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 18:02, 24 January 2022 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittany Binger.). 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 delete. Tone 23:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Binger

Brittany Binger (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 (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it's the same person, she could be included in the Grady Sizemore article, a person with her name married Mr. Sizemore. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do not have a personal life section on Mr. Sizemore at present. While he may have married this this Ms. Binger, if all the evidence we have for that "is a person with this same name", instead of "we have a source that says Mr. Sizemore married a woman who had been photographed professionally and included in published magazines", or other wording to indicate a connection other than the same name, we should not go based just on the same name, because if we do we might be creating the Frankenstein's Monster article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being a Playmate of the Month is notable in modeling. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite incorrect. Only 3 of the 12 listed in the "Playboy Playmates of 2007" template on her page have articles, and 1 (Tamara Sky) should be an easy deletion next. Being a Playmate may have been a criteria of the old WP:PORNBIO notability guide, but that was deleted ages ago. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable pinup girl, nothing but the Playboy spread and some gossip mags. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jess Loren

Jess Loren (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 NBIO - lacks SIGCOV in third party sources. Also apparent UPE. KH-1 (talk) 05:31, 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 keep. ✗plicit 04:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Christina Calayca

Disappearance of Christina Calayca (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 am not sure what our current standards are, but there is almost no coverage since 2009, therefore possibly not of continuing encyclopedic interest. The article emphasizes details that would seem to be of relevance only in the immediate period, or to those actively engaged in the search for her. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator's claim is false. There are in fact coverage from 2018, 2021, and 2022, which are already in the article. The article is supported by lots of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes the article is well sourced and the article is worthy of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In defence of the article, ten of the sources are from after 2009 (five of them from 2021-2022) and there are three more from active online databases managed by provincial and national Canadian police forces as well as one of their affiliates, suggesting a persistent interest in the case. While media attention has tapered off since 2009, contemporary sources note that media attention in the first two years of the investigation was significant and far-reaching across Canada's largest province, and more recent sources evidence there is persistent public interest in the case. That the initial search is tied with a 2005 search for the longest ever performed by Canada's largest provincial police force is also evidence of its notability. I believe the details included are useful for putting the investigation and theories into context, though a few were included because they are part of the narrative surrounding the case or because they are unusual. I agree that extraneous details should be pared down where they appear, but I do not believe any of them would be considered interesting to only those involved in the investigation. DinoBenn (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what I can tell some of the references in the article have retrieval dates of 2018, 2021, and 2022, but were still written around the time of the person's original disappearance. Except with the caveat of a podcast from a year ago and maybe a blog post if I'm getting the dates correct (and I assume I am), but neither of these is usable for notability. So what the first voter said about this having continued coverage is wrong. At least in any way that matters. Otherwise, I'll change my vote if they can point out which references are from the last couple of years outside of the two I've mentioned. In the meantime references from the Canadian police and their affiliates don't work for notability even if they are current, anymore then a podcast or blog post does. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent sources I referred to are episodes of the podcasts The True Crime Files and Cold Case Detective from 2021, which are reasonably popular and mostly included due to the speculation present on their programs; an article from the popular missing persons blog Stories of the Unsolved from January 2022; an episode of the The Next Call podcast, which was published by Canada's national news broadcaster in 2021 and hosted by a prolific CBC crime reporter; and an article from the Elliot Lake Today news service from September 2021. The latter two were both published by reputable news sources and the former three, being independent media, indicate continued public interest in the case 14 years on. DinoBenn (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you said there refutes what I said. In the meantime the fact that you say the podcasts are based on speculation just furthers my point that they don't work for notability since podcasts about cold cases are usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations and are therefore unreliable sources. It