallery-surat-stuti-khandwala-cracks-neet-jipmer-aiims-and-jee-takes-up-90-scholarship-offer-at-mit-2763873/stuti-scored-988-in-class-12-cbse-board-exams-2763876
  2. ^ https://www.ghbase.com/cecil-tetteh-kumah-mfantsipim-school-student-adjudged-the-overall-best-student-in-the-2020-wassce/
  3. ^ http://saharareporters.com/2019/07/29/stephany-ugboaja-16-emerges-best-waec-candidate
  4. ^ https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/metro-news/2021/06/09/global-honours-for-malaysian-teen
  5. ^ https://www.anterogroup.com/project/indiana-enterprise-center/
  6. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/buttigieg-transportation-politics/2021/08/13/4ad67328-fb78-11eb-9c0e-97e29906a970_story.html
  7. ^ https://www.hoopladigital.com/title/14357370

Sybil Drew should not be deleted because her film Prime Farmland is successful and played online on Amazon and lots of other places.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b061:e9f9:3c53:b72c:e8a9:4560 (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree, keep Sybil Drew because she is a notable documentary filmmaker with a track record of making films.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:3a02:b00:d5bc:6726:642a:d05 (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting the obvious logged out comments above by the same person.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on assessment of sources.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
IMDB Yes No WP:IMDB Yes ✘ No
Chicago Tribune 1 Yes Yes No Only mentions the subject as part of the activism ✘ No
Chicago Tribune 2 Yes Yes Yes Actually covers the subject ✔ Yes
Truthout No Written by subject Yes No Not about the subject ✘ No
South Bend Tribune Yes Yes No Doesn't mention subject at all ✘ No
PV Magazine Yes ? No Doesn't mention subject at all ✘ No
C Good TV Yes No WP:VENDOR No Just a brief bio ✘ No
Amazon Book No Written by subject No WP:VENDOR No Not about subject ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Most of the sources are either written by the subject, don't mention the subject at all, or from unreliable sources, so this is a clear GNG fail. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:14, 23 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.
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. The assertion that "Charting at all is proof of notability" is not backed up with a link to a guideline that says so. Sandstein 18:21, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

XUM

XUM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my common sense (mean WP:IAR), I don't thinks this group is worth enough to be noticed. Xum disband for only app. one years. And all of the three members is just former member of Neonpunch. So, shall we merge with Neonpunch, or delete it. 1Way4Together - J. Smile | Awards and similar items are not for sales 08:51, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Given that the trio didn't last a year before disbanding, and their only chart entry wasn't particularly high (not even in the top 50) its unlikely that this article would ever grow beyond a stub. Alex (talk) 09:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 12:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ✗plicit 12:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:53, 16 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neslihan Gökdemir

Neslihan Gökdemir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't establish that she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:31, 16 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.
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzia Yasmin

Fauzia Yasmin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2012. Wikipedia has articles about many of her relatives, but notability is not inherited. Her website says she won two awards, but there's nothing about them in independent sources, and they are not well-known and significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Of the five cited sources, sydneybashi-bangla.com is a photo spread of her in a private home; banglamusic.com and Banglapedia don't mention her; and the last two are the websites of her and her daughter. Searches of the usual Google types, including by Bengali script, found nothing more than brief mentions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the award from the Shilpakala Academy seems like an indicator of notability (and her main period of prominence is pre-internet, so the lack of online coverage is unconcerning), so I'd be pushing for "keep", but if the copyvio issues aren't dealt with immediately, it ought to be speedy deleted. Furius (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only source I've found for that award is her website. She may have received it, but we don't usually take a subject's word for it. The Shilpakala Academy is a significant institution (some may note that her husband was a director general of it). But I haven't found any other information about a "Gunijon Shambardhana" - not when it was established, who received it, why it was awarded, or what it consisted of - it isn't a well-known and significant award. It is supposedly from 2006, so one would expect some online sources. I have an extensive personal library on Bangladeshi topics, and have found no sources there either. Of course, mine isn't as comprehensive as a major research university library. Those in my area are scheduled to reopen to the public in the next few months. I'm willing to withdraw the nomination until I can search them if there's widespread belief that sources must exist. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a spelling error for "Gunijan Shambardhana" which delivers a few hits for various people on google... So does the other award. But I'm quite willing to believe that sources don't exist if they cannot be found. Furius (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i spent almost 15 minutes to search for the sources (including in Bangladeshi language for ফৌজিয়া ইয়াসমিন) to verify for the subject's award Shilpakala Academy, but unfortunately, i returned with empty handed. In fact, Bangla Wikipedia article[48] is also tagged with sourcing concerns. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:17, 23 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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Nkonge Muwonge

