Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 02:56, 17 January 2022 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heather Rene Smith.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. ✗plicit 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Rene Smith

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

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (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 nomination withdrawn as the article has seen improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Claes

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

Unreferenced article about a person notable only as conservator of an archive and purportedly making a small cameo appearance in a film -- but the latter claim isn't even verified by her IMDb profile, let alone any reliable sources that would actually count toward establishing notability for it, and the former claim isn't referenced at all. As always, people are not automatically notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because they've had jobs; the notability test is the reception of media coverage about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant. But even in the French article, three of the four footnotes are dead links I haven't been able to recover, and the only live link is just a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in an article whose core subject is her successor in the archive job, so there's still no clear evidence that she would pass WP:GNG.
And for added bonus, the article's been tagged for sourcing and notability questions since 2010 without ever being improved at all, and according to that glancing namecheck source she left the archive job in 2011 without the article ever being updated to say that until I saw that source just now.
So I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived European media coverage than I've got can find enough improved sourcing to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be sourced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As it existed, the article did not provide enough information to establish notabolity. I have added in details (with citations) about her work with the archive, international groups involved in film preservation, and awards she has received. There seem to be more articles that I cannot access in European papers, but I feel I have added enough to fend off deletion. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One addition - I found a citation for her appearance in the film, but I think that qualifies more as a curio. She is not at all known as an actress, instead she works on the preservation of films. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's better. Thanks for that, and consider this withdrawn as promised. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 2022 United States Senate election in Utah#Republican primary. Consensus is against keeping, and this is the standard solution in such cases. Can be recreated if she becomes more notable. Sandstein 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Isom

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

Use of deprecated sources. Might fail GNG. Upon Google search, there are a few results from reliable sources, but mostly passing mentions, no significant coverage. Tame (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing to keep because I feel her notability pre-dates her latest electoral run. Even if she doesn't win, she is notable for her actions in the past. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gehrke, Gary (December 29, 2010). "Herbert names new spokeswoman". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16. Gov. Gary Herbert named Ally Isom as his new deputy chief of staff and communications director Wednesday as part of a major overhaul of his senior staff heading into the legislative session.
  2. ^ Gehrke, Robert (November 16, 2013). "Herbert's deputy chief of staff leaving for more family time". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  3. ^ Rolly, Paul (November 11, 2016). "Rolly: Herbert's former spokeswoman quits the GOP". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16. "Dear GOP, you may have won an election yesterday, but you lost me," wrote Ally Isom, who now is director of Family and Community Relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  4. ^ "Robert Gehrke: Frustrated with Trump, these LDS women are calling for change, but will it matter?". The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  5. ^ "Why does Utah have so few female legislators?". PBS NewsHour. 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Y. Zhang

Ellen Y. Zhang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

having googled about her in both english and chinese, i'm afraid she doesnt seem to have more notable achievements than other professors of philosophy. RZuo (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete subject to further information. chairman of a department is not necessarily a notable position. The books are all in Chinese, and I have no way of evaluating them. They don't show up in WorldCat, but that is not necessarily meaningful . Hong Cong Baptist Univeristy is respectable, a/c the ratings, but the famous research university in HK is University of Hong Kong, followed by Chinese University of Hong Kong. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Zhang's common two-character name makes it more difficult to narrow down coverage about her specifically (there are at least four other professors I found in greater China with her name), so I spent a bit of time trying to find more coverage, but unfortunately, I do not think she passes the GNG or PROF muster based on Chinese sources. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 15:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I conducted further searches for sources and could not find enough coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2022 (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 The Adventures of Pete & Pete. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Fanelli

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

Tagged for notability since August and I do believe this fails WP:NACTOR (has not had significant roles in multiple notable projects or made prolific/innovative contributions to entertainment). Notable for only one role as a child actress. In most sources I could find Fanelli is only mentioned in passing (like where is the cast of Pete & Pete today?). Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June Preston

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

I started editing this article with the view that the subject was, just, WP:NOTABLE. I tried, along with some other editors, to help knock it into shape by trimming unsubstantiated claims, information from unreliable sources, etc. However, the more I (and others) have sought to address these issues, the more I (and others) have been met with attacks (on the talk page) from an editor who states she is the subject’s daughter, and supporters of the latter. Through posts which the daughter is putting up on Pinterest, these supporters continue to add material which is trivial in itself and in any case not reliable. Having looked through the sources and related material in more depth, I am now of the opinion that the subject is not notable and I therefore move this AfD.

My rationale is as follows, and is based on WP:GNG, the elements of WP Notability.

1) “"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. “ That cannot be held to be the case in this article. The subject is presented as a film actress and a singer, but there is no coverage of her in either of these roles other than trivial mentions in sources which do not qualify as reliable 2) “"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.” . Much of the material in citations is journalistic recycling of publicity materials. Other citations support trivial issues (e.g. that she sung Gilbert and Sullivan at high school). The above considerations also affect the other elements of notability: “"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.”; “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases…..”. One of the article's defenders has kindly listed the sources used - editors can judge for themselves whether they think these sources are significant or reliable. WP:GNG mentions that “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article”. In this case there is clearly no significant coverage in relevant reliable sources.

As regards the detailed guidelines for notability for people WP:BIO – “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” This subject does not meet this criterion.

For Entertainers WP:ENT the criteria are: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The subject fails these criteria.

For singers WP:SINGER there are 12 criteria, none of which are met by the subject – I’m not going to set them all out here, anyone can go look. The subject also fails the criteria for concert tours WP:NTOUR.

Conclusion: delete. Smerus (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You already know she meets the GNG with significant coverage from around the world from her concerts. You've been trying to remove sources and reduce the actual representation of notability in the article for over a week (with this article being practically the only thing you've edited on Wikipedia as a whole in that length of time). Not to mention you've been repeatedly insulting the article subject and her daughter's account on the talk page during that length of time. I don't know why you have a personal agenda against the article subject, but it's pretty obvious that you can't properly determine notability in this case. Anyways, for everyone else, here's examples of significant coverage of June Preston from around the world, as helpfully collected by her daughter due to 1950's non-English papers not being digitized:
And that's all just a partial example from the coverage that's currently in the article. There's plenty more that hasn't been added as of yet, such as this, this, this, this, and this. She was very much more famous from her later in life opera career on the international stage than she ever was from her child film career in the US. So it's in the former where her notability lies and where all the significant coverage is. But, as you would expect, it's difficult to track down coverage from, say, 1950's Haiti, as an example. Their main newspapers aren't digitized properly at all. Regardless though, we clearly have more than enough coverage shown already to meet the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At the very least, meets criterion 4 of WP:SINGER "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Wikipedia, in general, does a poor job of using non-digitized resources. I understand why, but people must recognize there's a large blind spot in searching for notability of older people. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do wish one of the archival database efforts would include older non-English newspapers. We have Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, and the British Newspaper Archive. But that's all almost exclusively for English language papers, even if they do go back several centuries. The best we've got is some non-English archival stuff digitized by the Internet Archive, but that's pretty much it. And sure, other databases exist, but they're not all that readily available, are only on very specific newspapers and nothing else and/or are difficult to search through, lacking the digitized text search function of the aforementioned archives. It's really aggravating. But I guess we're getting there, slowly. SilverserenC 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is more than borderline notable, passing WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I totally agree with User:Silver seren. This should be kept. PreppyElephant (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is enough independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Deletion is not the answer to the main concerns raised by the nominator. Any issues with original research, source quality, and conflict of interest are all solvable through talk page discussions and editing the article. Many of those problems have been solved already, or are in the process of being resolved.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Baby

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Porn performer who would barely have passed PORNBIO Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Comment Fails WP:GNG What is the obsession here with creating pages for pornographic actors/actresses MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The standards were abysmally low in Wikipedia’s ye bad olde days. You got a single nomination for best boobs at some purely promotional award show? YOU DESERVE AN ARTICLE! Dronebogus (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Comes up short on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. The article stub has no reliable sources, but an independent search yields some coverage in Spanish media. Minor celebrity who appeared in a Big Brother-type reality show. Non-zero but still not enough. • Gene93k (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2022 (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) 16:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Salma de Nora

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

Fails GNG & ENT. Might have passed PORNBiO but now awards no longer count this no longer meets inclusion standards. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Lily

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an singer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for singers. The notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a singing competition and otherwise just that her work exists, rather than any concrete evidence that she achived anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC -- and while the article also claims that she's an actress, it offers no indication whatsoever that she's ever done anything of note as an actress at all. And for sourcing, two of the six footnotes are to her own self-published website about herself and three more are of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Amazon.com" variety, which are not reliable or notability-building sources. And while there is one footnote to a real piece of media coverage here, it's a very short blurb nowhere near substantive enough to carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 21 January 2022 (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. This discussion establishes that this person is frequently quoted in the media, but that this is not enough for a biographical article about her. Sandstein 08:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine P. Saxton

