Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:16, 24 October 2023

Shortcut

WP:DSACTOR

All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Actors and filmmakers. 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:

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.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} 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 Actors and filmmakers. 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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

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. "Keep" !vote fails to address notability guidelines. ✗plicit 14:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Mohammad Ghasemian

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

Non-notable - half of the sources are propaganda articles or used as propaganda, and the other half don't show significant coverage and might be presumed as non-independent - Possible paid editing. Arian (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arian (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.

ContributorMix (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably non-notable. I ran the article's refs through machine translators that did a poor job; I note that multiple articles came back with Mr. Ghasemian's last name as "Qasemiyaan" or "Qasemian". Someone who understands Farsi may be better at finding reliable sources than I have been; please ping me if they turn up.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind my "probably non-notable" above - definitely delete since I see the nominator is a native Farsi speaker. Arian, we need good coverage of Iranian topics so I appreciate your work in this space.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is known as a director and producer on Iranian television and has directed and produced many famous programs on Iranian television. Rockman2001 (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2023 (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 12:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel de Castro

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

Challenged for sources since 2016. Fails WP:NACTOR. GNews Archive turns out no reliable results. GBook search shows another Filipino called Fidel de Castro but this person is a poet. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:39, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all I can find [1] and it's paywalled. Lack of sourcing; happy to revisit if we can find confirmation otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2023 (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. Consensus seems clear after relisting. I do not see any reason to protect the title at this time, but please ping me on my talk page if it is deemed necessary. Kinu ^t/_c 19:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Guillart

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. Only roles so far have been one episode of an animated series, and three uncredited roles, and it's not clear yet how big the roles are for the two upcoming films. I can find no evidence that he won a BET award. Google search for "Ricky Guillart" results in one screen worth of hits, mainly social media and film directories, but no significant discussion of the individual. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. ... discospinster _talk 02:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to the information provided you can see that it is an article by a person who has been recognized very recently, super reliable sources are shown and the arguments are Well reformulated, no errors found, I propose that your nomination be canceled and this article removed until more references are obtained from more relevant media.

Let us remember that not every user can create an article on Wikipedia, and we have also seen the support of several collaborators such as User:Slgrandson, User:AnomieBOT, User:Onel5969, User:Certes, User:GoingBatty, among others. Also that all the information has been provided in recent months, that is, if we give time to get more information to verify this article, we can leave this call open, while you fix the errors you found and try to remove the payroll deletion notice from the item.

Also if someone else would be interested in helping with the collaboration of such an article, it would be much better for everyone, also since I have been able to observe that there are some articles with only 4 references and they are not nominated for deletion, I thank you very much for your supervision, this helps me a lot to improve when it comes to creating articles, but please let's wait until I can fix this error , I thank you a thousand times for your notification, while we correct the error, your alert could be removed from the article.

Thank you Michellelopez1234 (talk) 04:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My collaboration was limited to replacing a link to Model by a more specific one to Model (person). I didn't assess the subject's notability. Certes (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: Similarly, my one edit before today was to remove overlinking. This edit (or the copyediting I did today) should not be considered when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria.

Yes, there are many articles that are poorly referenced, and these should not be used when evaluating if Guillart meets Wikipedia's notability criteria per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion if appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Michellelopez1234: However, the number of references that failed verification could be used in this discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•More relevant information has been added to this article, with references verified, and errors have been updated for the better. Michellelopez1234 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Additionally, I am concerned regarding Michellelopez1234's use of "we" in their statement which implies it is a possible shared account (not to mention reads like AI). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking over the article, I'd like to suggest draftification if that is okay with the nominator. Otherwise I see this as a Soft Delete and I imagine this article will be restored and back into main space soon enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Trivial acting roles, one voice over in a series, perhaps not notable yet. The award nomination is not notable. Still young, could be TOOSOON. Regardless, nothing for sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable article created by an editor with an inappropriate conflict of interest. Furthermore, this AfD was "closed" by a Cuban IP with the deceptive comment:

The result was Nomination withdrawn

Thanks for the sourcing, Since we have access to offline resources and results, as your notoriety was established, I withdraw this nomination and close this debate. --

The AfD tag on the article was removed with this edit summary:

This notification is canceled because the nomination debate for deletion was closed and its result was to cancel the nomination, it can be verified in the debate article, thank you

These edits upset me because they seem abusive of this website's openness and trust. I feel the use of a logged out IP and deceptive comments about the AfD are blatant indications of bad faith editing and I recommend the closing admin "salt" this article.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be open to placing light protection on the article title but I think full protection is overkill if it is only due to the actions of an IP account who is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. I also think heavier protection is warranted if an article has been created multiple times which isn't the case here. Of course, we might run into a CSD G4 situation but that can be dealt with. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person doesn't yet have the in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Early in their career, so possibly WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neiltonks (talk • contribs) 12:53, 31 October 2023 (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 23:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of directors who appear in their own films

AfDs for this article:

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

A largely unsourced and trivia centric list that has not seen fleshing out in the 13 years since its last nomination. There’s no academic assessments, director quotes, film critic insight about these cameos it’s really just “Oh, Spielberg made a cameo in these films”. Doesn’t merit a separate article. Rusted AutoParts 14:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would work as a sub category under Category:Lists of film directors, but as an article, it's just one long mostly-unsourced endless list. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Lists of people. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guideline says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". It has:

Etc, etc.

Those articles vary in scope, quality and approach but the list has been discussed as a group by multiple independent reliable sources. A list, unlike a category, allows to organise the entries, and add comments and explanations that are needed, and to source them properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can safely throw most of those sources in the bin for questionable or no reliability. There being top ten director cameo lists does not in any way make the article notable. Especially if it just exists in the form it does. There are three sections:Directors regularly appearing, actors directing themselves, Directors who SOMETIMES cameo. What exactly is substantive about this? The actors section could easily be removed, and there's hardly any notability toward directors SOMETIMES cameoing. Those removed just leaves the top half, which by itself is not worth an entire separate list article. Besides, there still isn't any insights or critique to the page. A page just pointing out that Seth MacFarlane appears in his directorial efforts is still akin to there being a list on the most popular film Easter eggs. No substance or encyclopedic worth. It's fancruft, it's trivia. Rusted AutoParts 21:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like it, that much is quite clear, but there is strong evidence that it meets the guideline. If you think this should be split into 2 or 3 lists (one for actors directing a film in which they play, one for directors who appear in almost all of their films, and one for directors who appear in only a few or one of them), it's another discussion (either article TP or split proposal). No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all about disliking it or not, it's seeing no notability or value in it being on the encyclopedia. That strong evidence is not strong in the slightest, especially when you realize about half of those sources are themselves lists. It's an interesting enough topic, but one that's ultimately not notable enough to warrant an article. It would be akin to creating List of castings the Marvel Cinematic Universe almost went with, a topic people like to discuss but one that holds no intrinsic value. Rusted AutoParts 21:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per My, oh my! Clearly discussed as a group, such as Filmsite, which has not only "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in their own films)" but also "Greatest Film Director Cameos (in films of others)". (In fact, a second list for cameos in other people's films may be warranted.[2][3][4]) Sourcing is not a big issue, and AfD is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, another listicle? This AFD is not designed to strongarm a cleanup, I genuinely feel this article has no encyclopedic value and is overblown trivia at best. Rusted AutoParts 01:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is clearly the only reasonable decision in the present state of the article. If it was supplied with adequate sources (lots of them) then a revised version might be OK. Athel cb (talk) 09:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rusted AutoParts. Regrettably, I do not believe it is anything more than a trivia article, as interesting as it may be. It appears quite common for directors to seek to self-insert, to the extent that I don't believe it to be notable as a standalone article. Further, the criteria between what counts as an 'occasional' cameo and a 'regular appearance' at this point seems completely arbitrary, and I don't see any way of resolving this. I think Athel raises a good point about many sources breathing life into the article (a few sources as of now are YouTube), but I still believe it is of no encyclopedic value. Cameo_appearance#Film_directors exists. Nonovix (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly reluctant Delete. There might (might) be an article to write here about this as a general phenomenon. Such an article could reasonably mention some prominent examples (Hitchcock, Tarantino, etc), but I don't see how a list of every random director who ever appeared in their own film really makes the cut. Of the sources brought up, there are basically two types: mildly in-depth about specific directors (which could help with the general article I mentioned), and listicles (and listicles just don't really count towards notability). At best, I think this is a case for WP:TNT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a way too long and trivial list of cruft. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2023 (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 12:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Nelson