might as well be a reference to the National Enquirer at that point. The one that was published by Canada's national news broadcaster is no different, it's still based completely on conjecture. "On the CBC true crime podcast The Next Call, host David Ridgen speculated that Denis Léveillé, a suspect in the unsolved 1996 disappearance of Melanie Ethier with a history of sexually abusing teenage girls, may have been responsible for other missing person cases in Ontario." Does a podcast host speculating that some rando "may have" been responsible for the disappearance sound like a reliable source for a biographical article to you? Because to me it doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that those sources are worthy of inclusion because they are "based on" speculation, but that they offer speculation. It would do a disservice to the article not to include speculation from independent media, as these sources address angles which investigators have not brought up because they are potentially embarrassing to police (ex. the starlight tours connection) or baseless (ex. the arranged marriage rumour), and a reader who does their own research on the topic may be misled by online message board threads into thinking said theories have more or less value than they warrant. As to the point about unreliable sources, the article does not derive details about the disappearance from these podcasts except for corroboration purposes. I will also note again that with regards to The Next Call, David Ridgen is an award-winning crime journalist so his conjecture is noteworthy, though I will admit that the context surrounding why Léveillé is more than just "some rando" has been omitted for the sake of brevity. The notion that these sources are "usually 99% based on unsubstantiated speculations" is itself unsubstantiated, and Wikipedia policy does not state that independent podcasts should not be used as sources. As for whether my reply addresses your original concerns, I will point out that your original case in favour of deletion mentions that the more recent sources I mentioned were actually contemporary sources, while my reply demonstrated they are in fact from 2021-2022. I understand your skepticism about the validity of sources you have not had a chance to vet personally, but please respect that I am engaging with your criticism and not resorting to bad faith tactics to undermine it. DinoBenn (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing sources that can be included in an article to cite something with ones that can be used for showing notability in an AfD discussion. They are different things. There's a higher bar when it comes to using a source to show notability then there is for citing a piece of information in an article. Especially with BLP articles and the source is making un-substantiated legal accusations about people. Also, notability isn't inherited. Just because David Ridgen is a notable crime journalist doesn't mean everything he writes about also automatically becomes notable just because he did a piece on it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confused. The original criticism was that there was only one or two recent sources on the subject, when in fact there are five from just this past year. Your criticism was that those five were not from the past year, and I pointed out that they were. Your reply was that they are not reliable sources for details on the case, to which I argued that they corroborate details offered by more credible sources and their value is in evidencing continued public interest in the case and the forms that takes. With regards to your latest points: Ridgen's speculation is not notable because an accredited journalist suggested it, but because an accredited journalist suggested a likely suspect behind an unsolved disappearance in a remote Northern Ontario community, which said journalist had done extensive research on, might be responsible for an unsolved disappearance in another remote Northern Ontario community given the prolific amount of girls and young women Léveillé assaulted and was convicted of assaulting in life. If anything, this is an indication that more details from the podcast should be included in the article for context, and that my failure was in believing it was sufficient to link to an article where the suspect is discussed in greater depth. As to the other sources, your personal stance on whether they warrant discussion in this forum is noted, but given that the original criticism is that the case is no longer being discussed the fact that multiple sources have commented on the case independent of one another in recent years suggests otherwise. DinoBenn (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputing that multiple sources have commented on the case in recent years. Nor did I say the case was no longer being discussed. I literally said it was recently talked about in a blog post and podcast. But what sources exist from the last couple of years that aren't blogs, speculative podcasts, or the police? Btw, it also can't be the interviews done with her family members. I want something recent that isn't primary and (or) mostly full of unsubstantiated speculation and save the long, mostly off topic diatribes this time. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not spend any more time correcting the record. The Elliot Lake Today article, which I am linking here for your convenience, matches all the qualifications you have outlined. DinoBenn (talk) 06:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A reference from a guy who's recent work includes a story about an encounter he had with ghosts. Real reliable source there lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you are arguing in bad faith at this point, but for the sake of anyone reading this thread it should be noted that the linked news article relays factual information about the search & rescue process and how it relates to Calayca's case, including segments of interviews with SAR professionals familiar with the case. Supernatural phenomena do not come up in the article, so whether or not the author of the article believes in ghosts is about as relevant as whether or not they believe in God, Bigfoot, or the Moon. DinoBenn (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How am I arguing in bad faith? I asked you for a reliable source from the last couple of years and you gave me an interview by a guy that writes articles about their experiences with ghosts. Which clearly isn't what I asked for. So your the one being bad faithed here. Either that or you don't know the guidelines and what a reliable source is. The fact that your acting like my issue has to do with the author's beliefs, instead of what they are writing about, makes me inclined to think your acting in bad faith though. Your mischaracterization of what I said about there being recent sources doesn't really make me think your being good faithed either. I could really care less if the author believes in god, but if they are going to write about their near death experience of heaven or whatever as if it actually happened then there's zero reason to assume they care about journalistic accuracy or fact checking. Let alone does the news outlet care about either of those things when its printing their ghost stories. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about ghosts, so the author's opinion on the existence of ghosts has no bearing on the reliability of the article. The publication is owned by Village Media, a well-known media company, and publishes on a number of topics including editorial pieces like the one you are referring to. Almost all news publications do this, including CBC and CTV, often on much more controversial topics. The Elliot Lake Today and its staff are not unreliable because you do not like one piece by a journalist. As for the subject of bad faith arguments, I have a hard time believing that a person could be arguing in good faith when they reply with "lol" to an article about a missing young woman, or when they have put so little thought into their reply that they have not bothered to check that their argument does not contain four misspellings of a common word like "you're". This is my fifth article about a missing person and the first that has been nominated for deletion (on the grounds of notability, not the quality of its citations) so I will not argue with your point that I am ignorant about how the process works since it is a clearly unsubstantiated ad hominem, the latest of many. DinoBenn (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to waste my time addressing the petty off-topic and relevant points you've made, like you taking issue with grammatical errors, but WP:REPUTABLE says "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Except I will say it's laughable that you attacked me for miss-spelling a word in the same message your complaining about ad-hominem attacks. What's more hilarious though is that you asked me in a prior message to respect that your engaging with my criticism and then subsequently made various disrespectful claims about me. Including that I'm in acting bad faith and making may ad-hominem attacks against you. I get that you want the article to be kept because you care about the topic, but arguing in an extremely defensive and petty manor with people who vote delete isn't likely to result in the outcome your looking for. I'm not going to argue with you about it beyond that. Other people can review the references and make their own determinations. Ultimately my "vote" has extremely little weight in the outcome of this. So it's not worth arguing over. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is within guidelines by plenty of WP:RS and notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The article has plenty of third party sources which is excellent. Article is well written. BabbaQ (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject of this article is backed up by mulitiple, verifiable reliable sources. According to WP:NTEMP once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. It met WP:GNG years ago, and still does. Netherzone (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many sources used, but they aren't likely to be recent as the nom suggests, as this is basically a cold case at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Again, it is well-sourced. Severestorm28 22:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not temporary, so the fact that there are few to no recent sources doesn't matter: there's no rule that a topic is automatically non-notable just because it isn't still getting as much new coverage in 2022 as it did 15 years ago. And while there are a few sources in the article that aren't suitable or appropriate ("Ottawa Valley Search and Rescue Dog Association"?), there are more than enough that are. In principle, I'm not a fan of the "Wikipedia needs to have a 'disappearance of X' article about every person who's ever been reported missing" approach to article creation, but until there's a clear consensus against them we have to follow the quality and depth and range of the sourcing, and the quality and depth and range of these sources is mostly fine. Bearcat (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is sustained significant coverage from reliable sources that proves notability. -- Mike 🗩 20:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:53, 30 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 draftify. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JinSoul (singer)