Catherine P. Saxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publicist. Sources present do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Saxton is certainly widely quoted with statements along the lines of :...says Catherine Saxton, so-and-so's publicist". At the same time she appears multiple times in the 2021 book Gatecrashers (Ben Widdicombe), the New York Times quoted her in conversations about social climbers (2006), Nydia Neubauer (2002), and rent-controlled apartments (1992). There was also broader coverage about her work with the New York Pops [1]. That being said, the previous version of the page was largely copied from imdb, and I have removed that text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have dug deeping into the *Gatecrashers* book. She is covered on the following pages in the book: 144, 166, 171-174,226, 236-237. More details are in the page DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few more citations - most notable is her work on the Vietnam Veterans parade and 2004 events prior to the elections. Aside from the interview in the Irish Connections, I cannot find any single article solely focused on her. DaffodilOcean (talk) 03:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - There is good RS here, I am just concerned she is only mentioned peripherally in some of it, and there isn't much solid commentary on her establishing her notability. Close but not quite. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unfortunately. I, too, find only short quotes (e.g. one line) from her in articles about events or famous people. She doesn't seem to have rated anyone writing about her other than a short obit. She does seem to have had an interesting life and to have worked with many famous folks. It may be normal for her role as an agent to have stayed in the background except to give media quotes/sound bites, but it doesn't meet our notability requirements. Lamona (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lamona - are you able to access the Gatecrashers book as that is multiple pages on her? DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and basically she is mentioned in one or two sentences on 5 pages. It's stuff like "I met CS at the bar...". Then there are about two pages where he describes her life (I'm looking at the ebook so "pages" is a guess - it's about 2 columns on my tablet and could probably fit on a single printed page.) But she's a very minor character and I don't see enough here to to reach notability. Also, this is a pretty light-weight "tell-all" gossip book, so even if some "facts" are revealed I'm not sure how seriously we can take them. Look, I definitely think she is an interesting person and her life story would be fascinating, but so far I don't see it. Lamona (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Reeve

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

Fails a WP:BEFORE search, and fails Wikipedia is not resume. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 20:52, 14 January 2022 (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. Tone 17:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Phoenix

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

Sources fall short of requirements to meet GNG or Ent. Just porn industry chatter and a mention in an article about something else. As a BLP the community expects far better. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets GNG with coverage in generally reliable sources (per RSP) that cannot be overriden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and yes that includes AVN articles like [2][3] etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem. RSP makes it clear that magazine articles might count per the actual RSN discussion but sources clearly need ti be used cautiously and what you have presented clearly fails the GNG. 1) isn’t clearly in the mag and is an interview so lacks independence. 2) is obviously a reheated press release just from the format and again appears online rather than published. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not what it says, especially since we discussed the promotional articles on the website within the discussion, and the entry says ... (which is marked as such in search). The cautions are listed on the RSP listing, and the links are not promotional, albeit need to be used with judgement applied (quotations of the individual are less reliable than things in the magazine's voice). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to agree with ProcrastingatingReader here. AVN and XBIZ coverage does count in addition to the San Francisco Chronicle article and coverage about American Apparel's controversial ad campaign starring Phoenix discussed in these academic publications [4][5][6][7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Industry blotter is insufficient for establishing notability, while San Francisco Chronicle is a passing mention. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 3 of ENT is met by those 4 journal articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:BASIC; passing mention, nothing lasting and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marylin Star

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

Not independently notable except being sentenced to 3months for insider trading. Clearly a nonpublic individual so fails NOTNEWS, BLP1E and NOHARM. Spartaz Humbug! 18:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete I agree Marylin fails NOTNEWS, BLP1E, and NOHARM. Wikipedia is not a criminals Wiki either.TH1980 (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2022 (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 23:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kianna Dior

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

Utterly non notable. Fails GNG and ENT. Recreated from previous dele5tion but G4 refused, even though sourcing is still hopeless. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

In my opinion that actress has two awards. According to this fact, she deserves to be on Wikipedia. Moreover, she had to be such recognizable that she appeared in the Eminem's Video Clip to Without Me (Eminem song) . Thought, Eminem's managers and movies selectioners didn't choose her to be starring in the Clip of such known and estimated rapperThe Wolak (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alas we need some policy basis for a vote and parts in videos and porn awards count for nothing. Spartaz Humbug! 15:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, I would have liked to pay attention that Kianna requires features of notability and requirements for entertainers. Regardless of number of votes being for or against deletion The Wolak (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that comment isn’t at all clear, is that an argument to keep or delete and what is the reasoning? Spartaz Humbug! 23:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opt for remaining this article in wiki because that character seems to have any sings of notability The Wolak (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
please link the sings of notability? Do you mean sings or signs? Spartaz Humbug! 20:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, gaining the most respectable award in porn industry such as AVN should be sufficient justification for her notability The Wolak (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The community rejected AVan wins as a notability standard when PORNBIO was deprecated. You need to find WP:GNG sources or show how she meets WP:ENTSpartaz Humbug! 15:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage of significance, does not meet notability standards Such-change47 (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepika Pilli

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

Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTRESS. Declined twice at AfC but the author bypassed review and moved the draft to mainspace. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (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 23:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fareisa Joemmanbaks

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

Non notable model / film-personality. Has acted in a vamp role in a barely notable Malayalam movie and was crowned Miss India Worldwide, which also does not impart any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL Jupitus Smart 14:14, 14 January 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 23:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Finney

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

Appears to be non-notable, WP:BEFORE check does not show sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:28, 14 January 2022 (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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator, no delete votes. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Clare's Girls' School