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

Poor quality sources, does not appear to pass WP:NBIO. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Dance, and Nigeria. ––FormalDude (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Disputed draftification, Sources are not WP:RS. Appears to be a bit player in K Pop videos. Muscular and agile, he fails WP:BIO. Should not be returned to Draft. Vanity piece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:25, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://ngr.korean-culture.org/en/298/board/247/read/80065

https://dailytrust.com/meet-dance-instructor-teaching-nigerians-k-pop/

this two links are from government reliable links connecting to korean embassy nigeria 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief coverage doesn't help.Oaktree b (talk) 11:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more longer biography citations have been added@Oaktree b [5]

[6]

[7] 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Celebjam and gossipnext door are click bait sites, I'm sorry, but they aren't reliable and can't be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 1 is ok, but we'd need more like that. I can't find any other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Physical: 100 check the contestant list on the wikipedia page for physical100 119.69.67.29 (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Being named in a list doesn't help. We need long articles that talk about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i will attach another link that covers the biography of the subject of the page https://koreabyme.com/miracle-nelson-of-physical-100/

https://www.realitytitbit.com/netflix-reality-shows/miracle-on-physical-100-is-a-korean-dancer-being-fiercely-rooted-to-win Namgung hahyun (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC) — Namgung hahyun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep page more longer biography citations have been added and info page has edited properly

https://gossipnextdoor.com/miracle-nelson-bio-age-girlfriend-height-physical-100/

https://celebjam.com/gossip/miracle-nelson-bio-age-girlfriend-height-physical-100/?amp=1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.69.67.29 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)— 119.69.67.29 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Neither of the references above are even close to being reliable (they also are almost identical in wording which points to paid-for clickbaity churnalism). Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ~~keep page~~ the links were replaced with some other Link and and was well sourced for . Namgung hahyun (talk) 04:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

struck vote There is a strong probability, confirmed in the editor's talk page, that they already offered a !vote to keep while logged out. One editor, one formal !vote 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources remotely suitable for a BLP. I suppose it's possible to redirect as well, but the content is also potentially unsuitable. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:25, 29 October 2023 (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. RL0919 (talk) 09:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vysakh Reetha

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

Subject fails WP:FILMMAKER. Some sources do not constitute significant coverage as he is mentioned in passing while the rest are not reliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Malaysia, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:FILMMAKER not passing till now Worldiswide (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2023 (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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Babar Ahmed (director)

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

He doesn't have any significant reliable coverage. The coverage that exists is mostly very minor. He isn't notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Dravoon (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Pakistan, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Director of at least two notable films that have received substantial coverage, Amka and the Three Golden Rules and Royal Kill (reviewed in the Washington Post, among other things), he is therefore notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series)"-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. pass in WP:DIRECTOR criteria Worldiswide (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Zaman

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

Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Most of the references are borderline WP:REFBOMBING which doesn't prove notability or support the text; for instance, "He is well known for directing the Punjabi comedy film Carry On Jatta 3." is only semi-supported by the seventh reference, which isn't an independent source. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 09:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, none of the RSes provide significant coverage, and many of the sources are unreliable. Two sources provide more significant coverage, but I question their reliability. I've googled Zaman and didn't come across any better sources, but there may be some in Punjabi. Significa liberdade (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I want to express my opinion This user User:Significa liberdade seems to have some deep conflict and problem with this article. He tampered with this page twice before so I reverted him I also said that removing all references to a page is equivalent to destroying it. Even after stopping a user once, he was repeatedly and causing vandalism. I have been watching for a long time that this user User:Significa liberdade fighting a personal battle As an editor of Wikipedia, I refuse to accept its opinions. And I have a request to any Wikipedia administrator to check all its edit He is busy getting many articles deleted and fighting his personal battles. Zimidar (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am on New Page Patrol and have "tampered" with the article to help it meet Wikipedia's standards. I'm happy to have any administrator review my actions, though. (she/her, by the way) Significa liberdade (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep Nasir Zaman is considered as one of the best and famous Director, producer of Pakistan, Even after reaching the heights of fame, he still meets common people as if he is not a popular star. He has got coverage in many Indian news. He announced his career in 2021 And also has many of his projects, upcoming.The Indian Express Times Of India Outlook India Universal Cinemas CinemaQatar dajiworld Still there has been a of Indian and and Pakistani News Site coverage about him, Mostly you will see names associated with other actresses in their coverage.ZeeFilm News18 FreePressJournal ianLive Medeberyaa Because in every project he works together with the entire team as a director, producer or actor. Famous Indian actor Aamir Khan took his his name during the movie promotion of Carry On Jatta 3. and praised his work. I find it difficult to assess the reliability of Pakistani sources and we don't appear to have a WP:RSN page for the country. However, there does appear to be in-depth coverage in sources which I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP. Keep, monitor for neutrality and overdetail. Zimidar (talk) 09:23, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: None of the sources provided above provide significant coverage of Nasir Zaman. Significa liberdade (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the plethora of sources being thrown around, they all appear to either grossly fail WP:SIGCOV or act as a functional database entry showing actor, director, and producer credits for a film - neither of which support notability. As an example, the FreePressJournal source mentions Zaman a single time to credit him for directing the film Maujaan Hi Maujaan. The remainder of the article is an interview with an actor. I cannot seem to find anything online searching myself, but as Significa liberdade commented, it's possible sources may exist in another language. —Sirdog (talk) 04:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As said above, doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Most of the references are film reviews not specifically about the subject, cinema showing times (I'm not sure I've seen that before) or are primary sources. I think there was one (?) secondary source. One of the links was so riddled with spam my phone sent me a dangerous link warning. For now, the subject isn't notable. Knitsey (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2023 (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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 00:00, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krithika Nelson

AfDs for this article:

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

Apart from the notability problem tagged on the article itself, it is also a copyright problem, since it was created by a copy-and-paste move from Draft:Krithika Nelson to Krithika Nelson.

A quick WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any possible sources that are simultaneously published, reliable, secondary, and independent of the subject. —Wasell^(T) 🇸🇪♡🇺🇦 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no copyright problem. The draft was created by the same editor as the article, and there is no content in the article needing attribution to anyone else who edited the draft. Also, even if there were content needing attribution, it would be easy to history-merge the draft into the article, so it still wouldn't be a problem. JBW (talk) 09:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —Wasell^(T) 🇸🇪♡🇺🇦 14:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unfortunately all links I find are just to watch videos of the songs by this person, nothing for biographical information. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: Hi, I understand the notability problem to some extent but doubt that there is an issue of copyright. Both the Draft: Krithika Nelson and Krithika Nelson articles were created/written by me. So I essentially copy-and-pasted by own work, which I do not find a problem with as the creator of the first article.