Sarah Nkonge Muwonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially promotional BLP of an unsuccessful candidate for election based on interviews, profiles and other promotional sources. A WP:BEFORE search brings up more of the same, some election-related material and nothing else in-depth. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 22 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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Chattopadhyay

Debjani Chattopadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor, completely unreferenced. BLPPROD rejected due to presence of IMDb as an external link. Google returns naught but name-drops in lists of cast members (string: "Debjani Chattopadhyay"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 21:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 13 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.
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 merge to Southeast Missouri State University. Daniel (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christene Merick

Christene Merick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. One big donation isn't enough to establish notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say this one was a bit bigger than a routine event, at least for Southeast Missouri State Uni; I'd say merge is quite sensible, as it's clearly a big event in the uni's history, and the current article is as much about Mr Merick as Mrs Merick; even the details of their early life could easily sit in the Uni's article as the Uni and the Mericks share an origin in school-teaching. They are a merge made in heaven. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Curbon7. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:31, 13 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.
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. RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Strong (athlete)

Maria Strong (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable athlete, does not meet general notability criteria, WP:SPORTSBASIC or WP:NOLY. Sportygeek (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.outsports.com/2021/8/16/22623849/lgbtq-paralympics-out-athletes-tokyo
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 22 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.
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lilia Stepanova

Lilia Stepanova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability of biographical article per WP:BIO - no significant information to be found here to denote notability as most information is brief and does not explain themselves clearly. GUtt01 (talk) 09:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - articles like this are sufficient, and there are other non-English sources that are similar. The deletion rationale needs to be better here because the article itself lists the sort of coverage she has received and being a special guests on any one of those television shows would likely be considered more than "trivial". St★lwart111 03:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DAILYMAIL is not a reliable source. --Darth Mike(talk) 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but we don't need to rely on the reliability of the source itself, it is simply confirmation of a non-controversial fact; that she appeared on television. In doing so, she received coverage. As I said, the article itself lists the non-trivial coverage she has received from multiple reliable sources (which need not be print sources). St★lwart111 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The television appearances aren't sufficient? St★lwart111 23:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, no. Numerous people are on TV, all the time. Most aren't notable. --Darth Mike(talk) 19:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many television appearances aren't coverage of the person, that's true, but these are appearances where she has been invited as a guest and the subject receiving coverage is her and her talents / skills. They aren't a matter of her appearing on television incidentally, in relation to something else. St★lwart111 02:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Probably just scrapes into WP:GNG due to a few mentions, although in dubious sources such as Daily Mail and Radio Free Europe (eyebrows extremely raised) but they seem like such junk articles or churnalism (possibly placed coverage to promote America's Got Talent?). Not sure how this will ever go beyond a tiny stub. Also can't really see how she meets WP:BIO. Leaning towards delete but not sure. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:24, 24 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.
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. For the avoidance of doubt this means that the articles should be kept and not truned into redirects, per WP:NOCON "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit".