AfDs for this article:
St. Clare's Girls' School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I nominated this article deletion for in 2020. At the time the consensus was to keep it due to some coverage it has received the South China Morning Post, a reference that was subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong where this school is located. Even if that wasn't the case the references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not worth using for notability anyway. Which is probably why they weren't used by anyone in the article by anyone after the AfD. So I'm re-nominating this in the hopes of there being a more in-depth, thorough discussion of the sources and if they show notability or not then there was last time. As the keep votes in the first AfD amounted to "keep per the other person" and there wasn't really a discussion about it beyond that. Except to question my competence. Which I'd prefer to avoid this time around. Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said it's unreliable for things related to Hong Kong because that's what some people in the RfCs said. Obviously the summaries at WP:RSP don't cover every single comment made in the RfCs or the various nuances that they involve. Either way though, I was clear that it doesn't matter if it's reliable or not because the SCMP references are either on extremely trivial run of the mill topics, interviews, PR puff pieces, or otherwise not usable for notability. There isn't some magical thing that suddenly makes an interview usable for notability if SCMP is reliable. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, some people might have said something but it was rejected by consensus, so you should not pretend in a deletion rationale that it was accepted. Can't you just treat deletion discussions as discussions, rather than battlegrounds where you have to support your predetermined position by peddling obvious lies? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the second RfC the third to last comment said " In case of contentious content about Hong Kong, it is recommended to also use alternative sources like HKFP", then the last commenter said "Usable in most situations, but exercise caution with political reporting and contentious topics." No one ever "rejected" what they said. Just because the first three RfCs were not official votes like the last one was doesn't mean the opinions stated by people in them aren't valid or not part of the general consensus. Even in the last RfC multiple people had civets about when the reference can be considered reliable and on what topics. Personally, I think their opinions are worth considering as one thing out of several. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been more then clear that the closing comment didn't include the covets people gave in the RfCs and that I don't really care if people disregard the RfCs altogether. So in no way I'm treating this like a battleground or "peddling obvious lies." If you or other people want to ignore the RfCs and judge this on other grounds, by all means do so. I'd appreciate it if you assumed good faith and didn't insult me in the process though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is precisely because I would like to assume good faith that deletion rationales and anything else written on Wikipedia will not contain lies that I am asking you to stop peddling them. The source was simply not "subsequently determined to be unreliable when it comes to subjects related to Hong Kong". Someone's opinion stated during an RFC is not determined to be true if it does not gain consensus. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this was someone else's AfD and there was multiple RfCs about one of the main references used in the article then I'd read over the RfCs and consider what people said in them about the source when I "vote" as one factor out of many. So I thought it was worth mentioning. That's it. I never claimed there was more to it then that or that a couple of opinions in an RfC are the single, only, best, def-cato, authoritative, what the hell ever view points and that everything else should be ignored. What part of that or me saying "I don't care about this and people can ignore my opinion about the RfCs if they want" multiple times are you having such a hard time with? Also, let me ask you this, if the opinions given by people in the first three RfCs are suppose to be ignored as "not consensus" or whatever then why does WP:SCMP include links to them, instead of just linking to the last "authoritative" RfC? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What part of that are we having a hard time with? The part where you're still arguing about it, with the frankly outrageous claim that the sentiment of some minority voters in a RfC establishes what consensus really means, in open defiance of the close. If you believe that doing the decent thing and withdrawing your nomination is a humiliation you cannot bring yourself to initiate, then a dignified silence would be a good look. Ravenswing 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly fine with withdrawing the nomination. I commented below this that it can be closed as procedural kept by anyone that feels like doing so. Frankly I'm pretty neutral on that being the outcome. It's slightly disappointing that the whole thing with the RfC came at the cost of allowing of something like an interview to be used for notability, but such is life. I could really give a crap about what the outcome of most of my nominations is. Including this one. This isn't a battleground and I'm learning as I go just like everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As other people said, there is absolutely no consensus that SCMP is unreliable for subjects related to Hong Kong. If the nominator truly believes the consensus should change, they are happy to open a new discussion in WP:RSN. In terms of notability, as a religious non-profit school, WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NRELORG both note that the less strict WP:GNG standard can be used, and the sources provided in the first AfD are sufficient for that. Jumpytoo Talk 18:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:NSCHOOL doesn't say that non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. Since it says "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools...must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. Nowhere there does it say "all schools except for non-profits." What it does say is "all schools" at the beginning of the sentence and non-profit schools are schools. Otherwise it would explicitly say non-profit schools just have to pass WP:GNG. WP:NRELORG says the exact same thing. There is no special exception for non-profits from having to meet the notability criteria for organizations in either guideline. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The very wording that you quote says that non-profit schools only have to pass WP:GNG. Do you really not understand the word "or"? Or are you again simply saying rubbish to substantiate your pre-determined position rather than discussing in good faith? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quote doesn't use the word "non-profit" anywhere in it. So I have zero clue what your talking about. That said, I started a discussion about this on WP:Notability (organizations and companies) because I figured you'd use my comment as yet another opportunity to insult me about my opinions and think it would be helpful if things in the guidelines are clarified. Since this keeps coming up. Your free to continue the badgering in the other discussion if you really feel the need to, but I'd appreciate it if you stopped bludgeoning this with your unsolicited personal attacks. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not bludgeoning and not making personal attacks, but just pointing out clear flaws in your argument. One of which is that "all" very obviously includes "non-profit", so there is no need for that wording to say "non-profit" explicitly. I can't say why you could possibly have zero clue what I am talking about without insulting your intelligence, so I won't. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is the sentence after the one you quoted which makes the "non-profit" relevant: For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. From my interpretation, for-profit schools must follow the strict sourcing guidelines of WP:NCORP, whereas all other schools (public, non-profit, religious...) only need to pass WP:GNG which does not have such strict sourcing requirements. Jumpytoo Talk 20:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)'[reply]
The fact that it says "those criteria" makes it sound like it's saying ""For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both." Otherwise why would it use the plural "those" and not just say "For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy WP:NCORP" instead? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources appear to be sufficient to show that this school passes notability requirements. Meters (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm failing to see why the South China Morning Post is unreliable in its coverage of Hong Kong topics. The wording quoted above clearly states passing GNG is enough, and I believe this article meets that guideline. NemesisAT (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nomination challenged the use of SCMP as a source, but it has been established this was a clear misread of WP:SCMP by the nominator. Beyond that, it was established that the GNG was met in the initial AFD, and it's pretty clear that consensus is not changing here on that. The nominator has expressly requested that their competence not be questioned, so there is nothing more to do here that won't generate more heat than light. Martinp (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC). I have a very minor COI on this topic, in that I know an alumna. But neither I nor she has any particular interest as to whether this article exists.[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Indeed, the nominator's expressly stated that they are neither lying nor incompetent, but it is not easy to take their bizarre claim about the text of WP:SCMP -- which is written in clear English -- any other way. It would be a stretch to consider this merely a fatally flawed nomination (rather than a bogus one), and if the nominator wants to assure us that they're acting in good faith, I anticipate the immediate withdrawal of this AfD. Ravenswing 17:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's zero point in continuing the AfD if there isn't going to be any discussion of the references like I had originally hoped. Especially if a bunch of bad faithed, off topic personal comments are going to be about me in the interim. So I'm fine with anyone just closing this as keep (procedural, speedy, or whatever) if they want to. If an admins happens to read this and wants to close it then by all means do so. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (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. Geschichte (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Yelin

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

Not notable as an artist, doesn't have significant coverage. Not notable as a scientist, just five scientific publications. Mvqr (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was a stone's throw from nominating this myself a moment ago, until twinkle notified me it had already been. Not seeing evidence for a pass of WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NCREATIVE. Those looking for sources might want to use an alternate name (derived from a couple of publications) "Laura Yelin-Bekerman" ASUKITE 15:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO draft was just deleted. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Loksmythe (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability, seems like someone created a page to advertise themself. Seungri400 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've speedied this twice, and I've asked the editor if they have a conflict of interest, no response just another recreation. Not directlt relevant, but this user's other contributions make for interesting viewing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources: books[1]

any independant reviews though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Laura Yelin-Bekerman". Google Books.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe English

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

Not enough RS. It also fails to pass WP:GNG FossLimi (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I call BS! Forbes 30 Under 30 is enough to establish notability! Stop wasting my time with spurious RFDs. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 14:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article should be improved and lengthened, not deleted. As the other user said, Forbes 30 Under 30 is enough to establish notability. Seungri400 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
not sure if Forbes 30 under 30 is enough notability. Where did you get it? --FossLimi (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
evident problems with WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. What are the three best references that clearly connote notability per the mentioned guidelines? --FossLimi (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She meets WP:ARTIST criteria #4d ("been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums"). She has received recognition for her creative work (see citations in awards section of page). DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, any notable museums/galleries holding her work? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she has four pieces in the Victoria and Albert Museum. Citations in the text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks DaffodilOcean, this is a clear keep as meeting WP:ARTIST with works in permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, article now reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep...and following up to my comments (and additions to the page), I vote keep. She meets WP:ARTIST with pieces in the permanent collection of two museums. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hi DaffodilOcean, you have already recommended "keep" once before, would you like to change this to a "comment"? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, this is my inexperience with this process. I now realize I mangled where my comments and votes should go. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Conti, Samantha (2021-10-07). "Phoebe English Secures Funding for Green Research and Development". WWD. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  2. ^ Petter, Olivia (2022-01-02). "Was 2021 the year we moved away from fast fashion?". The Independent. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  3. ^ Douglass, Rachel (2021-11-02). "Phoebe English among fashion signatories calling COP26 to climate action". FashionUnited. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  4. ^ Murray, Daisy (2021-11-30). "We Speak To Three Of The Fashion Award's 'Leaders Of Change'". ELLE. Retrieved 2022-01-13.
  5. ^ "Phoebe English: Fall 2018". The New York Times. 7 January 2018.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annetta Kapon

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

I cannot find any reliable sources to include in this article. It currently has no references. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She doesn't appear to be in any major exhibitions or had any of her exhibitions reviewed. Her work is not listed as being in any collections WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you Vexations. I checked out the CAMAC link embedded in the article and it looks like the content of the article was taken from there. The article is from a show in 2007, so I don't think CAMAC got the text from Wikipedia. I do apologize for not doing a better "before" on this artist. Now I am not sure how or if I should tag it for copyright violation. Please advise. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a text that appears in many places, the kind of bio that any artist is expected to provide for exhibitions, conferences or lectures, and of course it also appears on her own website: [8] Vexations (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2022 (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, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lama Alshamandi

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

Entirely unsourced. Web searches give me nothing but wikis and IMDB-like sites. Dubbed a lot of films apparently, but I don't think that's a particularly notable thing. Found this article through Special:Random. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2022 (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 23:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Sullivan

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

Hopelessly promotional and so minimally notable (if at all) to be not worth fixing. Most of the references are promotional or trivial material. Most of the content is, correspondingly, trivial or promotional material.