Also, the subject has been mentioned in quite a few other Wikipedia articles and backlinked to here. Her body of work is also reasonably extensive. There are quite a few interviews (both on Youtube and across various other publications) where she has discussed biographical information. Unfortunately another editor removed them as being unreliable sources. Let me get those back into the article and we can get a better picture of her work in the Tamil film industry.

Hope this clears things up. Naturally, I contest this nomination for deletion. Aishu.m (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify sources are not enough, It is need more sources. Xegma(talk) 08:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, additional sources backing the information mentioned have been cited in the article. Feel free to have a look. Aishu.m (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, until more source for notability cited. -Lemonaka‎ 10:37, 27 October 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 04:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Korine

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

Non-notable actress. Most articles that mention her are discussions about the films she has been in, or a single sentence saying that she is Harmony Korine's wife. I found one interview with her but that does not establish notability. Putting this up for editors to discuss or bring more evidence for notability forward. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, and Entertainment. LovelyLillith (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.Delete It does not have the criteria of complete wiki recognition. Khtibkiarash (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC) — Khtibkiarash (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Kiava (talk · contribs). Mz7 (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Trash Humpers, Septien, Spring Breakers and Men Go to Battle are good for WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Duffbeerforme. She passes WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in multiple notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions as per WP:NACTOR as confirmed in reliable sources in the article such as this here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2023 (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 03:04, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BV Bhaskar

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and not a notable celebrity cricketer. Previous edit looks like a fan page [8]. Seems to only play a "notable" role in Salaga (film), can redirect there [9]. Only one good source on entire internet which is not a passing mention which is already on the page. DareshMohan (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utter nonsense regarding what has been written about him and cricket. Has never played in the Ranji Trophy, and the 'English County Cricket League' is totally made up. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2023 (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 redirect‎ to Night of the Living Dead. If an editor has strong feelings about it, you can change the Redirect to one that is more precise. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Wayne

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

Article fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. He’s only had one role as Tom in Night of the Living Dead. Unless he’s Peter Ostrum, the article fails NACTOR. Unless he’s Ian Michael Smith, Besedka Johnson or Jocelyne LaGarde, the article fails ANYBIO. I don’t object to a redirect to Night of the Living Dead. The Film Creator (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is probably best here, subject doesn't meet NACTOR, and is borderline for BASIC. NOPAGE probably applies. —siro χ o 03:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Night_of_the_Living_Dead#Cast. Fails WP:NACTOR, as his single role isn't particularly notable. Mooonswimmer 15:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If not kept, consider Night_of_the_Living_Dead#Keith_Wayne or Night_of_the_Living_Dead#Cast for redirect targets. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Bae

AfDs for this article:

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

The person does not meet our guideline for WP:ENT. Previously, WP:PORNBIO was the guide but it was depreciated in March 2019. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No change in notability since the article was deleted at AfD two years ago. Same junk sources and still fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Independent search finds nothing substantial or reliable. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be significantly different from the previous version, which would make this eligible for speedy deletion. Same garbage sources. Note, please do not honor any requests to draftify this article. It appears this was done before, and the person just shoved it back into mainspace with no effort to improve. Zaathras (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2023 (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 23:21, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Poat

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Terrible references. No coverage at all apart from single interview. UPE scope_creep^Talk 09:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Technology, Netherlands, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Available coverage consists of passing mentions regarding his involvement in The Matrix and an interview in Game Developer. No awards or other major contributions that would fulfill notability for creative professionals. Mooonswimmer 13:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure we could find more references, but he led the special effects team on the first The Matrix movie which I thought was amazing and notable. Stravensky (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is WP:SECONDARY coverage, people talking to other people about the subject but who don't know the subject. That is gold standard. So in this case, no. The subject fails WP:BIO. There is zero coverage, not even enought to reach WP:THREE which by consensus is considered best practice, to prove the person notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find mentions confirming credits, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2023 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Camhe

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

Non-notable producer. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BLP. References are stonkingly bad. Terrible, absolutely terrible. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Weak keep As the article already states but fails to source properly, Camhe has produced Junior,^[1] In God We Trust,^[2] The Celestine Prophecy, ^[3] The Believers,^[4] and The Package. ^[5] She has been described as a "veteran cable-movie producer"/"veteran producer" by The Spokesman^[6] and Variety.^[7] Perhaps Camhe's credits make her borderline notable per #3 in WP:PRODUCER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Mooonswimmer 14:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Klady, Leonard (1994-11-21). "Junior". Variety. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
^ Staff, T. H. R. (2013-04-20). "In God We Trust: Tribeca Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
^ Dargis, Manohla (August 11, 2006). "Searching for a Spiritual Shangri La in 'The Celestine Prophecy'". The New York Times.
^ Canby, Vincent (June 10, 1987). "FILM: 'THE BELIEVERS,' FROM JOHN SCHLESINGER". The New York Times.
^ Stein, George (1989-08-29). "'The Package': A $16-Million Gamble on the Fear of Peace". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
^ "Cbs Plans 'Celestine' Miniseries | The Spokesman-Review". www.spokesman.com. Retrieved 2023-10-17.
^ Fleming, Michael (2000-03-23). "Sandler laffer at NL; Close open to HBO live". Variety. Retrieved 2023-10-17.

'Comment The sourcing is problematic for this editor. It could indeed be notable with a bit of work. See what other folk think. scope_creep^Talk 15:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep Again, I have added references to other articles that had few or no references in the past in order to help improve them. I have also submitted a handful of pages the past 6 years and included the references I found while thinking other editors would contribute and improve those articles. The pages I have submitted seem more notable than many existing pages. Attacking the sourcing as a reason to delete seems arbitrary and almost like a vendetta because it is a page I wrote... Stravensky (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Stravensky: How goes it? No, that is how its done at Afd. You examine the sources in the article, to see if they follow the criteria of the notability, in this case WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. We will take a look at them tommorrow and see what they say. scope_creep^Talk 23:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a page, it is an article. Completely different things. The most problematic of the articles you wrote were listed at the WP:COI noticeboard. I checked them and sent all the ones I thought were non-notable to Afd. scope_creep^Talk 23:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mooonswimmer: Is there good reviews of her work? She may well be notable. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, plenty of reviews covering the films. Note that they aren't really her works but rather works you could argue she played a significant role in creating as a producer, which would make her notable per WP:PRODUCER. Also worth noting that she is credited as "executive producer" on Junior and In God::: We Trust. Mooonswimmer 17:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I thought it might be something else. I don't think that is enough. Its very slim and the coverage is very poor. scope_creep^Talk 17:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of what, her role in the inception of the films? Mooonswimmer 17:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Producers don't really do well on Wikipedia unless they have some kind of external notability to the work they do, that can pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally the artcles are deleted unless really wide coverage. Looking at this, for example [10], this wouldn't be significant. It is not a good ref to prove notabilty. It is really just a passing mention at best. I'll look at these ref and the first block tommorrow. scope_creep^Talk 18:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the reference isn't an example of significant coverage. All the articles I provided are simply to source the fact that she was a producer on those films.

My understanding of WP:PRODUCER is that the subject (producer, DoP, composer) is notable if they've created or played a major role in making a notable film. The film itself is what should be covered in multiple independent sources. Camhe is credited as an executive producer on a few of the films, and it's true that it's not exactly a creative role, hence my "Weak" keep vote.

In terms of significant coverage on Camhe herself or works she was the principal creator of, I haven't really found much coverage. Lots of passing mentions but nothing significant. Mooonswimmer 01:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, As per WP:BIO, the subject needs to be standalone notable. Here the subject fails all of the three criteria defined in WP:BIO which I always knew. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Moonswimmer. She meets WP:PRODUCER.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No she doesn't. There is isn't even a decent interview nevermind a WP:SECONDARY source. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I reply "Oh but yes she does', we can go on forever, can't we? Just read the guideline. No further comment. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:17, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline exacly? scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the sources:

Ref 1 IMDB is non-rs in this instance.