The majority of participants were against deletion, wanting to retain the titles in one form or another. Of the few who wanted outright deletion, most confused notability of lists with notability of items on the list and were thus not putting forward a rationale based in policy, a point made by several of the participants. It has be said that some of the keep participants made a similar mistake, arguing that since Playboy was notable, the models were notable and thus the list was notable. This is a failure of WP:NOTINHERITED of course.

Those wanting to redirect in some form were in a slight majority over those wanting to keep, but not so overwhelmingly as to stop this being no consensus. Of the redirect group, there was no consensus over where the articles should be redirected to. They were split roughly evenly between redirecting to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month and merging into the decades list. SpinningSpark 19:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Playmates of 1958

List of Playboy Playmates of 1958 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1955 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1959 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1960 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1961 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1962 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1963 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1964 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1966 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1967 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1968 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1969 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1970 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1972 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1973 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1974 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1975 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1976 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1978 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1979 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1980 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1981 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1982 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1983 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1984 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1985 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1986 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1991 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1992 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1994 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1995 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1996 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1997 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Playboy Playmates of 2018 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles included in nomination

Currently redirects unless otherwise noted.

This is a discussion for every page between List of Playboy Playmates of 1954 and List of Playboy Playmates of 2018. I recently redirected them all to the more relevant decade list, such as List of people in Playboy 1970–1979. This follows on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019, which closed as delete but had a majority of votes for "delete all". I felt that redirecting the rest would not be controversial and would save bureaucratic time, but apparently not.
As I reasoned at the AfD for the 2019 one: Fails WP:NLIST, which states a list must have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Note the sources plural. The only organization discussing these as a group is in fact Playboy itself. We are not a directory of Playboy models. All it seems to be doing is listing a bunch of non-notable women, which opens up the doors to all sorts of BLP issues, and then just lists their body measurements, an obviously sexual detail. I fail to see how it is in any way encyclopedic. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert said Wikipedia should not and cannot cover everything that ever gets published. At one time I would agree with you but not now, it is online and it should cover as much as humanly possible. Again a source of information. We want as much information as possible. Including for the playboy mates, one for them who I remember reading killed herself, which I did not know before reading the list of playmates for her year. That is why the articles should be restored Thank you. Allenknott3 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You already called them "call girls" above, so your bias is pretty evident.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Filmomusico: If you want to list all of that, alright, but I do not think/remember the articles listing that information. For the most part, the playboy articles listed only the girl's measurements and sometimes backstory, if I remember correctly. As for the races they are overwhelmingly white women. You may disagree with that but someone likely or dislikes that is not the issue. You are right, the wiki does not have lists for Maxim or other models but first, maybe it should, and second, there is an article for FHM's 100 Sexiest Women should that also be deleted? Third, I would argue that Playboy's impact on society and culture is far great than Maxim or any online site, hint it deserves its own list. Fourth, the pages already exist why even delete them? Fifth, the article you links to share no details on the women, they are literally just names on a page. If they do not have their own wiki article it just links back to the same page. I am not seeing much in the way of counterargument but what it seems to be to me is that some individuals do not like the list because it is Playboys. That is alright, I do not like Playboys, never picked up one, never read one, but what I opposed is the deletion of the pages because some find the women to note, "non-notable women," and that the information should not be here on a wiki despite the wiki being but a source of information. If you do not want to create new pages that fine, because honestly there is no need to after 2020 but for over sixty years Playboys posted playmates and that is noteworthy. Allenknott3 (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Allenknott3:I don't care if it's Playboys or not. Having a list of 100 Sexiest Women it's fine, even Forbes and Time lists their 100 Something every year. No problem here. The problem is the creation of lists which contain over a 100 of women, half of which don't even have their own article. That raises a question: What is the point? As for the listing of eyes and hair, it was just a suggestion, so that people here would not accuse Wikipedia of sexual discrimination. Of course, there was never a list that would list all that on Wikipedia.--Filmomusico (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: That'd be awesome! I knew there had to be a faster way than by hand...which I admittedly did not want to do and thus did not. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Do we need to notify page creators too? I count at least 7. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Milowent • hasspoken 13:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment@Filmomusico: the point is to list the women with whatever information exists. It is not sexual discrimination. Are you kidding? Playboy historically features women posing nude. Their measurements are just like a football player's stats, height, weight, 40 yards time, etc. Why are some lists are acceptable others are not? I think the pages that list them should be left alone. Allenknott3 (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. Yes, I am aware that Playboy features nude women, but I never thought of it as player's stats.