The original editor in 2007 was a single purpose editor who has not contributed anything else at all almost all subsequent edits were made by a succession of other spas, culminating in someone whose username was so obvious as to attract attention, (Rebecca Sullivan ModelCo ) DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Shearon

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

First wife of astronaut Neil Armstrong. WP:INVALIDBIO: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Fox

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

Another member of the non-notable Fox family of Falmouth (see also deletion discussions for Barclay, Alfred and Samuel Middleton. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Non-notable author with most of the sources coming from her own essays. Penale52 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:ANYBIO says someone is likely to be notable if they are chronicled in something like the Dictionary of National Biography, not guaranteed to be. This reads like a love letter to this person, and it seems her journal extracts Memories of Old Friends would be the source of most of her notability, but even that lacks an article. Penale52 (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in this case the likelihood of notability is confirmed by at least two three other encyclopedia entries besides DNB: the Oxford Companion I mentioned above; this in Women in World History; and this. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in this case "other stuff (i.e., Memories of Old Friends) does not exist" is not an argument for deleting this article. It is an argument for creating another. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So Keep, obviously.Bmcln1 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per AleatoryPonderings. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO, entry in a dnb plus is included in others as brought out above, if nominator had concerns with this article, probably better if they had improved/tagged it rather than wasted afd editors' time with this one. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presence in a DNB is strong evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passes WP:BASIC with multiple reliable book sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons of those who want to keep this article. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A DNB entry is clearly sufficient to establish notability per WP:ANYBIO. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2022 (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 14:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arella Devorah

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

American singer who doesn't seem to meet WP:NSINGER. Created by a WP:SPA with a possible WP:COI. John B123 (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2022 (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 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification Ajpolino (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup qualification

2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (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 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup. Apparently uncontroversial. Not a likely search term, but will leave as redirect to keep page history visible. Ajpolino (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification

2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Komolafe-Opadeji

Helen Komolafe-Opadeji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Devin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I can only find one interview, in something called Rivetting Riffs Magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gretta Boley

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete heads of national forests are not notable for such. An announcement of someone being even a key-note speaker at some meeting or conference is not a show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreeing with the above, there also does not seem to be enough coverage on her from reliable sources. Coolcactus04 (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found a few dozen mentions in Newspaper.Com articles, and she looks to be supervising Mississippi's national forests since 2008 and is quoted occasionally in that role as late as 2017. There may be more to find, but keeping someone's PTE sockpuppet project alive doesn't motivate me to want to make the effort. No hard-to-find sources will be lost if this is deleted. BBQboffin (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see how this subject meets the basic criteria for notability of people per WP:BASIC nor any of the expanded criteria per WP:ANYBIO. There must be countless public servants managing national parks of significance in the U.S. and across the world, only those with sufficient notability would be suitable for inclusion. A reference to the supervisor could be made in the national park she supervises. Alternative to deletion, a redirect could be created to this article. I did not vote for a redirect as my primary option as this individual is so insufficiently notable it is inherently unlikely that individuals would be searching for the subject's name and so a redirect whilst possible is not necessary. Such-change47 (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 03:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ellen Callahan

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

Run-of-the-mill government employee fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAd • SPEAK 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No vote yet, but adding in citations to news articles covering Callahan (and someone can feel free to let me know if I should not note that here. I still feel quite new to these discussions). DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established by recent additions, for example 'Former DHS privacy head moves to law firm' in FCW and 'Jenner & Block becomes latest law firm to build privacy practice' in Washington Post Mujinga (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 19 January 2022 (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. Tone 13:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donnalyn Bartolome

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

Fails GNG. No independent reliable sources. Ctrlwiki • 13:09, 11 January 2022 (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. The sources provided by Beccaynr have remained uncontested. Sandstein 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra Parks

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

Non-notable reality show participant. Keeps getting re-created from redirect. Fails GNG, absolutely no in-depth coverage about this person outside show. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:17, 26 January 2022 (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 is that the sourcing does not meet RS guidelines, and without that there is no GNG pass. Star Mississippi 14:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yoriko Angeline

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

non-notable actress. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nothing more than paid coverage. Published in same paper, by the same author, date 1 june, 2 june. We can't consider this independent, multiple, in-depth coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Behind the moors well argued reasons as to why the coverage we have meets essentially none of the prongs of GNG, let alone all the prongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - sources are not a paid websites.... dilan 1990 was the biggest movie in indonesia...she is really famous and notorious! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talk • contribs) 05:46, 29 January 2022 (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. czar 19:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valgerður Þóroddsdóttir

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

Subject does not meet notability guidelines. Furthermore article does not contain any relevant or encyclopedic content. Arielarielariel (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For example, both the links removed on 8th Jan with comment "(Citations do not exist, do not link to any external verifying information (links broken). Have been deleted. The further links that do work do not verify the information given.)" are available on the Internet Archive (here and here). Having removed them (rather than tagging as dead links or taking the time to find the archived copies) the editor then proposed the 6-year-old article for speedy deletion A7. Not constructive editing practice. PamD 15:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there pattern of editing is a bit odd, but I can see that they are doing anything nefariouus. They have taken some material away, but also added material and added citations...and have been doing it for 4 years. A little bit unusual, but you can work on a page, and then decide that may be it isn't warranted upon reflection. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable from the sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Sufficiently well sourced for notability. Can't understand why the nominator does not consider this article encyclopaedic.--Ipigott (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets GNG - the PEN nomination in particular as solid support. Lajmmoore (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This easily meets GNG based just on the sources pointed out in this AfD. It seems like she's had both national and international press coverage / critical attention which is a good indicator of her notability as a poet. BuySomeApples (talk) 07:42, 14 January 2022 (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 23:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Alpsten

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

Written by a sock farm of a de facto banned editor with no other significant input from other editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @BuySomeApples: both of her books have also been reviewed in The Times - the references were formatted in such a way that that was not immediately apparent. Does that affectt your opinion? Ingratis (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Siqi

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

Appears devoid of notability, case of WP:NOTINHERITED WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here -- it relates to articles that exist solely on the basis of "subject is somewhere in the line of descent for an inherited title" or similar, without any evidence of significant coverage. It doesn't rule out the existence of articles for people who have significant coverage because of their connections to others. Subject of the article passes GNG through the substantial number of obituaries that have come out in the Chinese press following her recent death, both cited in the article and clear on a web search. Vaticidalprophet 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable and many independent reliable Chinese sources are available following her death on 7th January, 2022. VincentGod11 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 03:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Simone Cortina

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

Fails WP:GNG. Found the article after being curious who voiced Curie in Fallout 4, saw the tags, looked around, and while she seems to have lived a very interesting life, that isn't the criteria. I don't see where she has significant coverage in reliable sources. Lot of mentions of her products by people who sell them, but that isn't WP:RS. There is an interesting claim about being a top 20 tennis player in Mexico, but I don't find the sources to back it up. The article is mainly just primary links, which is not acceptable for a WP:BLP. In short, not notable enough to include at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:08, 10 January 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanna Kempner

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

fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTNEWS isn't applicable solely to events. Please read it again. Also, which of her roles was notable? Literally none her roles would pass GNG. She doesn't pass GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read it many times. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to be used for breaking news about current events, people whose notability is derived from one current event, and trivia about current events. It does not supersede GNG or notability guidelines for people. Per WP:NACTOR, The Mikado is very obviously notable, and she played one of the significant named roles. Jerry Springer: The Opera is also notable (if you disagree, you should probably also nominate its article for deletion, though I don't think you'd be successful), and her role was significant enough to be mentioned by multiple unaffiliate reviewers and to have at least one solo number (i.e., not a generic chorus member/standin role), so this also counts toward WP:NACTOR #1. Et cetera for the other roles mentioned in the article and above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gnomingstuff - except she wasn't even in Jerry Springer the Opera, she simply worked with the composer. Her performance of The Mikado took place in a 96 seat venue and appears to have about three reviews when I do a search for it. There is no significant coverage of her, reviews of performances don't make her pass! Nobody has provided any significant coverage and that says it all. Because I've looked and it doesn't exist. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: Why wouldn't reviews of her performances count towards notability? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is a review of a performance coverage of her, or coverage of the performance? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above. The page seems to meet notability guidelines for actors/entertainers. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -Sigcov for the subject to meet WP:GNG, lots of reviews, mentions in more substantial articles as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per above, passes WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FAO closer So far, the comments are all keep. However, there are various points of contention in this. Firstly, voters saying there must be source is worthless, when absolutely none have been provided bar the first comment. But four/three paragraph reviews don't demonstrate notability/significant coverage, and routine reporting of Edinburgh shows also doesn't demonstrate either. Voters saying the subject is notable is a flawed argument when nobody has actually explained how/why. Voters simply saying "GNG" or "sigcov" is flawed without demonstration of how these policies actually apply to the subject. The fact of the matter is the article in its current form doesn't demonstrate any general notability or significant coverage, searching for sources simply increased the likelihood in my mind that the subject fails to pass based on either of those policies. And this is supposed to be a discussion, not a poll. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few sources to consider below. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chortle
British Comedy Guide
Fest Magazine
Funny Women
The Guardian
The Wee Review
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gretchen Rhodes