JinSoul (singer) (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)

deprecated sources, subject not notable enough as a solo artist. Tame (talk) 11:55, 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fatemeh Masoudifar

Fatemeh Masoudifar (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)

does not have General notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. She has no special reputation as an actress and there are no films in which she has acted. She has not won any special award. She may become famous in the future, but not now Persia ☘ 10:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:48, 5 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 keep. ✗plicit 13:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmistha Pritam

Sarmistha Pritam (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)

Lack of notability. All news are about her illness. An illness is not source, specially when the illness is not very rare. - Arunudoy (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have no objection on Keep. I just nominated for a few citations that led WP:GNG issue. I would love if editors expand the subject with more reliable and third party sources. Cheers -Arunudoy (talk) 09:25, 28 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 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in New York. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samara Barend

Samara Barend (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 individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As to the campaign, in addition to the coverage during the campaign, the Barend/Kuhl campaign was covered years after the 2004 campaign in two places: David Mark's 2007 book Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning,[5] and Tanya Melich's article in Heidi Hartmann's 2014 2005 edited book Gendering Politics and Policy.[6] DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing to keep. The coverage of her 2004 campaign extends three years (David Mark's book) and ten years (The Melich article) after the campaign which is past standard campaign coverage. In addition she is recognized for her work in the period since the campaign. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, I now have access to more sources, and they have allowed me to add sources to the article. The additions show there is WP:SUSTAINED coverage of Barend, her work on the Interstate 86 is one example (with coverage in 1996, 1999 ,2000, and 2007) and the 2004 election is also sustained with coverage in 2005, 2006, and 2007. (Above I also corrected the year of the Melich article, that was my error). DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Neal, Lydia (2017-05-30). "Foreign Firms Stand To Benefit From Trump Budget, Infrastructure Plans". International Business Times. Retrieved 2022-01-23. "It's definitely a new market environment," said Barend, whose group was the driving force behind legislative efforts to expand use of public-private partnerships. The Trump-backed plan to lift the cap on PABs [private activity bonds], she said, "was a nod to" her group's proposals.
  2. ^ "Samara Barend" (PDF). Women Builders Council. 2009. Retrieved January 23, 2022.
  3. ^ "Rising stars: Samara Barend" (PDF). The Bond Buyer. 2017. p. 26.
  4. ^ "City & State New York 02122018 by City & State - Issuu". issuu.com. February 12, 2018. p. 26. Retrieved 2022-01-23.
  5. ^ Mark, David (2007). Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 172–173. ISBN 978-0-7425-4501-4.
  6. ^ Melich, Tanya (2005-10-13). "From the Trenches: Attacking First-Time Women Candidates for Congress". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 27 (1–2): 85–107. doi:10.1300/J501v27n01_06. ISSN 1554-477X.
  • Comment per WP:IBTIMES, There is consensus that the International Business Times is generally unreliable. Beccaynr (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I took out the quote from the page. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert - I respectfully disagree. Barend's campaign received five pages of coverage in the Hartmann 2005 book and two pages in David Mark's book. This makes the campaign itself a little unusual, which, combined with the coverage of her work on the I86 corridor, provides significant coverage of her work. Also, I have just received access to The Wikipedia Library (which is fantastic) and am in the process of adding more coverage of her work outside the 2004 campaign DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:45, 26 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 // 01:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her work on Interstate 86 and being honored by the legislature, plus her subsequent work (all sourced here) seem significant enough. The divorce papers kerfluffle made the NY Times, so it wasn't just campaigning as usual. She also has been awarded various honors -- none of a global nature, but within her field. Lamona (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 7 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. Sandstein 19:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marit Jessen Rüdiger

Marit Jessen Rüdiger (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:NPOLITICIAN Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as page creator. Another Danish politician that should be an obvious keep. Former leader of the North Schleswig minority party in Denmark. Meets GNG by having received plenty of independent reliable press coverage, in both Danish and Schleswig-Holsteiner news. There are already some good examples on the page. I agree that her local political office does not provide her any notability, but that also isn't what makes her notable. Her leadership of Schleswig Party is what makes her notable, as I see it. Kaffe42 (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being leader of a minor political party is not an automatic notability freebie that would exempt a person from having to get over WP:GNG on the sourcing, and the sourcing present here isn't enough to get her over GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 31 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, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:NPOLITICIAN. No significant coverage available; does not meet either part of policitian in the status; nor do the sources meet GNG. Garnarblarnar (talk) 02:21, 6 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. Tone 18:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Lee (solicitor)