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for "why some lists are acceptable and others are not", please refer to here or better yet, here.--Filmomusico (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the point is to list the women with whatever information exists Yes, that's been the point all along: To ignore and work around policies against that (NOT, BLP, POV, POVFORK, COAT). --Hipal (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Was a final decision made? Because honestly, I feel like those of us who are arguing to keep the pages are just wasting their time and breathe. Nothing I said is going to convince the other side and I had just given up. However, I had all of the pages saved. @Filmomusico: that is exactly what they are. Just like male pornstars had their measurements lists too. Allenknott3 (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guess I never seen a male pornstar measurements.--Filmomusico (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am not seeing any arguments here that persuade me the outcomes in the discussions which occurred in 2011-17 and ended in Keep, which I cited near the top, are wrong. This debate is really not about whether playmates are notable, it is just about how we are going to categorize that information and how much of it will be included in our coverage. Sitting here in 2021, I can already tell that editors are losing touch with the extent of U.S. coverage that playmates received in the 60s-90s. So it goes; no one who doesn't study 19th century pop culture U.S. history will know how much horse racing and boxing were dominant cultural pastimes then. There is not a question that Wikipedia readership reads these articles. In July 2021, the 1982 article got 3,352 page views [50] 1976 got 3,486 [51]. 1960 got 1,909 [52] 2014 got 2,912 [53]. If folks aren't aware, these are relatively popular view counts. Look at your own article creations, e.g., Bouteloua chondrosioides is a fine scientific article by nominator CaptainEek. It got 14 views in July 2021. [54]. And my creation Nick of the Woods, on a legit 1837 bestselling book, only got 111 views in July 2021.[55]. People read these articles because they are notable, not vice versa. When it comes to humans and sexuality, rationality can be harder to achieve, its the way we are built. I know we go by policy and consensus, and I agree with those rules, so this will be my last comment here. I am glad we had a debate instead of just redirecting them all without an AFD on the group. I see that Allenknott3 has saved all the pages, and a redirect outcome (if that's the outcome) is still going to preserve page history if future consensus alters. So Allen or someone else will make a fan wiki with all this information, and probably not police it as well as we will. Cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: I don't think the articles are viewed by notability criteria. Notability criteria is for us - for a reader it's baseless. The reader clicks on whatever we put out for a reader to see, if you get what I am saying.--Filmomusico (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Filmomusico: Most articles get very little traffic; if something is popular, it is often notable, this is my area of academic interest.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Milowent: Yes, but not everything that is being clicked on, means that someone is reading something of interest. I for one, can click on an article, go to sleep, come back, click on something else (assuming that I am not an editor). And lists especially. Who reads them? The Playmates that have nothing else to do in their spare time? --Filmomusico (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like, no disrespect to the Babes Next Door, but there is a difference between listing notable models and listing non notable ones. For example, I am in support of keeping a list of films by a famous actor or director (as well as lists of films by year in general), because we sometimes can't fit over a dozen films on their bio page (and, there are more films coming out every year then there are Playmates). Same is with music. However, we don't need to create lists for models, and especially creating them by the decade and then by year.--Filmomusico (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's clear to me that lists of Playmates are notable, as reliable sources treat them as a group. It's not clear that the lists of other people in each Playboy issue are notable, so I'm dubious of a merge to the broader per-decade lists. The precise granularity of aggregation and the level of detail to include in each entry are content decisions. pburka (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In looking at the guidelines, I’m not seeing how being on a list makes one notable, being in one magazine or one centerfold for that matter meets any of the notability criteria?? There are some truly notable playmates, but one is not notable purely by association, and an association with playboy (as a playmate) does not make said playmate notable. Lacking significant coverage and general notability.HedgeFundReporter (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HedgeFundReporter (talk · contribs). I can't agree more. Not every playmate is considered notable simply because she is a playmate. I will bring an example here: Anna Nicole Smith wasn't considered notable until played in a dozen of films and later died of drug overdose and CNN and other big news outlets including BBC and The Guardian chimed in. Meanwhile, some kind of Playboy Playmate named Amy Miller (real name, possibly), is only featured there and a whole bunch of other pornsites. And now, I am not talking about this Amy Miller (in case if somebody will want to accuse a notable writer to be a pornstar). This Amy Miller. --Filmomusico (talk) 16:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: This AFD looks like it never appeared in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 August 4 or any other daily list page (at least none link to this discussion right now). So it was not readily available to editors who weren't otherwise aware of it. We probably need to relist and ensure it shows up on daily list.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not want any of the Playboy articles or information about Playboy playmate, or magazines deleted
        Ciro-flex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciro-flex (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Keep. I am not an expert in this area, but (to deal with one comment made by some others) even I recognise the significant cultural impact of Playboy Magazine. I've reviewed the various ways of presenting the information, and I do like the decade by decade format for overall monthly content of each issue of Playboy. But I also really liked the separate pages for each year, giving more information on each month's "Playmate": it made it easy to identify similarities and differences, and helped me to understand how tastes could evolve over time. RomanSpa (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to be clear, I specifically oppose CaptainEek's wholesale redirections. I would also support a re-creation of the recently-deleted List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_2019 for consistency. I regret missing that debate! RomanSpa (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect the lot per the salient arguments above - that these individual lists act as partial content forks and fail various aspects of our list guidelines (e.g. that Wikipedia isn't a repository for indiscriminate collections of information). firefly ( t · c ) 10:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think we're confusing WP:NOTABLE with WP:NOTEWORTHY. Quoting the latter:

    The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of lists that restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

I've recently been fixing the dead links in the citations of these articles. Many of them are from newspaper sources rather than Playboy. To my mind the problem is that there's an attempt to give each Playmate an equal-sized lede-like paragraph, and not all Playmates have the sources to warrant that. It would make more sense to remove the unsourced content from the articles, leaving only the Playmates' names if necessary, rather than to delete all the articles and lose all the sourced content. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These bulk nominations are an utter pain and Over the years we have had a mixed bag when it comes to successfully handling them. In the past being a playmate of the month was a big deal but I don’t think it is anymore and there is a question over where is the point that this become irrelevant and a magnet for content we no longer need. In my opinion we need to let this run its course and relist liberally until we are clear that we have a settled consensus. probably also worth listing somewhere prominent to draw in wider comment. As for the content, I don’t have a strong opinion but could live with a redirect and expanding decade articles with truly notable content Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. One is enough. One List to rule them all, One List to find them. One List to bring them all, and in Wikipedia bind them. In the Land of Hefner, where the porn lies. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all to List of Playboy Playmates of the Month. Having them listed there seems sufficient. Otherwise its like a porn catalog, showing their image, their breasts size, and other measurements. Dream Focus 21:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per above, I agree with redirect option for all of the listed articles.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:07, 27 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.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josie Canseco