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

Failed a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 22:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Addressing :@Such-change47 comment. I understand that notability is not inherrited - and phrased my comment poorly. The artist is in a trio with two notable musicians, so I do believe that the artist meets item 6 of the guideline WP:SINGER. Additionally, the artist contributed materially to two gold selling albums. JDMCMAH (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: after checking the guideline at WP:SINGER I do not consider this singer to have met the notability criteria listed. Referring to the above comment, notability is not inherited. I note that merely failing to meet guidelines does not necessarily mean the article needs to be deleted. However looking at the totality of not meeting guidelines and having very little if any sigcov, the article both fails to meet guidelines and also does not have any compelling alternative reason to remain and so should be deleted. Such-change47 (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the kind of coverage necessary to surpass WP:GNG or WP:BLP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn’t meet WP:SINGER. -Xclusivzik (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there isn't significant coverage, and it also fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNGJuggyevil (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SINGER MaskedSinger (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2022 (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 05:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Foos

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG. And they do not appear to meet any of the SNG's either. Onel5969 TT me 19:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously dePRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Dunikoski

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

Fails WP:BIO1E because her notability is based primarily on her prosecution of the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

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! 06:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Michaelsdotter

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

I'm not sure if this person passes WP:GNG, so I thought I'd bring it to discussion.

I can't find many reliable sources that mention her (Anastasia Michaelsdotter or Stasia Michael) that aren't just interviews or quotes from her, and all of the sources in the article seem like passing mentions or non-independent. The lead also mentions she was featured in a documentary, but if the majority of sources are anything to go by, it could just mean she was mentioned in it.

The original version of the article has 2 sources that may be reliable and/or significant, but they are written around the same time (early 2015), so I'm not sure if that indicates lasting notability (or if it's enough).[22][23]

Her article has also been deleted on the Swedish Wikipedia 4 times for "relevance" (not sure if that's similar to English Wikipedia's notability standard), and this English article was created a month after the first deletion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - despite an apparently successful career, she seems to lack notability. Her deletion from the Swedish Wikipedia, though it has no bearing here, is still telling, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is this a vanity page? There's no claim to notability in the article at all. FalconK (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Janis Maria Wilson

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

Meets no Wikipedia guideline. Does however fail several policies, guidelines and essays, including but not limited to WP:GNG, WP:ENT, WP:CHURNALISM, WP:MILL, WP:PEACOCK. Since it was kept in 2015 I'll detail why, first regarding the claims, and then regarding the sources:

  • "She is known for portraying Miss Gudbrandsdalen" - false, it was a miniscule role which no-one noticed or remembers
  • "In 2006 she appeared in the Norwegian television series Shopaholic" - no notability of appearance
  • "was a finalist in the Miss Norway modeling contest" - not even the winners are considered automatically notable
  • "appeared in a commercial for Norwegian financial firm DNB ASA" - nowhere near notable
  • "on the cover of magazines such as Beauty Style, Lowrider, and Norwegian magazine Gatebil" - not notable unless the magazines wrote WP:SIGCOV about her
  • "one of 21 Norwegians competing for a chance to become a Playboy cover model" - one of 21? Lightyears away from notability
  • "Wilson was the alleged victim of personal attacks on two separate occasions in 2010" - highly trivial, fails WP:10YT, WP:IMPACT etc.

Now for the sources:

  1. Trivial local news about part-time jobs
  2. unreliable blog
  3. passing mention
  4. unreliable gossip
  5. unreliable website, not independent
  6. not in-depth, is about the trivial Playboy contest
  7. news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
  8. news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
  9. news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above
  10. news about an attack without lasting significance whatsoever, see last bullet point above.

In addition, a Norwegian newspaper search for Janis Maria Wilson yields nothing further that can be of use. Janis M. Wilson gives 0 hits and Janis Wilson 1 false hit. Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Immediate delete per above. Again, searched but again, not meaningful, and just some social media posts. That's it. Severestorm28 01:27, 14 January 2022 (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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma

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

Except being Chief Minister's wife, she has no notability. Her page was created after her husband became Chief Minister. Moreover, being an owner of a local news channel can not make her eligible for Wiki. Requesting higher level to look up the matter. - Arunudoy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The coverage in WP:RS found above is all focused on corruption allegations. Neither does it appear WP:SUSTAINED nor can it be covered here due to WP:BLPCRIME requirement on conviction. The Guwahati Plus source the page currently depends heavily upon, is an interview and hence WP:PRIMARY (the site does not inspire any confidence about reliability or independence, founder claims to be a marketing professional). Her own channel has nothing that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. --Hemantha (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 13:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per WP:BASIC - I share Hemantha's concerns about the focus of many sources, but per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, noteworthy, relevant, and well documented allegations may be possible to include (some date back to 2015), and there is biographical and career information reported within as well as in addition to those sources, e.g. [27], [28]. I also agree with FormalDude about RSF helping support her independent notability and with Mujinga on the general source assessment. Beccaynr (talk) 12:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, I see some non-trivial coverage which shows that she is notable in her field. VocalIndia (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi

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

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2010 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No evidence of notability was provided. (similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Can't find any other sources with WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 03:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete What has changed since the previous nominations is that we've become a little more objective about promotional articles for authors. If she hadwritten a major textbook series used world-wide or even nationally she might be notable, but it's designed especially for ISKON and probably only used there. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of any coverage in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:49, 24 January 2022 (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 12:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Mondal

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

The subject is previously rejected through afc process, so this article should go through afc process. Please check the creator's talk page for further information. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The film credits may count towards NACTOR, but significance of some roles aren't clear. Falling back to sources, ToI articles on her are all two-three paragraph collections of her quotes. IE Indulge is a "luxury lifestyle magazine", a once-per-week supplement that shouldn't be presumed to be as reliable as the main paper; but setting that aside, the coverage is all shallow interviews that can hardly be considered independent. ABP/Sangbad links are movie announcements which do not mention her at all. There is a bn-wiki page, but it uses same sources as here. This bengali search https://www.google.com/search?q="প্রিয়াঙ্কা+মন্ডল" doesn't seem to turn up much, so I think there isn't enough for WP:GNG. --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 11:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The sources are either not reliable or not independent, being a collection of churnalism and low-quality celebrity nonsense. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of playing significant roles for NACTOR, and lacks independent reliable coverage for GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2022 (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. (Mistakenly relisted.) Sandstein 17:54, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Geppert

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

Accepted via AfC back in 2012 (am not sure how its issues didn't get flagged then), would never be accepted nowadays. BLP without any cited references (already an issue in itself). Gabrielle Geppert has a successful vintage shop, but this is not sufficent to confer notability as there seems to be very little readily accessible reliable sources about her, other than advertisements/promo in guidebooks, passing mentions of visits to her shop. (Jennifer Aniston dropped in once.) I couldn't spot any articles specifically talking about the shop that might have shown that the store had published notability in itself, let alone several reliable third party articles that would have collected together to demonstrate notability. The sources listed in the article (but not cited) seem to mainly be promotional, or self-published blogs. It was created by a single-purpose editor who has made no edits outside the article, and again last year by another single-purpose editor whose 5 Wikipedia edits were all on this article. Sadly, I don't think there is sufficient notability to be found here per Wikipedia's rules. Mabalu (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 19 January 2022 (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Wonsley Worlobah

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

Fails notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshens (talk • contribs) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Comment, leaning Keep - As always, looks like this is down to WP:GNG. My attempt at satisfying WP:THREE to focus the discussion is: [1][2][3] So, two pretty good sources (one national, one regional), and a small smattering of passing mentions in the Star Tribune and other regional news sources. Overall, I would characterize the coverage as weak, so this might be WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Michaels, Samantha. ""Defund the police" was a rallying cry in 2020. Minneapolis is about to vote on what that means". Mother Jones. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
  2. ^ Duggan, JD (2021-08-18). "Democratic Socialist challenges Green Party incumbent in Minneapolis Ward 2". Sahan Journal. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
  3. ^ Navratil, Liz. "Robin Wonsley Worlobah once again declared winner after recount in Minneapolis council race". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
In consideration of the MPR coverage, I've updated my vote to Keep. I'm not sure how meaningful the ongoing passing mentions of her policy positions are, but it does show evidence of ongoing sustained coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person is an elected official in a major U.S. city and is the subject of news media coverage, as opposed to being mentioned merely in passing. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2022 (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 and redirect to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family. RL0919 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus)

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers a supposed sister of emperor Severus Alexander. But I've done some digging and it seems to me that the article might be confused.