Ref 2 [11] This is own blog. It is WP:SPIP source.

Ref 3 [12] Mentions she is the producer. Passing mention.

Ref 4 [13] Database generated profile showing the the films that Camhe has produced. Its not independent nor significant.

Ref 5 [14] Passing mention as exec producer.

Ref 6 [15] Behind a firewall.

Ref 7 [16] writer and producer Beverly Camhe, passing mention.

Ref 8 [17] Passing mention.

Per WP:BLP, it states Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources None of the these high-quality sources. Most of them are passing mentions. WP:BIO has three criteria , this subject fails all of them. It doesn't even meet WP:THREE. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She does not meet WP:GNG as there is absolutely no significant coverage I can find that would be usable on Wikipedia outside of a page that lists her credits. There are passing mentions and credits which show she was part of the films so I evaluated based on WP:NPRODUCER. Note that just producing a film does not mean someone meets this guideline. The page says she "produced" the film Junior, when in fact she was one of several executive producers for a film that was actually "produced" by Ivan Reitman as shown in this reference. She was listed as a producer for the Celestine Prophecy as shown in this reference, which makes her one of five producers for the film. Producers take many forms and do not always play a "major role." Absent a reference saying that she did play a major role in the films listed on the page, she would fail notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though she is in the production team as opposed to actually leading the production team and not senior enough to get the producer credit, which may have helped. I think pretty its clear now that she is non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to delete. Mooonswimmer 12:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete considering the fact that on most of the films, she was one of multiple producers, and that she is credited as "executive" producer, which is less of a creative role. Mooonswimmer 12:25, 31 October 2023 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trebor

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

Non-notable minor actor. Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Pennsylvania. Natg 19 (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~Might~~ meets WP:NACTOR for some roles played in notable films.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC) (Edited after seeing sources presented by Moonswimmer, below)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Out of the Darkness, 52 Pick-Up and My Demon Lover are good for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, there's this [18], not the most flattering role, but there seems to be some indication of notability. Still need sourcing that talks about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve or draftify. He has been in so many films, some of them non-minor roles, as well as a one-man show that sounds pretty interesting - I am sure that there is more press coverage out there to establish his notability. Llajwa (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he has mostly been cast in supporting roles, the number of films he has starred in makes Trebor notable, in my opinion. The article is poorly sourced but most of the information is verifiable. Trebor has received some attention even for his minor roles:

Variety: "Trebor is superb as the acerbic Davidykov, ironically bemoaning, “We used to be such a beautiful police state,” and then affectingly describing how for all of communism’s faults, how important it was that the whole country was experiencing it together. Trebor’s Russian accent is excellent, and his perf is multilayered and nimble."

Los Angeles Times: "Beautifully performed by Armstrong and Trebor, Will and Viktor are moral men adrift in societies that reward avarice over character"

Los Angeles Times: "Martin Sheen is first-rate as Zigo, and there are convincing supporting performances here by Jennifer Salt as Ann and Robert Trebor as Berkowitz."

The New York Times: "His partners in crime are Robert Trebor, who provides comic relief as the proprietor of a pornographic photo studio."

The New York Times: "Robert Trebor is gripping as the community leader."

RogerEbert.com: "Seidelman also has fun populating the outskirts of her plot with good character actors, especially Robert Trebor as the tuxedo salesman. You may remember him as the smarmy, sweating porno store operator in "52 Pick-Up." The distance between these two good performances is impressive." Mooonswimmer 18:27, 24 October 2023 (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 Nominator Withdrawal‎. I agree with the points presented in the !votes. Thanks. (non-admin closure) Seawolf35 (talk - email) 16:14, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Officer Woos

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NENT. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep: I can find significant coverages online. I will add these sources shortly. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are the sources amongst others.

Yeku, James (2022). "Vitality and Instagram Comedy in a State of Pandemic". Cultural Netizenship: Social Media, Popular Culture, and Performance in Nigeria. Indiana University Press. pp. 203, 204, 207. ISBN 9780253060501.

Matthew M. Heaton; Toyin Falola, eds. (2022). The Oxford Handbook of Nigerian History. Oxford University Press. p. 508. ISBN 9780190050092.

"Skit maker, Officer Woos: Biography, Education, Skits, Girlfriend, and Net Worth". NewswireNGR. 19 August 2022.

Best, Reading Beans (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO as they have contributed significantly to the comedy reach in Nigeria and the City People Entertainment Awards Comedian of the Year award. Also appear to have mentions like this, this and this not included in the article yet. Kaizenify (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2023 (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 14:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fiss

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

This article does not seem to cover a notable subject, and doesn't meet WP:NPOV. The only WP:RS is as playing a minor non-speaking role in a film. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet notability requirements; only coverage I could find was this [19], which is a routine PR announcement. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2023 (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 redirect‎ to Bag Boy Lover Boy. Consensus, albeit weakly, is that sourcing is insufficient. Comas' film is a viable ATD however Star Mississippi 02:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Comas

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

Non-notable biography that pretty much relies on IMDB for information. There is practically nothing about this person that is online outside of general social media and listing of filmography. Despite one film being linked, even the sources for that film don't go into detail about this person. This is simply a non-notable person. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Spain, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern, my name is Daniela Benhamou- I've been following Toni Comas, and I can confirm that he is currently in the final stages of completing his feature film, "Silent Notes," which features Daniel Durant, known for his role in the Oscar award-winning movie "Coda." Comas's work has garnered significant attention and recognition in the film industry, supported by various articles in major publications.

To validate the significance of Toni Comas's work, one need only perform a quick Google search using the keywords "Toni Comas Indiana." This search will yield numerous results from official publications that showcase his achievements and contributions to the world of cinema. Notably, Toni Comas has refrained from self-promotion on social media, relying instead on the merit of his work to speak for itself.

One of Comas's notable achievements is his film "Indiana," which was featured on the list of "100 horror Movies That Must Be Seen" by the esteemed critic Quim Cases. Furthermore, some of the most respected newspapers in Spain, such as El Pais, El Periodico, ABC, and El Mundo, have published positive reviews about Comas's work, underscoring his impact on the Spanish film industry.

In addition to critical acclaim, the Fantasia Film Festival has recognized Comas's film "Indiana" by naming it "The Movie of the Year" in their review, further solidifying his place as a noteworthy filmmaker in the world of cinema. With a commitment to quality and an emphasis on letting his work do the talking, Toni Comas has become a respected figure in the film industry, earning recognition and praise from critics and publications alike.

In addition to his accomplishments in the world of cinema, Toni Comas has also established a personal and creative relationship with Nobel Prize-winning writer Svetlana Alexievich. This unique connection served as a wellspring of inspiration for Comas, ultimately leading to the creation of the film "Chernobyl, 1986." 96.250.207.128 (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And no sources provided. This IP has a close connection to the subject just by searching the name provided and resembles a COI that helps reflect the lack of meeting the merits of notability and inclusion of this article. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links for you to consider.

1- "...is a near-perfect example of how to make a great low-key independent horror film."

http://dailygrindhouse.com/thewire/2017-fantasia-film-festival-dispatch-6/

2- In this article from "El periodico" one of the larges news papers from Spain Toni Comas is compared to Renoir, Lubitsch o Lang

"... Y como en su época la tuvieron Renoir, Lubitsch o Lang, sabe ofrecer la mirada del 'extranjero' sobre la compleja realidad estadounidense."