AfDs for this article:
Josie Canseco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see anything in her resume (cause that's all this article is) that makes her notable (her modeling career doesn't), and I don't think that appearances in "Hollywood Exes" guarantee notability. BTW I think the mother, Jessica Canseco, isn't notable either, but one thing at a time. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Be that as it may, I created it because being a Playboy Playmate is in fact notable for a model and walking in the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, though it is now defunct, was very notable at the time for models (though it wouldn’t be if that’s the only job she did). Appearance on a tv show is only trivial to the fact that her mom was a main cast member, which for Canseco the Elder is notable whether we like it or not because that would be a significant role in a notable tv show. The way she was discovered was reported on by Fox News, Huffington Post, and InStyle. Being the daughter of a former Yankee, naturally people will automically throw his name in there no matter the story but as far as I’m concerned the notability is there for herself. Trillfendi (talk) 23:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think a single reference in this article shows notabliity. As it stands, there are six references. The Sports Illustrated page is a casting call, of which they have done hundreds. I don't think someone's own instagram should be used as a reference. The Business Insider "article" is about 2 sentences, and it's just regurgitating a Buzzfeed article, a marginally reliable source anyway. New York Post is not a reliable source. I've never heard of Hola!, but it appears to be a tabloid website. Cosmopolitan is a marginally reliable source and there probably wouldn't be an article if she was dating someone less famous than herself, it's notable because of Logan Paul.I tried to do my own WP:BEFORE, but failed. --Darth Mike(talk) 18:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: There are a ton of articles chronicling her life and exploits. Additionally based on Notability guidelines for entertainers, I believe that her being in Playboy , Victoria's Secret, and ELLE count. That being said, the coverage does tend to be more about who she is dating and what she is eating, but people obviously care. FiddleheadLady (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:54, 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.
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. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Katalina

Katalina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reference is a Billboard Hot 100 chart from 1996. It seems the claim to notability is that her song peaked at #86 but in my opinion that’s way too low. Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40. Either way there is no general notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:MUSICBIO states that an artist is notable if they have "had a single or album on any country's national music chart," and WP:GOODCHARTS cites the Billboard Hot 100. #86 on the Hot 100 almost certainly means a higher ranking on a genre-specific chart, which would would also qualify as a "national music chart," per WP:USCHARTS. However, the article obviously needs more sources. If it turns out that the Billboard chart is the ONLY reliable source, I might support deletion, but the Hot 100 placement implies that other sources exist, though they might be a little hard to find since it's a 25-year-old song. Niftysquirrel (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only other source that exists is a defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago; even if she had continued her career it doesn’t offer anything beyond some trivia. Trillfendi (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Trillfendi, can you support your statement that there is only one other source that exists? That seems like an awfully bold claim considering this is from the very earliest days of the internet, and very little print material from this era has been digitized. I also disagree with the statement "Hot 100 notability typically starts at Top 40." I must have missed this discussion. If that's personal perspective that's fine. I would modify that to "unquestioned notability starts at Top 40", but per WP:MUSICBIO #2 this topic has a certain amount of presumed notability. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@78.26: a throrough googling shows failure of sustained notability. Trillfendi (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheijiashaojun: Are people down here not understanding that when I said "defunct regional alternative weekly newspaper from 11 years ago" that doesn’t offer anything beyond trivia, this is the one I was referring to? (OC Weekly went out of business in 2019. It’s generous to even include it in the conversation of coverage—as the only option.) If this is all you can find or muster up that’s exactly the problem here. Trillfendi (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Trillfendi: Please be civil. No, I didn't know that's what you were talking about, because you weren't particularly clear. Sources don't cease to be sources when they go out of business. I also gave another source. Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Billboard calling her a "teen diva." https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nAkEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&dq=katalina+%22thump+records%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2kuuyuLLyAhUbMN4KHdSTCWYQ6AEwAXoECAIQAg#v=onepage&q=katalina%20%22thump%20records%22&f=false Sheijiashaojun (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - topic is notable as the artist appears on the Billboard Hot 100. There are myriads of music researchers, musicologists, and collectors for whom this achievement has great significance, and will seek to find further information on the topic because it will be listed in Pop Chart Alminacs going forward. Frankly the vast majority of the article should be removed because it fails WP:V. However, when that is removed more than a dictionary definition (i.e. "Katalina was a pop singer from the 1990s") will be left, and any information is better than none. I would be fine with merging the content elsewhere per WP:PRESERVE, but a decent target is not coming to mind. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:30, 22 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.
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. MBisanz talk 18:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vika Tsiganova

Vika Tsiganova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 16 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.
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. The major point at stake here is whether or not we should consider the Golden Gramophone Award to be viewed as a major music award.