It seems to me that Theoclia (if she was real) and her possible marriage to Verus is thought to have been proposed during Severus reign 3, not when he was a young boy as he would have been in 218 when Marcianus daughter was killed. This work treats the two women as separate people, while this one argues that Theoclia is entirely made up. There is also the fact that Marcianus might have been Severus step-father, not father, so a daughter (if she was indeed married in 218) was probably too old to have been Julia Avita Mamaea's daughter, thus this woman may only have been Severus step-sister. I believe this article should be deleted and the link redirected to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family, as, even if she existed, she probably isn't notable enough for her own article. If the merge is performed, then it will be important to ensure that the new text at Julia Avita Mamaea#Family is free of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I say this even though I'm pretty convinced that the argument about Theoclia's existence that you present here is correct). Furius (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was written by an editor who liked to mass-create articles on non-notable but high-profile people, with only the slightest regard for WP:Verifiability (example). This article simply repeats what the Historia Augusta says without question, while adding some genealogical trivia to flesh it out. The former is unverifiable (unreliable primary source), the latter is already found elsewhere, so there's nothing even to merge (not even worth a redirect). It's all OR, SYNTH, or trivia. That Birley citation mentions in passing an unnamed sister who was supposedly murdered in 218, but you don't need a merger to use that source and mention the fact elsewhere, and there is nothing else of value here. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At best should be a curious footnote in the dynasty article of a possible relative mentioned by a not necessarily reliable primary source, for reasons mentioned above. SpartaN (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to her mother. For ancient history, primary sources are all we have. Whether we believe the sources is a matter of historical interpretation. Merging leaves a redirect, which means that what little we do know on the lady remains available. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a case of notability where the infomation can be simply transferred elsewhere, this is a case of the content being unverifiable or put together through original research, which means it's not merge material, as you have been told several times. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect Anything sourced to the Historia Augusta is likely to be garbage, if there are no other sources covering them then it should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect -Agreed, needs more than one source to establish what is going here, for this person who possibly didn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:V and WP:OR concerns with merging. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2022 (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 23:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Wright

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

Member of the Snohomish County Council. The expectation of county council members who have not served as a member of a state or national legislature is that the sourcing show more than "they exist" or routine actions. The sourcing should describe their impact on policy development or the political significance of their actions. In this case, the subject does not currently pass WP:NPOL and the sourcing is not sufficient to meet our expectations of local office holders. A redirect to Snohomish County Council is not possible at this moment since there is not (yet) a list of past members on the page. Enos733 (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wright has not held any office higher than County Council in the past. This article is also reasonably short and doesn't include anything major she did on the Council.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Rivers Ryan

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

The coverage of in reliable sources is minimal. Mostly it consists of very brief mentions (exceprpted below) and quotes that she provided for context on other subjects.

Put them in then to prove they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I will try to do so. Please also note her work is in multiple national libraries, as you can see from the authority control. If anyone else wants to pitch in to help, please do so. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note that this AfD has been alerted by its creator on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
How do library holdings of a book establish notability for the (co)author? Most libraries are not at all selective, but the BNF and especially the Library of Congress collect just about anything that gets published. Vexations (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to answer your question and perhaps I am mistaken re: library holding having any significance. I apologize. Ryan has a lot of mentions in the news and in books (per BASIC), and there are citations specifically about her which have also been added in my expansion effort of the article. I am confused because the last time I checked the wiki rules, we did not make article deletion nominations in the case of thinking something needs clean up and a quick google search of her name indicates her presence? And yes, I had asked for clean up help from WiR because I have been busy (i.e. the pandemic), and the WiR project event was related to the creation of this stub. I apologize if I am not allowed to ask for help(?), I had assumed wikipedia was for collaboration. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to apologize. Of course you are allowed to ask for help, but we have consensus that canvassing is inappropriate. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless the post has changed, I don't see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Tina_Rivers_Ryan as a canvassing violation. @PigeonChickenFish is asking for citations to help in the decision making process, not help necessarily to !vote keep. Star Mississippi 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I worded my response poorly. I did not mean to imply that there was canvasssing. I wanted to point out that we differentiate between "help me !vote for my preferred outcome" and "help me improve (something)" and that asking for any kind of assistance in improving an article or a discussion or understanding of policy etc. is very much encouraged. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just holding a job and publishing stuff does not confer notability. What are needed are multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject and there don't seem to be any. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
There are many sources (and that is enough for BASIC). However the nomination here glosses over all of the sources specifically about Ryan's work - and many of which have depth (for example see the comment left earlier by Bridget). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just about an exhibition, not about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Exactly what do you think her work is, if not an exhibition? She works as a curator at a museum. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It just shows that she is doing her job (no doubt excellently). However that does not make a person notable. The sources show that she exists, but not that she is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak keep. Assistant curator rather than head curator, at a regional museum rather than one at the national level of say the Met or MOMA (to pick two in the same state), definitely is not enough for automatic notability. We would need in-depth coverage of her work, sufficient to pass GNG. What we have is: non-in-depth listings of her marriage and degree; International but not in depth coverage merely quoting her as an expert on digital art (Artnews, The Independent, NYT, Jing), a local report on a talk she gave (The Horace Mann Record), the University of Buffalo promoting an exhibit co-curated with a UB faculty member (not independent; both the UB and Spectrum sources); a non-in-depth announcement that she was hired (Artforum); a non-reliable blog post, badly linked and disallowed as a source on a BLP (VOCA); local coverage of her exhibits (WBFO, WGRZ) an in-depth interview (Cornelia), and a single non-local in-depth review of an exhibit (Brooklyn Rail). The only sources among these that count at all towards notability for me are the WBFO, WGRZ, Cornelia, and Brooklyn Rail ones. If you are one of those editors who discount local sources and interviews as counting towards notability, then all that's left would be the Brooklyn Rail, not enough. I tend to think that WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE don't actually say anything about locality of sources and that discounting interviews as primary is a stretch, so the other three can count for me, but they're not very convincing. What pushes me from weak delete to weak keep is that we do have multiple major international sources that do not provide depth of coverage, but do make a credible claim that she is known as an expert on digital art. They don't directly contribute to Wikipedia-defined notability, but they make me more sympathetic to the idea that, as a known expert, she is the sort of person we should have an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Albright–Knox Art Gallery is a major collection. Not like MoMA, but a major museum like the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. It just happens to be in Buffalo, not NYC. Hardly regional. It is a big deal to be a curator there. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor correction: she's an Assistant Curator per [29]. The chief curator is Cathleen Chaffee. I do think that the Albright-Knox is a museum with an international, rater than regional scope. Definitely not a "local museum". I'll note that we have an article on Janne Sirén, the museum's director, but none of the curatorial staff, except TRR. Vexations (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep several editors have listed reasons to Keep, will trust their judgment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild keep Nothing in Jstor, she's got a few hits in Gscholar, but they don't appear to be papers, one looks like a .mp4 file of a lecture? She's got enough hits in the ArtNews or ArtForum, so she's relatively well-known. We know about the Knox-Albright here in Toronto, it's more than a local art gallery, more like a renowned, regional museum. I think this person is just over the line for notability.Oaktree b (talk)
  • Comment as an aside, I've had a few of these Women in Red articles come up in the deletion process that I either worked on or started/created. Seems counter productive if we (Wikipedia as a whole) ask for the article to be created then nominate it for deletion later. I would assume there is at least a basic level of vetting before they add them to the WiR list, is there not? Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    from my personal experience, no vetting required although some conversations end up taking suggestion A and end up discussing that subject within category B if it seems they don't yet meet GNG or the applicable SNG. Star Mississippi 03:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b, Heads up that an appearance on a WiR "redlist" is not an indicator of notability. They are automatically generated from data in Wikidata. The lists have the language "All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria; red links on this list may or may not qualify." at the top. I know it gets lost in all the other text, but it is there. I also made the same mistake of thinking if a name was on a redlist, it was of a notable person. Wikidata is far more inclusive than English Wikipedia will ever be. There is a redlist of Badminton players listing over 5,000 players. Cause for a lot of head-scratching. Anyway, you do have to check that the subject meets notability criteria. Best, WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete assistant curator is about as significant as assistant professor--it normally means not yet notable. The quality of the museum is irrelevant--all museums have junior staff who are not yet notable. . Being quoted briefly in articles about other people is not significant coverage. The way WiR articles can avoid deletion is by 1. taking care to select the many really notable people who do not yet have WP articles--(for example Cathleen Chaffee as mentioned above, who is the actual curator, not one of the assistants, and 2. writing encyclopedia articles that don't include minor material--that inevitable give the impression there isn't any major accomplishments. That way, any editors here who still might be unreasonably skeptical won't single them out any more than other articles. A few such projects have taken lists of 100 women in whatever, ,or women under 30 in some profession, and uncritically made articles on all of them. `` DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As DGG said, she is an assistant curator, akin to an assistant professor. Assistant professors who have not published more two books and are not widely cited do not qualify for articles. If she had authored numerous books, she may have notability as an author. Being an assistant curator at a middle tier (no offense meant) institution and doing normal assistant curator stuff does not qualify someone for an article. She is still early in her career, so there is plenty of time for her to rise through the ranks, author books, etc. Let’s see where she is in five to ten years and then maybe she’ll have passed the notability threshold. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep In addition to the support for WP:BASIC notability as an expert noted above, I also found two book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Choice Reviews (via ProQuest, by J. H. Noonan), "Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality. [...] Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers." Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good finds, that should do it. Will link this page somewhere in an essay I've been intending to write (started, WP:SHADOW). Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interested participants in this discussion can find the review of Baum, Kelly. Delirious: art at the limits of reason, 1950-1980 by Noonan, F.H. via the Wikipedia Library: [30] There is a singe sentence about Ryan: "Lastly, Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality." Vexations (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan is one of three authors of the 2017 book, which was published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. A pretty good publishing credit. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, everybody who contributed a chapter to a book that has been reviewed is now notable. WP:PROF says that the criterion that the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks. But never mind, this is close enough, right? A sentence in a review here and there, and a chapter published. Hardly any citations, but who cares? We "rescued" an article. Well done. Congratulate yourselves. Vexations (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF also states, Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark, and I think the available sources help support keeping the article - from my view, her recognition as an expert is a form of WP:SECONDARY commentary that also helps support WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly: A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Vexations (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I think WP:NPROF is helpful to consider in this discussion, my !vote is based on WP:BIO, because she has a multi-faceted career that includes her work as a curator, art historian, writer, and critic. Beccaynr (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, significant development since nomination, and Albright-Knox is indeed a nationally notable art museum at least. Just two days ago, they co-acquired a Kusama with the Smithsonian, and they're listed in a list of this year's top international museum and art gallery openings and renovations. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the acquisition of Infinity Mirrored Room—My Heart Is Dancing into the Universe, contributed to the notability of anyone, that would be Janne Sirén and Melissa Chiu, who arranged te purchase. I can find no sources that say TRR was in any way involved. Nor do I see anywhere that she was she involved in the renovation. Vexations (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the two reliable reviews of her books push this over the edge for me. There are also other reviews of her work, like her contribution to Efficient Causation: A history.[31] WP:Interviews like the Cornelia Mag piece sometimes are indicators of notability. Reliable sources don't usually do features about the careers of non-notable people. FWIW, I don't consider sources like NYT and the Independent to be local news coverage so being cited as an expert there has a little more weight with me towards NPROF. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2022 (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 The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Kung Minkoff