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/ocio-y-cultura/20180607/critica-indiana-toni-comas-6863217

3- In this article from "La Vanguardia" the larger news paper in some regions of Spain, they mention the influence of Hitchkock and Lynch in Toni Comas work.

"...Aunque el Hitchcock de "Con la muerte en los talones" es un referente visual claro en la escena de los maizales, Toni Comas confiesa que le gusta David Lynch por "cómo maneja la imagen y los tiempos",

https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20180531/443964895949/toni-comas-explora-lo-sobrenatural-del-medio-oeste-de-eeuu-en-filme-indiana.html

4- This is one of the few reviews found in roten tomatoes. Toni Comas is compared to a movie of John Huston

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indiana

"Indiana" is a road movie with similar textures as "Sangre Sabia," the exceptional, strange, and supernatural film by John Huston. It argues that what's between us is nothing, but nothing bad.

5- Modern Horros says talking about the mocie Indiana in the Fantasia film festivel "The beautiful thing about film festivals such as Fantasia is that it allows for the discovery of a hidden gem that often goes overlooked. Toni Comas’ debut feature is that sleeper film of the festival."

https://modernhorrors.com/indiana-fantasia-review/

6- In this article the film of Toni Comas is compated to the film Shyamalan.

http://www.otroscineseuropa.com/critica-indiana-toni-comas-noves-visions-plus-factor-humano/

And many many more... 96.250.207.128 (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are just reviews of a film. That does not establish notability about Toni Comas because there is very little reference or mention of him. None of these are about him. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't need links to reviews of his films but to articles ON or ABOUT him. Don't say "Google this", it's the responsibility of those editors arguing to Keep an article to bring them into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage in Gbooks about a WW2 person with this name, nothing for a film person. I can't find coverage. The mentions of his films are fine, but we need articles that talk about the individual, not about stuff they've done. Oaktree b (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked at this at all, but if he is a director wouldn't reviews of his films count under WP:CREATIVE? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of a movie are about the movie. In what way is it entirely about the filmmaker? It's not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2023 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 09:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Maliner (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Maliner (talk) 16:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple television series. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 17:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tried to consider NACTOR before nominating it. But I don't think she passes it. One or two side roles in recent TV shows do not make one notable. Maliner (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all but one reference are mere mentions, and the one that has significant coverage isn't independent of the subject. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify K-Pop contributor (✍️•📚) 05:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACTOR and is a rising star, already worked in popular serial in a significant role.JAWGED (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)— JAWGED (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify seems fine. Seems likely WP:TOOSOON, borderline on WP:NACTOR. —siro χ o 04:13, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's worth keeping it now, it's a fairly well-known new figure --Rodgers V (talk) 13:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has done several roles in drama Hum Tum, Pinjra and Mayi Ri.(96.240.98.45 (talk) 04:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC))contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[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 delete arguments appear to accurately characterize the sources as not contributing to notability. The responses simply assert otherwise. If the assertions came from editors with reputations for solid source analysis, I might think twice, but that's clearly not the case here. RL0919 (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Chakma

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Press falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and looks like a recent press campaign given that most are dated around the same timeframe. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a recently created article with linkspam references and no clear claim of notability. Unless the article creator can demonstrate better sourcing (per WP:THREE), this should be deleted. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 117.209.102.31 (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Page quality or poor edits are irrelevant in the discussion. The subject is a Indian Actor who had represented his country and state ito the national stage. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, and 7.Andarredot (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Andarredot (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Yes I agree, I made few or no other edits outside this topic, doesn't mean this page reference is false. it's my opinion only. Andarredot (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability.Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC) — Ven.kalyandutbhante (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only sources are either WP:UGC or pretty clearly paid promotion (all in very broken English), one of which that even had a date on it was dated after this AFD started; what a coinkydink! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly a promotional piece. The nominator hits the nail on the head.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. I found 1 among many many other English and Bengali sources . Clearly significant figure in Indian actor and Enterpreneur with ongoing career. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks.27.56.30.252 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Another reference published since this AfD was started. This fails WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:33, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source was already added to the article three days ago. And it certainly wasn't written by a professional reporter. What professional reporter begins half the paragraphs in an article with the subject's full name? It's a PR piece. Largoplazo (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the seven numbered sources given above by a Keep !voter,
- 1 is clearly advertising.
- 2 is an IMDb page, user-generated, database-driven content.
- 3 reads as a PR piece channeling what Chakma wants it to say, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 4 is database-driven content that says almost nothing.
- 5 reads as a PR piece, and it was apparently not written by a professional writer of English, so unlikely to be a real reporter.
- 6 is so badly written, clearly not a third-party reporting piece. "Nation Chakma is an Indian Actor conceived on March 09, 1996"? "He is the primary tyke from his family who acquired Chakma Actor, Entertainer as his profession."? "He is a skilled and influenced person. He fathoms he needs to put in exceptional exhibits multi-day in day out, and that is what he surpasses desires at."? This is all public relations.
- 6 (#2) links to another Wikipedia article.
- 7 is a database-generated listing that gives his name followed by links to some film trailers but no information.

Largoplazo (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources106.221.118.125 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2023 (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. There has been minimal participation, but the most convincing arguments are for retention and clean up of the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sangramsingh Thakur

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Non-notable roles including an "electrician" in a web series. Other references are just credits, mentions, or fail WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not done any lead role in films ... all roles are supporting/recurring roles , not passing WP:NACTOR Criteria till now . thank you Worldiswide (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a note that the page was moved to draft space for just over 3 days. I've restored it to main space, as articles should not be draftified during a deletion discussion. I'm quite surprised nobody noticed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh:, Thanks for moving back. I did notice and notified the admin who was involved in the discussion on the talk page of the article but looks like they have not been editing in a few days. Appreciate you taking care of this as I wasn't sure if a simple move would have restored everything. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @CNMall41 & @Hey man im josh, I'm travelling, forgot to put up a notification! Valereee (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:, no big deal. I didn't ping anyone else as I figured it wasn't life or death. Cheers!--CNMall41 (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. More participation would be welcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable. The Nagpur Today refs look like reliable, significant coverage. The xpresstimes.in ref is pay-to-play. Others refs seem independent and reliable but are either too short to establish notability or just passing mentions. Nagpur is a city the size of Brussels but Sangramsingh Thakur is still a Nagpur "hometown boy". It's reasonable that Nagpur Today would cover him in-depth when out-of-town media give more limited attention. This gives us enough to write a reliable article about Thakur and reliability is the ultimate motivation behind our notability guidelines.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cannot be established by articles in one publication. The references in The Nagpur Today also fall under the same principles as WP:RSNOI as they do not appear to be written by staff writers. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, here's what the notability guideline says:

"…a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source."^{(Notability#Notes, footnote 4)}

My interpretation is that "a series of publications" does not refer to 2 or more unconnected articles. I think footnote 4 refers to serialized content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). In that case, that footnote does not apply to this subject.

Over the course of 100s of AfDs^[20][21], I've never seen this footnote invoked before until this and another AfD today. That makes me think this is a narrow rule, otherwise, we'd be tossing out articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or only to Economist articles.

As for WP:RSNOI, that guidance does not rule out using articles without bylines; it suggests that lack of a byline may be an indication of paid, promotional content. When I read the Nagpur Today articles, they did not appear to be paid content.