Christine Lee (solicitor) (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)

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 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.
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. North America1000 06:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Hamburger

Anne Hamburger (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 fail GNG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources. Cassiopeia talk 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This isn't true there are many sources this article just hasn't been properly developed. Here are a few that could be used. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNY22 (talk • contribs) 17:54, January 22, 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ {{|https://www.americantheatre.org/2021/05/12/downtown-everythings-waiting-for-you/}}
  2. ^ {{|https://georgetowner.com/articles/2017/10/12/wilderness-urgent-fresh-theater/}}
  3. ^ {{|https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/20/theater/a-dozen-dreams-review.html}}
  4. ^ {{|https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/theater/for-big-outdoor-site-specific-stuff-location-location-and-good-weather.html?searchResultPosition=1/}}
  5. ^ {{|https://www.playbill.com/article/free-downtown-live-arts-festival-will-feature-in-person-performances-around-nyc}}

Comment [1], [2] and [3] are not reliable sources. [4] is a broken link. [5] is a paywall article and needs to get info rom RX prior comment (Received article from RX) - it is an interview piece for such it is not an independent sources. Cassiopeia talk 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten the article and would give significant coverage in Forbes and LA Times as the two best sources now on the page. There are also paywalled articles in NYT 1, 2, 3 and WP if someone has access and wants to take a look. Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Latinmes and Forbes sources are interview piece for such they are not independent source and thus not meet notability guidelines as for New York time is a paywall source, cant access to comment.

I added in the NYT and WaPo stories, both of which cover her in depth. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article now clearly demonstrates notability, and I am distressed that the nominator did not do a simple google search to find the mountain of coverage for this person over the past 35 years. This person has had an extraordinary career and really deserves a much better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. should be kept based on the new provided citations above. Caphadouk (talk) 10:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could be a HEY. Article looks good in its present state. pburka (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient citations was provided demonstrate notability of the subject. Brayan ocaner (talk) 17:41, 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. Tone 20:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dahlia Salah

Dahlia Salah (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)

Lacks the notability required to have an article. While she meets the very lax indicators of WP:NFOOTY by having played for a national team, NFOOTY / NSPORTS explicitly state that they only give a presumption of notability, and that in the end WP:GNG must be met. The only non-database source whioh gives some attention to her is an interview by the Gibraltar FA, which isn't an independent source of course. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is longstanding consensus that scraping by on NFOOTBALL with one or two appearances is insufficient when GNG is failed so comprehensively, as is the case here. International players are usually assumed to be more notable than club players, as it is a higher level, but the article says she has stopped playing to study? If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just found via digging on FA Full-Time that she is currently on the books of QPR, albeit in their reserve side at the 8th level of the pyramid. Though it's not an ideal level, it still shows she's playing. VampireKilla (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per consensus at similar women's football AfDs such as Linda Oe, Victoria Balomenos and Tessy Bamberg-Schitter. Having full international caps is certainly a notable achievement (playing at the highest level) and warrants a stand-alone article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Spiderone has played for a National team at International level.Further subject is 20 years old and actively playing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • So no evidence at all of meeting WP:GNG, just the same tired Sports SNG arguments which lead to people wanting to abolish it all together, and which people at the related discussion claim are not made and everybody knows that meeting NSPORTS without meeting GNG is of course not sufficient... Fram (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She clearly does not have the sourcing to pass GNG. She plays for the team of a Gibraltar. Let us not abuse the term "national team", and treat a team that looses to Liechstenstein like it is the same as one that is competitive against Brazil. We need to be logical in how we apply criteria, and if we start treating every member of every "national" team of a micro-state or a dinky overseas territory of another country as default notable the results will be absurd. If one of these "national" teams actually wins several international games, and maybe even is a contender in the world cup it will make sense, but acting like the team for a place with a population of 34,000 and an area of 2.6 square miles is in any sense a "national" team, especially when the place is an overseas dependency, is just not a realistic assessment of the situation involved. She is young, and so may well at some point play at a level that generates significant coverage, but we do not know that, we cannot predict the future, and we do not create articles until the coverage has actually come to be, not just because we think coverage likely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the above notion that smaller national teams are less important than larger ones, she plays in the same qualifiers as other international players. Passes GNG, and presumably GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • She only played in a friendly, not even in a qualifier. And being one of the 11 (plus substitutes) best players at any given time is somewhat easier in a "country" of 32,000 people than in a country of millions of course. National teams like the one from Gibraltar have never come close to winning anything or to qualifying for any tournament, the players in the team are usually not important otherwise (don't play at a high level), and most importantly they don't get the coverage needed for an article. Fram (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fram's and JPL's rationales are spot-on. Meeting NFOOTY is irrelevant if GNG is failed, and no one has produced evidence of SIGCOV. There is far more precedent supporting deletion of SSG-meeting, GNG-failing footballers than the three AfDs cited in support of keeping. JoelleJay (talk) 18:43, 28 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 20:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Visone