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

Reality show performer. Not enough in-depth coverage outside of the show to show they have any notability outside the production. Should probably be a redirect, but was reverted. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. When I read things like this: According to Bravo, Crystal and Rob live in Bel Air and Crystal has formal culinary training, and she has a passion for cooking and throwing extravagant parties. She is an enjoys skier and loves to play tennis. in the encyclopedia it is often signal that there is either promotional editing going on or there is not enough info out there to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. This too: Kung is a 76th-generation descendant of is filler. Fails WP:NACTOR Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you can assess secondary coverage and not the quality of the current text, which can be changed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Another Believer hello! just seeing your note now. When I did a BEFORE search, all I came up with was social media, something called "Facebook Wedding Style", and primary sources like interviews without editorial content. I also found low-quality sources similar to what is in the article. I found things that looked like native advertising - that appears to be an article but with the byline "produced by digital editors" or no byline, which makes me think it's PR placement, and not real reporting or journalism. Please improve the article if you can find independent secondary SIGCOV in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as suggested by Netherzone , for the reasons given there. There's no encyclopedic information. I'm not sure it's promotional , but its not a basis for an encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Impact100. this target did not exist at the time of nomination, but Beccaynr has since begun it. While !merge was not an explicit consensus, it is implied in DGG's "delete" and appears a valid ATD close. Star Mississippi 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impact100 Sonoma

Impact100 Sonoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I wrote this Wikipedia article when I first moved to the Sonoma area. Now, I think it might fail WP:NORG because it's only featured in localized press coverage.

Thoughts? Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:25, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have since started the Impact100 article, which is currently under construction. Beccaynr (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local branch of a nartional society is notgenerally notable , because all the coveage is likely to be notices and advocacy. No prejudice against a general article on the main organization. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I've developed the Impact100 article, I've been selective with local and regional coverage about local chapters, by keeping a focus on more in-depth reporting about the history and development of the organization; there appears to be similar coverage available about Impact100 Sonoma that could be merged, e.g. Impact100 proves the power in numbers (Press Democrat, 2012), Group awards $325k to impact Sonoma Valley nonprofits (Sonoma Valley Sun, 2019). Beccaynr (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tsitsia Mkervali

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

No coverage beyond databases. Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No coverage outwith the database profiles, that is information. Fails sigcov. I hate these profile BLP's, particularly when it is createf from a set of database genered profiles. They are prolifically made, shallow in terms of content and of almost of zero value, as soon as they're made, they are forgotten. They are useless to man nor beast merely duplicating information what has been created somewhere else. scope_creepTalk 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha Tisha Mohammed

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

I don't believe the references here support WP:GNG but it couldn't be speedied A7 but there is a claim of significance. But a search just brought me social media and blog coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: We should be looking more at N:ACTOR, her role is My Name is Kadi, despite being panned by critics for poor acting 1, 2, 3, 4 was the lead role in a very notable film. If I get another of such role in a film it will be an easy keep based on the requirements of the SNG (don't have the time to look through the filmography section right now). HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello HandsomeBoy, her role in 'My name is Kadi' has been added. She played the lead role. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talk • contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Can you mention another film she played the lead role that has reviews like My Name is Kadi? I don't have the time to do the search myself. If you can give me one or two more, I will vote Keep. Once an actor has multiple lead roles, it is easy to meet N:ACTOR.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I’m in agreement with the assessment of Liz, and paradoxically also in agreement with HandsomeBoy, in the sense that state that they know WP:NACTOR requires lead roles or significant roles in multiple movies for NACTOR to be met, unfortunately I fail to see this movies. HandsomeBoy, a problem I see almost immediately is that the four sources you made use of are unreliable, (or at least some of them the sources as a whole, whilst some, although reliable sources, are unreliable pieces) a breakdown; the the first source is pre packaged sponsored material, the second source has no presence of a staff reporter in the byline, indicative of an op-ed piece, a sponsored post or an editorial opinion piece all of which are not considered reliable as they bypass the editorial oversight team. The third source is pretty much without an editorial oversight team so isn’t reliable either. The fourth and last source you linked above is self published which is literally a quintessential example of an unreliable source. So in all, it seems that we really do not have anything tangible. Honestly, when reviewing articles I’m somewhat lenient when the articles are of persons or topics of great encyclopedic value, but in cases of most entrepreneurs or most entertainers who tend to want to get a Wikipedia presence for the sake of it, I’m rather strict, unless the article creator can come up with a list of multiple movies which shows her in lead or significant roles, or can show us that she has clinched a prestigious award for her acting skills as documented in WP:NACTOR or can show us at least three sources that meet WP:RS standards, I’m afraid this is not a good fit for mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lack of reliable sources. I agree that this is probably intended as promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 19 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josita Anola

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

No major roles as an actress, pageants all seem minor and the sources are meh at best without much significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability as performer or otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This is a rather split opinion, so I'll close it as a no consensus, leaning keep. Tone 10:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Sunderland

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

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as creator You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. PamD 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by significant coverage in [32],