It'll be interesting to read how others view these 2 issues.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. What I am saying is if a single publication is the only one running stories that would count towards notability, we shouldn't just keep a page based on that. If the person is worthy of notice, they would receive coverage elsewhere as well. As far as RSNOI, you are correct that it does not rule out articles without bylines. It does however state "exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability." We have to look at each reference individually. Outside of The Nagpur Today, the references that talk in-depth about the subject are Outlook India with a byline of IANS which is a "guest post" and has no editorial oversight (I would consider this akin to WP:FORBESCON) and Xpress Times which is clearly marked as "brandspot" at the top with the byline of "Express Times Team" indicating churnalism. The others are mentions and bios. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with A.B.'s comments above and, given the coverage the actor has received, think the page could be retained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just using one example, would agree that this source counts towards notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2023 (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 is a majority of rationales for deletion here, and they generally appear to be closer to policy. Black Kite (talk) 09:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakir Hossain Raju (professor)

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

The person in the article does not have significant media coverage to fill WP:GNG. Not meeting the requirements in WP:NACADEMIC as a professor, nor in WP:ENT as a film/documentary maker. Also, the subject appears to have a WP:COI with the article author. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. —MdsShakil (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nom; the subject fails GNG, NPROF, and ENT notability policies. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the Wikipedia article on Zakir Hossain Raju. I appreciate your diligence in ensuring that articles meet the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

I would like to address your concerns:

Notability (WP:GNG): Zakir Hossain Raju has made significant contributions to the fields of media and journalism studies, particularly in Bangladesh. While it's true that he may not have widespread international media coverage, he is recognized in academic circles, and his research papers are highly regarded in his field. Universities in bangladesh included this research paper as course-guided material (Books, Article, Research Paper).

Academic Notability (WP:NACADEMIC): While it is correct that Professor Raju may not be widely known outside of his field, within the academic community in Bangladesh, he is well-regarded for his contributions to media studies. The Prestigious Film Festival like Venice Film Festival, International Film Festival Rotterdam invited him as a jury chair in the asain film category. His books on cinema are widely available in Europe.

Entertainment Notability (WP:ENT): As a documentary maker and filmmaker, Zakir Hossain Raju may not be a household name, but his work has had an impact on the documentary and filmmaking landscape in Bangladesh. He has contributed to the cultural and artistic representation of his country through his films. His films were selected for festivals like the Busan Film Festival and others in the 1990s. So that the news and information about this matter are not on the internet.

Conflict of Interest (WP:COI): As the article author, I can confirm that I am not personally related to Zakir Hossain Raju and have no conflict of interest in creating or editing the article. My sole intention is to provide accurate and reliable information about a notable individual. And there is misinformation or delusions on the internet about the name; there is a filmmaker Jakir Hossain Raju with a similar name whose job is filmmaking. I myself got puzzled by searching the books of him (Zakir Hossain Raju). This is another reason why I chose this person to create an article about him. Since 2015, I have liked to contribute in Wikipedia in the area of cinema, I know my contribution to Wikipedia is nothing but a drop of water in this area.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that Wikipedia's notability guidelines allow for the inclusion of articles about individuals who are notable within specific geographic or academic contexts, even if they do not have international fame. Zakir Hossain Raju's impact in Bangladesh and his contributions to academic research make him a suitable subject for a Wikipedia article.

In summary, I believe that the article on Zakir Hossain Raju meets the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I would be happy to work with you to address any specific concerns or make improvements to the article as needed. Let's make Wikipedia more informative together!

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards,

Parbon CuriousCrafter 16:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be kept only when that person meets the notability criteria. You have to prove which points he passed and also provide reliable sources. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You uploaded his picture as your own work on Commons, so how can we assure that you have no WP:COI? —MdsShakil (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That has all the hallmarks of a ChatGPT authored screed. Polyamorph (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject's entry in Bengali Wikipedia, his entry in IMDb as well as his faculty profile in addition to the 13 inline cites appended to his English Wikipedia entry confirm notability. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bangla Wikipedia entry is also on AFD and was created by the same user. IMDB is not a reliable source, and the faculty profile doesn't seem to have any point; that could be passed WP:NPROF. The source mentioned in the article doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV about him. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Spinner, I am baffled that someone with over 50,000 edits and almost two decades of experience could argue that a WP entry (regardless of which language it is in), an IMDb entry, and wikilinks constitute arguments in favor of notability. WP and IMDb are user-contributed sources, none of this means anything here. And a faculty profile is not an independent source and soesn't mean anything for notability either... --Randykitty (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a Wikipedia page in another language should never be considered as an argument to keep it in a different language. However, if we were to use that logic, note that the page in Bengali Wikipedia has now been deleted. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. agreed with @Roman Spinner 103.113.149.244 (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NPROF. I am not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
news from The Daily Star, Bangladesh Post, Dhaka Tribune, etc. and ISBN/DOI ID, festival website mentions are not independent, reliable sources? What are the reliable sources, I wonder? There are a bunch of bengali news, journals, and book publications of/about the subject on the internet; I didn't cite here for the English readability. CuriousCrafter 14:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I opened the refs and it passes BASIC. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add. 5 refs have been added since the start of this afd, so the ref count is now 18. Desertarun (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Count is irrelevant. Quality is what matters when it comes to notability. An assertion of notability must include (at least three?) references that each have these qualities: reliability, independence from the subject, and provide significant coverage of the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try. Ref 1 & 2 = profile, Ref 3 = passing mentions, Ref 4 = review of his one book, Ref 5 = unreliable, Ref 6 = passing mentions, Ref 7 to 13 = written by subject Zakir Hossain Raju himself, Ref 14 & 15 = passing mentions, Ref 16 & 17 = profile, Ref 18, 20, 21 = usual news e.g. Raju hands award to Japanese filmmaker, Ref 19 = ?, Ref 22 = passing mentions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject has an h-index of 5 and cannot find anything about him which would lend me to believe he meets any of 8 criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. He would also not meet WP:NFILMMAKER as these do not even appear to be notable films. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a lot of books to his name, potentially satisfies WP:NAUTHOR. neutral h-index is not a good indicator of anything in the humanities (or indeed any subject, as it is easily manipulated through self citations or publishing in junk journals). Potentially statisfies 5. and 6. of WP:NACADEMIC (head of department, dean, founding director...of various institutes). Polyamorph (talk) 15:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit:changed to 'neutral', not as many books as I first thought, several chapters and research articles. Does have some coverage in independent reliable sources, not sure if it's enough. Polyamorph (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as head of a department, full professor, and journal founder. I'm hesitant to support based on judging a film festival, which is not a factor and, from my insider knowledge of other film festivals, is often done from friendships and horse-trading, rather than ability to judge anything. Coverage per SIGCOV is somewhat weak, but he still passes the Prof test. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I don't see the "journal founder", can you please clarify? --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being full professor or head of a department is not enough to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG is not met either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. He's one of only a handful of academics writing about Bangladeshi cinema. Unfortunately that hasn't resulted in his work (one book based on his PhD thesis and various chapters and journal articles) being highly cited. And I agree with আফতাবুজ্জামান's source assessment. So doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 09:54, 2 November 2023 (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. Star Mississippi 01:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Bonner Allen

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

Was unable to de-orphan. Created by a single-purpose account. Sources seem weak and mostly about her projects and nothing about her. Parts of her bio seem lifted straight from imdb. She did win a Royal Television Society Award though. Other than that I'd say it barely scratches WP:ANYBIO œ^™ 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. œ^™ 06:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She seems to work as "Liz Allen" which is so common that finding sources will be tricky. There's several long reviews of Inside John Lewis in good-quality sources (incl Guardian & Independent) already in the article. I think it is possible this is a poor article on a notable subject. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Some more reviews: Inside John Lewis in The Times[22] (paywalled); Silverville in Guardian[23]; Parking Mad: Guardian[24] (the last doesn't mention her except in credits). Espresso Addict (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 24 October 2023 (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 04:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surabhi Tiwari

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

Tagged since May, does not appear to meet the notability criteria. While researching it, I noticed it was speedy deleted from hiwiki twice as spam and not notable. I mean it's their native language after all, even if they think she's not notable, then I guess she's not notable. Tehonk (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:30, 23 October 2023 (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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 04:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jijo Antony

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP Fails GNG and BIO. Lots of promo, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS, RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Completely fails BLP as was indicated multiple times at AfC.