Paris Visone (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)

References are primary interviews. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 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. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women)

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women) (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)

We don't know the participating teams yet nor the dates of the matches. The article is also unsourced Dr Salvus 14:04, 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. ✗plicit 12:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Saha

Priyanka Saha (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 bio article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Has few passing mentions in un-reliable sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. ––FormalDude talk 09:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I did some research and found some more reference to the subject on google. I think that if given some time, more sources and references would come up. May be it would be a good idea to hold the deletion for a few weeks. That is my opinion. Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @Kavyansh.Singh
  • Nice to hear from you. I do understand your concern about the GNG, however, in my research, I found that the subject got an award. And the citation number [4] is the list of people who got the award in 2021 with a short description of what they were awarded. The list was published in The Print, which I guess is a reliable and a notable source. Your citation number [3] is of Republic World pray explain how it is un-reliable. Further more, when I tried to improve the article, the popup suggested that we source from Google, and you are suggesting that Google Knowledge Graph is unreliable, this has gotten me confused. As even now, as I am trying to understand, there is a suggestion under the name Priyanka Saha near the top of this page that is suggesting we find sources from Google. Sincerely I am scratching my head in confusion. Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Wikipedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per WP:REPUBLICTV, "[in 2021,] there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. [Republic TV] Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.". Thus, it should not be used. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You @Kavyansh.Singh for clarifying. My opinion in the matter was, as my research yielded some sources that were not originally in the article, it might so be that more would come and they might be reliable and verifiable as per the standards. So in place of deleting the page immediately, would it not be better to draftify per WP:HEY as @FormalDude suggested and let the article provider improve on it, make proper and verifiable citations over time and re-submit for review? Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Wiki3editor1986 has been globally blocked as a "[s]pam-only account" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 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. ✗plicit 12:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepamoni Saikia

Deepamoni Saikia (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 Notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lack of citations. Arunudoy (talk) 09:00, 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. ✗plicit 12:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Tjoe

Charlie Tjoe (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)

Both references provided in the general references page are unreliable, and overall the subject appears to just be an actor who doesn't have much coverage at all I could find. Also, the name in the article title is misspelled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 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. ✗plicit 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Bouazza

Samia Bouazza (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 businesswoman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thenationalnews.com/business/markets/2022/01/14/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-looks-to-aggressively-invest-845m-of-its-listings-proceeds/ https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/abu-dhabis-multiply-group-plans-%24845-mln-ma-expansion-drive https://www.arabianbusiness.com/gcc/uae/468738-abu-dhabis-multiply-invests-again-in-us-taxi-advertising-platform https://www.gdnonline.com/Details/1018232 (Starling2022 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete We should not have articles that were rejected at AfC. The proper procedure is to resubmit for recogsideration. We need to stop letting people do end runs around our processes. We also need to start requiring all articles to go to AfC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 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 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 01:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Dobreva

Maya Dobreva (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. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Hardly any coverage. There is also a badminton player of the same name that gets more coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle A. Valentine

Michelle A. Valentine (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)