We don't list it where you'd expect to a see a major award listed and the only local award listed in the awards nav template is the now defunct MTV Russia Music Awards. This seems to rule out meeting WP:SINGER#8. This leaves the policy basis for the keep votes on a poorer footing and pushes this from no consensus to delete. Seddon talk 00:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Sokolova

Lyudmila Sokolova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fail of WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. nearlyevil665 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to the WP:PROMO concerns, I've just noticed that the recent edits from the creator's account are all related to Lyudmila's record label. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Unsourced Promotional BLP. Unable to identity here in the traditional places you would find singers, like Spotify and Apple Music and Soundcloud. The two references for the Gramaphone award don't mention her. I don't know what is going on there. Even if there was an award, as a BLP there would still more coverage and its non-existant. If there was coverage there would be references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creepTalk 09:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • How the article can be promotional if it only mentions her occupation and discography? I don't know what is going on, too, but two of the references provided on this deletion page (rusradio.ru and kulturomania) mention the fact. Does this Soundcloud [62] count? Kirill C1 (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep she won the major music award and source found by above. Clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #8 by having the Golden Gramophone Award 2013. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree that the article is poorly referenced, her award win means she meets criteria 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. This is easily verifiable on the website of the awards themselves where a list of winners is located. 4meter4 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom, MrsSnoozyTurtle, and others. I would add, in reply to the above comment, that WP:MUSICBIO #8 is about a major award such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award. The award brought up in this discussion is not a major award. It's an award given by a single radio station... if not all that insignificant an award due to to the popularity of the radio station, it's still a far cry from the meaning of major indicated by the above example. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether this is relevant (or entirely correct), but from what I understand the award in question is not voted on by a panel or a jury but by listeners of that particular radio. nearlyevil665 21:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, the award's are basically government sponsored, as it's a national radio station, and they are held at the Moscow Kremlin. I think you may be underselling the significance of the award. I have no idea if it's by popular vote or by a panel/jury of voters.4meter4 (talk) 22:31, 11 September 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.
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

Anyuta Slavskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 9 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:51, 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.
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. There seems to be no agreement as to whether or not the amount of coverage in reliable sources is in-depth or not, and therefore no consensus as to whether or not GNG is met or not. No other indicaitons of notability were presented. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lara Johnson-Wheeler

Lara Johnson-Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe this meets WP:GNG. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 05:58, 16 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.
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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maithra Raghu

Maithra Raghu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete:

Hello!

I think that this article should be deleted for the following reasons: 1. The subject here is a research scientist at Google Brain. There are several thousands of research scientists (2241 researchers to be precise, please see https://research.google/people/) at Google and that itself doesn't warrant a wikipedia article to someone. This is not a prestigious position. 2. Most of the research scientists at Google and anyone who has a PhD typically has a number of papers and have at least a couple of news articles each if not more. That is also not a reason to provide a wikipedia article to someone. 3. I am familiar with the broad area of deep neural networks. While this subject has done some research, she does not stand out in anyway. 4. Another fishy aspect is that the spouse (Arun Chaganty, please see https://maithraraghu.com/assets/files/thesis_final.pdf) of this subject has started and written the article. 5. The only aspect that stands out to any degree about this applicant is Forbes 30 Under 30. Note that Forbes 30 Under 30 List comprises of 600 people each year. So, it is not as selective as well. I am not sure that alone is enough to call this subject a notable person. (the other honor STAT wunderkind is not even well recognized).