Rejected twice at AfC [25], [26]. Author then copy paste moved the article to mainspace which was then deleted as sock creation [27] Author blocked as a sock User talk:Godjo J#Blocked for sockpuppetry. Rejected draft now moved unimproved into mainspace.

Editors have basically been edit warring this into mainspace. // Timothy :: talk 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that in the variously drafts and moves, the original AfD wasn't closed for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony but the currect article in mainspace does not have the tags any longer. // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Very Very Strong Keep for both procedural and guideline-based reasons, at least. The first Afd was not even closed! Then the page was draftified in the middle of the process. Then the draft proposed for Speedy deletion (which was obviously declined (same nominator for both Afd and CSd, fwiw)). Most of all, this director is notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR:

"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" That is very very clearly the case here and that is not going to change, after 2, 3, 4 Afds, closed or not. He is director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, and the last in date having won an important award. According to the guideline, he is clearly notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above is a reason for a speedy keep, all of the above is opinion. // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you opened 2 Afds for the same article at the same time? Well, it should! But I'll change the wording if that it is the only problem. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply to your additional comment all of the above is opinion. If you think guidelines and facts of the history of your edits are all opinion, it’s disconcerting and so is your total lack of response to the issue of this double Afd., or the fact that you don’t seem to accept any responsibility for it at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the DE around the copy and paste moves of drafts for this article and the reason the AfD tags are misplaced. // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DE by whom, if I may ask? And is it not your responsibility as nominator to check all of this and to withdraw if you see something is clearly wrong? Surely you understand that 2 Afds for the same page at the same time is not correct. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 1)The creator of the page was blocked after creation of the page so that it shouldn't interfere with what we think of the page. 2)I am inviting the nominator to withdraw at least this nomination and to reboot the 1st one, or the other way around, as they wish. Or at least to leave a note there. But clearly 2 Afds on the same page is not a good idea.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors should look at the sock info. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source eval: Mushy Yank conveniently forgot to include this:

Source eval:

Comments	Source
"Book my show" promo	1. "Jijo Antony". Book My Show. Retrieved 2014-03-14.
Subject one sentence mentioned. About a film	2. ^ "'Adithattu' Box Office Collection: See how much Shine Tom Chacko's deep-sea thriller earned in three days". Times of India. Retrieved 2022-07-01.
Promo interview	3. ^ "The evolution of Jijo Antony". Gulf News. Retrieved 2016-04-05.
Promo interview	4. ^ "Prithvi's Darwin is no 'Pokkiri'". On Manorama. Retrieved 2016-03-16.
Promo interview	5. ^ "Jijo Antony talks about the risks of shooting the film entirely at sea". OTTplay. Retrieved 2021-08-02.
Subject not mentioned. About a film	6. ^ "53rd Kerala State Film Awards: Complete list of winners". The Indian Express. 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-24.
404 page	7. ^ "ഓരോ സിനിമയും ഓരോ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ്". Reporter Live. Retrieved 2022-07-05.
Database entry	8. ^ "Jijo Antony". FiLMiBEAT. Retrieved 2022-07-02.

// Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mushy Yank also forgot to move over the Delete !vote from @Siroχo: [28], found on the the dup AfD. Mushy Yank, if you're going to "fix" this duplicate AfD, you should include all the information, not just the points that agree with yours. // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Such inapproriate comments! I forgot to fix your double Afd? When I invited you to dot it? You still did not address the double part, by the way.

And conveniently? meaning in bad faith, you realise that? When I mentioned here that that double venue exists!

And no, I would not move other people's votes (let alone your rationale) to a discussion that I think is procedurally null and that I did not start! How could one even know what you wanted to do after you had proposed the page for Csd and it was declined? These are very disconcerting reproaches.

You could have, as I did, talked to the user who draftified it and asked her to undo it. You did not. I did. You preferred to CSd the draft. Sure. Your choice.

I made it clear I wanted to move the page to the main then.

The key to this may be when we talked on the talk page of the draft where I said that drafitifying in the middle of an Afd was wrong but your only reply to that was " They are a sock". You could have said "Ah, yeah, right, I'll talk to that user and restore the page and Afd" No. You did not. You preferred to ignore my remark on that point. Your choice.

I mentioned it twice on the TP of the user who had draftified it. I thought the Afd was "nullified" in the process and was surprised you had not added anything to the page of the 1st Afd at least for information; it was very easy to fix or at least to TRY, and I invited you repeatedly to do it after I saw you wanted to follow this path, but apparently you prefer to blame everything on me for some reason. Sure.

And if you want to ping @Siroxo:, do it with their correct user name, or they won't be notified. I am also pinging @Liz:, who had relisted the Afd, before you accuse me of not having done it, conveniently of course. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony to let this one run. I was the admin who initially p-blocked the article creator, but as this is just clerking I do not see it as an issue. I will not !vote on content/merit. Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and apologies for briefly leaving the article without an AfD tag. It has been restored. Would someone please feed the gremlins Star Mississippi 15:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current version. I am still not sure why an old rejected draft was moved into article space by User:Mushy Yank. There is a better version available but we need to get rid of this one first. Deb (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand. @DebYou do remember you are the one who directed me to the draft when I was asking you to undelete a better version, don't you? Which better version are you talking about? Available where? If that is the case, is it not simpler to modify the page so that the better version is the one users can !vote about? At the very least, please identify it so that we can make up our mind. I never thought Afds were about deletion of versions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Deb's talk page, where she identified the better version as that of October, 6. Thanks. I will check. For the record, I incorrectly assumed that Deb had moved the page to draft during the 1st Afd. She just speedy deleted it yesterday, leaving only the original draft behind if I am not mistaken. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to follow the histories and versions, but if someone needs to close this in lieu of an alternate version to be discussed, feel free. If there isn't a version to be considered, it's my opinion that this should run so that consensus may be established. Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I speedy deleted it because there was already a version in draft that had been rejected and that you had just left there when you created a new one in mainspace. The older versions are not visible to you because they have been deleted. That's why moving the draft into mainspace wasn't the right thing to do. The discussion on this page now centres on the present version - the rejected draft that you moved to mainspace without correcting it. What you actually asked me to do was to undo "your" draftification - which had absolutely nothing to do with me. If you hadn't decided to argue the toss without checking the facts, I could have moved an old version into draftspace for review. But I'm not getting any further involved. If another admin wants to help you out, that's fine with me. Deb (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb I am afraid this last comment of yours is quite misleading. Take the time to check the timeline. I moved the page to Main from the draft (17:53, 7 October 2023‎ GMT) , AFTER you had speedy deleed the article in the middle of an ongoing Afd (October 7, 16: 17 GMT), which is almost two hours before I moved it. And I used the Draft as YOU had told me if I wanted to work on the article to move it to the main. And I am sorry but, yes, I did spend time correcting the draft and checking the facts (again, what you say is not true and this is still verifiable). Saying that I asked you to "undo MY draftification" is simply not true and does not make sense. I asked you to undo your speedy deletion and restore the version that was discussed (and the Afd for that matter, should you think your speedy deletion had not nullified it). Your refused and YOU sent me to the draft version. Everyone can verify that.