Neither the author nor any of the books are notable. There are no references and extensive searches with Google, and newspapers.com have failed to turn up any reliable sources. Leschnei (talk) 21:07, 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 14:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dalia Gebrial

Dalia Gebrial (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 can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Cited sources are either written by the subject, primary, not independent or trivial mentions. WP:BIO is therefore definitely not met. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are harder to assess, but with an h-index of 8, appear to be unlikely to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extensive explanation.--E.Imanoff (talk) Search 19:36, 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. Tone 09:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Podtelejnikova

Daria Podtelejnikova (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 evidence of notability found. I redirected to Danish Figure Skating Championships(which she won by default as the only competitor), but article creator reverted. Article has no indepth sources, and searching online only reveals more databases and similar sources[10], and no Google News hits. Fram (talk) 09:02, 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 no consensus. There is no consensus (at this point) as to whether to merge this content with existing articles about the NY subway, as people disagree about the lasting importance of the event, but there is consensus that the article - if it is to be kept - should be retitled and rewritten to be about the killing (or death, or murder, as to be determined by editors), not the victim. Sich an article can then be renominated at AfD if desired. Sandstein 10:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Alyssa Go

Michelle Alyssa Go (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:ONEVENT Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM. The article however can be merged to the Death of Michelle Alyssa Go, if her passes GNG.--VictorRocks (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go or Death of Michelle Go. X-Editor (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title. I briefly heard about this death yesterday, and saw Internet news on it today. If her death is or becomes WP:NOTABLE, the standard title would be "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go" (as suggested by others). GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Change Title. I heard about this on the news. I think this article is fine, but I do agree with others that it should be renamed "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go". MichaelFansz (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle for now or merge - Retitle to "Death of Michelle Go" for now, or merge to the train station at which the incident occurred. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle and merge it - You know what I changed my mind. I think we should merge like the others said. Hopefully, we can also make the criminal (Simon Martial's page) or we can merge with the article. But first, lets find Simon Martial's early life. --VictorRocks (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move page to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go Per others. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a tragedy but it fails WP:GNG WP:VICTIM but add to the station as stated by @Jax 0677.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle Rename to focus on the murder, not the subject. Michelle Alyssa Go seems to have been a wonderful person, but she obviously does not meet the guidelines required for a biography or a standalone article. Her notability is based solely on her tragic death. Most people believe that articles covering such criminal events do not belong on Wikipedia, but the article is well-sourced and does no harm. Otherwise Merge to the train station's article, to History of the New York City Subway, or to New York City Subway. Mooonswimmer 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per WP:NVICTIM. This article could be renamed, but I do not believe that would be sufficient to prove notability of the subject, either. While this is tragic, there are over a hundred people struck by NYC Subway trains each year (dozens fatally). To have an article about just one such incident is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS; unless there is evidence of the long-term significance of this specific incident, it is not notable. As to places where people have suggested merging this: New York City Subway is a GA, so it's undue coverage to include this there. Maybe History of the New York City Subway might fit, but again, dozens of people in NYC are struck by trains just in a single year. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - @Epicgenius:, History of the New York City Subway mentions Michelle Go. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because you added her there yesterday. It does not mean there is consensus to mention her there.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and I'm confused about the two other edits as well. On the Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal station, the info was added to both a see-also and its own subsection, and a {{current}} tag was added (no other edits were made in the hours immediately afterward). Judging from this, it seems like the info about Go's death was just copied from the station's article and placed at the bottom of "History", which describes the history of the entire system. I'm not sure of the long-term significance of this incident, as per my !vote above. However, it feels to me like mentioning the victim in the three articles (NYCS, History of the NYCS, Times Square station) was more of a way to prevent this page from being orphaned, rather than actually integrating the incident with these three articles. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, Go was pushed, which puts her in a specific subcategory of the "over a hundred people struck by NYC Subway trains each year". The "murdered by being pushed in front of a subway train" factor isn't as common as the accidental subway train injuries and deaths, and maybe not as common as people using the subway for suicide. I'm not saying Go's notable, but her murder has sparked discussion about this particular safety problem -- avoiding someone pushing you onto the tracks or into a train while on a subway. It's also led to discussion of how to accommodate mentally ill homeless people at the subway, including those who might have homicidal thoughts. Of course, if Go's death results in change, Wikipedia can always create a page for her later. GBFEE (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GBFEE, I see your point regarding pushings. However, even in that case, this incident isn't particularly unique; just last year there were six incidents in which people were pushed to the tracks by mentally unstable people (none of whom died). Actually, this is part of a larger trend of crime in the subway going up. I do agree that if this case turns out to be notable, Go (or her pushing specifically) can always have a page. But the topic of platform safety has come up quite a bit in past pushings, and I'm not yet convinced this particular incident meets NVICTIM, because this is unfortunately too common. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Epicgenius, yes, I know it's happened before. I was simply saying she's in a specific category that appears to be less common than the general one. I don't know how common the "pushed onto the tracks by mentally ill or non-mentally ill people" thing is, or how common the murder result is from that action. But I wouldn't say the murder result is common. I looked for data on it and didn't find that to be the case. It's hard to find data on it. I understand and accept your concerns about creating this article. GBFEE (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Death of Michelle Go as suggested by others. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle to Murder of Michelle Alysse Go. What an utterly silly suggestion. There are hundreds of "Murder of X" articles on Wikipedia. This death has been covered extensively by the New York Times and other media. It should be retitled to Murder of Michelle Alyssa Go, but otherwise, this is an absurd and frankly censorious delete request. I also think it's silly that it's being suggested that the article be titled "Death" instead of "Murder", which seems to be against wikipedia's custom when the reason the death is notable is the fact that it was by homicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.202.210 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I particularly appreciate opinions of IP users about my mental abilities. This is the most important thing in my life.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MURDER articles should only be titled “Murder of” if the culprit was found guilty of murder. TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 23:11, 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. ✗plicit 03:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Traci Hovel