Given the above reasons, I propose the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliciaBennot (talk • contribs) 13:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hi!

I am a deep learning engineer/researcher myself. I was requested by one of the editors to take a look at the subject of this article. I have been working in deep learning for several years now and I am very much familiar with this individual's research. I agree that this person hasn't done any notable work and/or does not hold or never held any prestigious positions. Her main USP seems to be writing papers with well known individuals. But, that does not really qualify anyone as a notable person who deserves a wiki entry. I know several PhD students who have made more impactful contributions than this individual but again it's not possible to have a wiki page for every PhD in the world. As an ardent wiki user, I would like to see individuals who really stand out as notable people on wikipedia, and this individual doesn't fit the bill at this time.

I also find it very inappropriate that people close to her (OP says spouse?) are writing her wiki article. If everybody started doing this, every individual who works at Google Brain or who holds a PhD will have a wikipedia article and I don't think the bar for a wiki article is that low. OP already commented about Forbes 30 Under 30 and STAT Wunderkind. Other award listed "Rising Stars" is not really an award. It indicates participation in a workshop. No woman in a PhD program in engineering has ever been turned down from attending that workshop. This article made me wonder if I should write my own wikipedia page because I can list more awards and talk about more research and I am at a more senior position, but no I won't do that. I don't think that's the point of a wiki article. It is NOT YOUR PERSONAL WEBPAGE. Only people of reasonable public interest, with a ton of super impactful achievements, and/or in prestigious positions should be included here. Not every person in a big tech company deserves a spot. I am sorry to be blunt but someone needs to tell the subject of this article and her personal connections this very clearly.

I am sure she has a great career ahead of her and she will do more things in the future. But, at this point in time, I support the deletion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeplearner99 (talk • contribs) .

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her thesis was published in 2020, and I'm not convinced passes WP:NPROF or WP:GNG (though there is a bit of coverage). I think it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been trimmed quite a lot by the nominator, and I also note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AliciaBennot. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete this is a borderline case, on the one hand this subject is very early in her career but her GS is reasonably impressive even in a high citation field: 7 papers with 100+ citations of which 4 are first author papers. This is clearly not just a researcher who "writes papers with famous people" as the nominator alleges. On the other hand, the long-term impact of this research is clearly not established and there is an argument that this is simply TOOSOON. Note: this is a field where a paper can garner 25k citations per year and we do not have articles about many of these authors in the ML field. --hroest 18:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A very recent grad is exceptionally unlikely to have made an independent name for herself sufficient to meet NPROF, so while she has an excellent start it is far TOOSOON for a standalone article on her. I tallied all her Scopus citations and manually added in all the doi-indexed citations to her arXiv preprints. I then looked at the Scopus metrics of all her coauthors (35; Scopus coauthors plus the ones from arXiv submissions, and including undergrads with one paper), and even though I didn't add any of her coauthors' arXiv citations to their metrics (which would roughly double them) she was still well below the median. Total citations: average: 12674, median: 1639, Raghu: 804 (435 from Scopus). Total papers: avg: 61, med: 34, R: 26 (Sc: 13). h-index: avg: 25, med: 16, R: 13 (Sc: 7). Top 5 papers: 1st: avg: 3451, med: 386, R: 131. 2nd: avg: 1709, med: 245, R: 124. 3rd: avg: 908, med: 172, R: 100. 4th: avg: 694, med: 154, R: 80. 5th: avg: 630, med: 109, R: 62. JoelleJay (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources present are not reliable and the information is inadequate, fails notability too.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Discussion page was never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the article itself at this time. --Finngall talk 22:42, 20 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.
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. North America1000 08:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elly Pourasef

Elly Pourasef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notable only for being on the reality show. Redirect is being recreated as an article. As this is their only claim to notability, the article should be a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 13:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A couple of sources have been provided, but their substantiveness isn't clear
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:37, 14 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines at major beauty pageants (3rd nomination)




Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1039726275"