If there is a better version, not visible to most users, then, by all means, provide it, please (but I understand that you still do not wish to do so, for reasons that are not clear to me). Did I move the page once to Main space before October 7? Possible, I honestly cannot remember and cannot see it in the page history; I only remember trying to improve the page. But then, if you say my (or is it not mine but simply better? well, if my improvements were not enough, at least someone else's were to your liking) version of October 6 was better than the current one, why speedy delete it (in the middle of an Afd)? Best,

PS1- On your talk page you mentioned this was a G6 Csd. How did "G6: technical deletions, only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed" apply to an article like this, especially during an Afd, if I may ask?

PS2- do ping me if you wish me to know you replied. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid your comments are quite misleading. But as you say, anyone can verify what actually happened. Deb (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They surely can. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close. It's pretty clear that something has gone wrong here. I don't think there's a lot of benefit to casting blame for the variety of mistakes and misunderstandings in good faith. Let's close this and take some time away from the topic. Wikipedia won't crumble because one AfD goes wrong. —siro χ o 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't just let BLPs exist because persistent DE. Its been rejected at AfC twice, speedy deleted once, and the author blocked as a sock. It needs to run its course and be evaluated based on sources, guidelines and policy (WP:BLPs require WP:V strong sourcing - this is non-negotiable policy). Thats a lot of editors !voting that should be deleted, and a DE shouldn't derail this AfD.

A simple look at sources (such as was done at AfC) shows this BLP needs deleting.

Closer: Please look at the AfC comments regarding BLP sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. The creator knows better than to insist on a declined draft going into article space. Deb (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but leaning move to draft. It appears uncontested that the article subject has the substantial roles identified (writer, director, producer) with respect to the works listed in the article, and that these works are individually notable to the extent that no one has challenged the existence of these articles. I would restore this to draft, give it some time for additional sources to be produced, and allow for it to be resubmitted through the usual WP:AFC process. BD2412 T 03:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Source 3 is a RS, the rest are iffy per sourcebot, but are confirmation of the works this individual has been involved with. There would likely be more in native language sources; plenty of films directed have reviews published about them, showing some evidence of notability for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draft seems fine as well if this goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first sources mention his last name Anthony four times and gives notability for being an international (non-Indian) newspaper Gulf News. The other sources are just brief mentions. A source in the native language ജിജോ അന്തോണി yields close to nothing ([29]) but the Kerala State Award gives him notability. DareshMohan (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD is a mess. My instinct is to Draftify this article but I'd like to see if there is more support for that option. Right now, there is no overwhelming consensus for any particular closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs work but there seems to be evidence of notability from various reliable sources. DCsansei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify is the kindest outcome, though I wouldn't oppose deletion. The sources are really not great. The Gulf News article reeks of press-release, almost certainly triggered by a publicist. The Indian Express piece is again routine publicity released before the film was shown. The On Manorama bit is mostly interview. The Times of India pieces are both sponsored content, I think? The Economic Times bit mentions Antony once in connection with his film getting the Kerala state award for the best second film. I'm not really convinced this award is, on its own, enough to confer notability. Unless there is something truly independent, a genuine review published after a film's showing, by someone who wasn't prompted to do so by someone connected with the film, we cannot have an article in main-space. Elemimele (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea about the article history, subjects probably meets notability requirements though. Referencing on the other hand is a bit weak. Oppose deletion, either keep or recommend moving to draft. - Indefensible (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Constructive comments are starting to appear but there is still no strong consensus on whether keeping or draftifying (or deleting).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While draftify is a good WP:ATD, it was declined three times at AfC before creator moved it on their own to the mainspace so no sense sending it back. Four of the seven references (1, 2, 3, 4) fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Gulf News seems to be the strongest source; however, I question it being actually written by Gulf News staff. The byline author has a note of "special to the tabloid" indicating they are not a staff writer. The title is also "the evolution of Jijo Antony" yet the article is brief and doesn't go in-depth about his career (where is the "evolution"?). Everything else I find online is mention of him along with the films or other references falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If anything, redirect to Konthayum Poonoolum where we can at least verify he was part of. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Semi'ed to stop the sock disruption. I don't think my prior actions make me Involved, but if an admin disagrees, feel free. Star Mississippi 14:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CNMall41; if it's been declined repeatedly at AFC then draftifying it is a cop-out. Stifle (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2023 (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. Daniel (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ara Paiaya

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

all sources insanely trivial mentions. all others found were similarly trivial. ltbdl (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As required by the guideline, he has played an important role (mostly, directing) in the creation of at least one notable film having received coverage. His role as director is noted (in general negatively) for various films (examples: [30], [31], etc.) if that was necessary. (those mentions are generally not extensive but that is not necessary in this case)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@mushy yank: what guideline? ltbdl (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DIRECTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just watched one of his films (Night Driver) on Amazon Prime (UK). Isn't availability of his material on that platform enough to make him notable? REVOL 17:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by REVOL (talk • contribs)

No. Notability is determined by multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject giving signicant coverage. -- Mike 🗩 19:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Promo about a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	1. "Mickey Rourke joins Traffik". Screen Daily.
Promo about a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	2. ^ "Mickey Rourke, Daryl Hannah, Eric Roberts to Star in 'Skin Traffik' (EXCLUSIVE)". Variety. 13 August 2013.
Sony, fails WP:IS	3. ^ "Skin Traffik: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment". Sony Pictures.
Sony, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "Instant Death: Sony Pictures Home Entertainment". Sony Pictures.
About a movie, Subject name listed, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.	5. ^ "First look: Tough guys take over 'Skin Traffik' poster". USA Today.

A name being listed does not meet WP:SIGCOV. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS, with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and INDEPTH. // Timothy :: talk 08:10, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - B-movie professional but has enough cover to support in my opinion. https://www.proquest.com/docview/334022315/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/17, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1693478955/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/20, https://www.proquest.com/docview/334090449/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/8, https://www.proquest.com/docview/328440351/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/5, https://www.proquest.com/docview/339476412/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/4, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2765662491/Record/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/2, https://www.proquest.com/docview/2785550373/D4AF1923232B48FCPQ/1 - Indefensible (talk) 04:17, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 23 October 2023 (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. Sourcing critiques from the Delete comments are very plausible, as spot-checking confirms many of the sources are passing mentions. The Keep commenters did not highlight any substantial coverage as rebuttal. RL0919 (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Wharton

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, lacks independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as having played significant roles (not lead) in various notable films that received coverage, as the guideline requires. (His presence in the films is verifiable)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO/NACTOR. No WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth with BLP level sources. 22:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Keep. He is a notable actor who acted in notable films. SreeNi310817 (talk) 11:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in-depth, significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources as TimothyBlue stated above. I'd like to see more than just the TVGuide source. The TVGuide source is a list of credits and roles, which is not in-depth, significant coverage. The other sources in the article are mere passing mentions and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't convince me that this subject passes GNG. Tails Wx 19:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films. Flurrious (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No additional work has been done on the article so if those advocating Delete have found existing sources don't merit GNG, editors arguing Keep would help their position by providing links to those sources they believe indicate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 10:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs a clean-up, but he meets WP:NACTOR and is notable enough to have their own article.

TheBritinator (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, GNG and NACTOR. His credits do not include notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, although the films he has appeared seem notable, his roles in them are not significant, only supporting roles that haven't been noted as notable by reliable sources. --Mika1h (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2023 (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.

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Chris Gore (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2023)
Wawa Zainal (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)
Wahid Ibn Reza (via WP:PROD on 9 September 2023)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 ==Actors and filmmakers==
 <!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seyed Mohammad Ghasemian}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel de Castro}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky Guillart}}