[33] and [34], notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not sure RSP accurately reflects the conclusion at [RSN which said the magazine is generally reliable, so stuff published in the site is not covered by that. Is your source printed or online? Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident.[35][36] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[37] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No that's not what low-profile means. Someone who actively seeks publicity, as Sunderland does, is not low-profile regardless of whether or not she is notable. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Excuse but doing porn does not automatically make you publicity seeker. That’s ridiculous and a total distortion of how this works. Being outed involuntarily cannot create an assumption that you must get a scarlet letter just because you work in porn. If that hadn’t of happened we wouldn’t have this article at all as she is otherwise not notable and no more attention seeking than any other porn performer. Spartaz Humbug! 15:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Acting in Hollywood makes you high-profile but acting in pornographic movies means you've been outed? One is a publicity seeker if they're doing high-profile high-visibility work, doing interviews on that work, attending promotional events as the 'line-up' in the event, etc... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such blending is called a career. Trillfendi (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per ProcrastinatingReader. Seems to meet the necessary bars. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete' utterly trivial. The notability is one event. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pawnkingthree Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC per review of available sources. WP:BLP1E that does rise to the level of encyclopedia notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Two pages in the peer reviewed Feminist Media Studies paper here. Besides the library coverage ([38], [39], [40], [41]) There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. Pikavoom Talk 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lets look at this shall we. The first lot of sources all relate to the library incident and later coverage is in the context of amateur porn or caming making the point that this is flash in the pan 1E territory without enduring independent coverage. So lets look at the evidence of enduring coverage cited; which is hardly making a case. Newsweek interview about caming, mens health? Sensational interview and quotes about dirty talk, indian express, reprint w/o a byline from a Daily Mail article, pornstar makeup FFS and tabloids like Daily Star & NY Post. None of this is an arguable case that there is enduring coverage so proving the 1E case. Spartaz Humbug! 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You left out the part where the Feminist Studies journal article was published 2 years after the incident in your mistaken interpretation of BLP1E. Enduring independent coverage. You also have a mistaken understanding of what secondary vs. primary means in dismissing the Newsweek article as an interview. Reporters are allowed to interview people to write a story. This wasn't a transcript of a q&a here. Arguing that it's the same is dishonest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 03:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sufficient sources meet WP:GNG. Definitely not WP:BLP1E as she has coverage for more than the single event. Reliable sources exist. Fieari (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:GNG, fn3, It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works, so the initial independent news coverage about the library incident (i.e. not churnalism, and not information directly from her, e.g. as in tabloid-style clickbait publications such as post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK) does not contribute much to notability. And per reliable sources, she was a WP:VICTIM because her video was uploaded to multiple websites without her consent, so the article should exist only if consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, [she] had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The available sources do not show the event is "well-documented" or "historic", and her inclusion in two and a half paragraphs at the beginning of a Feminist Media Studies article is not enough to support "historic significance", while later tabloid-style promotional coverage helps emphasize the lack of historic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The video was uploaded by a stranger without consent yet she consented to start a career in pornography after that. If she was a random person, it just would not be the same story. I mean, she still calls herself KSLibraryGirl. Trillfendi (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But WP:ENTERTAINER notability also does not appear supported - the criteria that may have applied, i.e. the "cult" following, has been deprecated. Feminist Media Studies comments, "the case of Kendra Sunderland is also recognizable as an increasingly ordinary narrative about working on the edges of mainstream cultural industries," so there does not appear to be objective support for unique or innovative contributions. This article reminds me of a concept I attribute to DGG, which is essentially when insufficient independent and reliable support for notability exists, we are typically left with promotional content, and based on the type and quality of the sources, this appears to apply here. Beccaynr (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's something else I often say, that in some forms of entertainment, there can be very little difference between promotional and non-promotional content. The manner of ever good descriptive writing is not always distinguishable. If we completely eliminated promotional content in some subfields of entertainment we'd have no articles on current performers. I've withdrawn my delete--I'm undecided. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions make little in the way of serious arguments, and in particular do not cite appropriate notability-establishing sources when challenged to do so. Sandstein 22:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Sayahi

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

WP:GNG. The references are not any major news agencies. Random websites here and there. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which references meet the criteria? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Because she has acted in several films that are famous, a person has the criteria of recognition of actors.--5.124.163.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She is an Iranian actor who has acted in at least a few films and has a good reputation.--Gas Spray (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that she is notable enough? So why her biography was deleted in Persian Wikipedia?! Brayan ocaner (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brayan ocaner: yes, and the next thing, not having a wiki in a language is not a reason for not being famous. I can show you a thousand articles that do not exist in Persian, but are here.--Gas Spray (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can show you more than thousand of articles that exist here and has not Persian equivalents! in this case, her Persian Wikipedia page was deleted (not wasn't created), because of lack of notability, although Persian is her native language! It's definitely different with your example! Brayan ocaner (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Brayan ocaner:No, in my opinion, there is a taste in Persian wiki and no one pays attention to the sources if they do not like the article.It will be removed even if it is Ward Cunningham personal brush.--Gas Spray (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting the sense that this might be a paid/promotional sort of article, or there might be meatpuppery here -- especially with the many keep !votes on an article titled "Ramana Sayahi", a name that only has a single hit in Google news.
    Regardless of that, there are a few pages of hits in Google news under her Persian name. But the ones I've found seem to be low-quality, tabloid-type websites or entertainment "news". The majority of the sources also seem to say the same thing - she looks like Angelina Jolie. I haven't seen a source yet that is useful for passing Wiki notability, so I'm leaning towards delete for now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2022 (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. Tone 09:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Forså

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

Absence of RS. Fails GNG & ENT and is woeful for a BLP Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is related to the Swedish sin. Book hits include [50], [51] and [52], though the hits are not very in-depth, Forså's name is brought up as a selected mention. Another article related to a book is behind a paywall, but the Google preview gives the quote Alltmedan svenska nakenmodeller som Christina Lindberg, Marie Forså och Marie Ekorre gör internationella karriärer, i.e. international careers. What about contemporary sources? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As pointed out above, several writers keep coming back to Forså as a central figure in Swedish pornography of the era. Not just a journalist and writer like Kalle Lind (linked above), but Swedish scholar of pornography Mariah Larsson keeps including Forså multiple times. I've added a few references, expanded the article somewhat, and ordered one of the books mentioned above from a local university library (though this AfD dicsussion will be over by the time I've read it). /Julle (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable actress. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per improvements made by Julle. Per book hits. Per overall sourcing. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient sourcing. I went through ten pages of Google results and only found links to clips - no media coverage. Linked films in filmography are only bit parts, and she's not even mentioned in their infoboxes. Flagged since 2010 for needing more sources (hatnotes were more recently backdated to 2006 and 2008). Fails WP:GNG, unless someone can provide more info demonstrating that the content in the books listed as sources is significant. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Timtempleton. What this comes down to for me is that the only references we have on her that might be usable are from the two books that are referenced in the article, but it's pretty likely going by the titles of the books that they are not in-depth coverage. If we are extremely lucky one might be, but that's not enough for notability on it's own. I'm not convinced by keep voters who cite "book hits" as a reason to keep either. Since it's akin to "keep because of the number of Google Search results" or something like that. Which isn't valid. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. Really not notable that much, and what Timtempleton is stating, not reliable sourcing, no online websites to prove it. Severestorm28 01:30, 14 January 2022 (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. Only one person believes that coverage is sufficient for notability. Sandstein 09:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Ona Paukstelis

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

An actor which does meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR as they do not have significant roles multiple notable productions or made any sort of innovative contribution to their industry. I don't see any evidence they meet WP:GNG either. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Re sigcov and Kenosha news articles: this is what WP:GNG has to say about sources: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So having a dozen articles from Kenosha News is not necessarily helpful for determining if GNG is met. Samsmachado (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is, I think, an over-interpretation of the rules. If one author writes multiple times about someone, it remains one opinion. But it's natural that newspapers write multiple articles about notable people: there is only one Washington Post, and if you do three things in your life that attract the attention of the Washington Post, those three articles all count towards your notability: taken together, they mean you have sustained appearances in the public sphere, and you're not a one-off flash in the pan. The key thing is that the newspaper is independently triggered to write about different events in your life, and that the articles aren't all published in quick succession based on a single event. I assume the Kenosha news is a local newspaper; three references separated by a number of years therefore indicate sustained (but possibly local) notability. But I know nothing about this actress and have no plans to form an opinion. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here's some other things I found:
I tried to get a copy of the Femme Fatales article, but it's one of the issues that isn't on the Internet Archive, annoyingly. SilverserenC 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't recognise any films or series. They are small films. The coverage is from Kenosha News, is that is her home town newspaper. Where is the other coverage? Where is the national or international converage? Newspaper interviews. Seems to be a bit part actor, and seems to have barely done any acting at all. Its not even in WP:NACTOR. Not notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources with the very limited and not contributory exception of a hometown paper. Local coverage of local actors in very small productions does not help establish notability in terms of the general notability guideline nor for the specific subject matter guideline for actors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amīna Aqdas Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazanin Bayati Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna Garcia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paw Diaz Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Roces Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines at major beauty pageants (3rd nomination)




Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1066159987"