Traci Hovel (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)

Was unilaterally redirected to What Would You Do? (2008 TV program) by the article creator Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs), but given the long list of (mostly minor) roles, the redirect target is probably inappropriate, and deletion may be required if she fails WP:NACTOR and cannot be redirected to What Would You Do? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:16, 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 Draftify. Consensus is clear that further incubation would be helpful. Star Mississippi 03:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nanthida Rakwong

Nanthida Rakwong (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)

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [11], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [12], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [13]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Wikipedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While The Times is generally a reliable source and it featuring a video of her does indicate some degree of media interest, the video only features her speaking for herself, so it cannot be considered independent of the subject, a requirement of the GNG. The same likely applies for the other sources used in the article, though I don't read Chinese so I can't say for certain regarding sources in the language. Censorship or not, Wikipedia's guidelines depend on the existence of reliable sources, so if it is indeed an issue it might be an unfortunate situation, but making an exception based on such claims wouldn't be in line with Wikipedia policy. In any case, local sources are not a requirement, and international sources would be fine on their own if they report on the subject in an independent manner. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Times videos are produced and edited by The Times. According to GNG Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline, Independent of the subject "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" - this is clearly not produced by the subject. Moreover, The Times follows the press editors code of practice [14]; report subjects are thoroughly cross-examined by the journalist, as is evident here. The other articles, such as the Chinese ones, have an author or editor named, which also makes them independent of the subject. Wikipedia does have advice for censorship contexts such as Venezuela Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources, where state sources are unreliable, and therefore alternative sources are recommended. Similar considerations could be made for Thailand which is in the same category as Venezuela for press freedom (bad) according to Reporters Without Borders [15] - in particular for content related to the most censored topics such as republicanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaiFactChecker (talk • contribs) 00:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess that's one possible interpretation of the guideline, but I don't think I've seen it regarded as accepted argument at AfD discussions. I'm open to it if others share the position. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • The main point here is right from the wording of the guideline itself, i.e. that independent of the subject means "excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", and this is work produced by The Times, not the subject. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not censored context issue. Her fellow (like Arnon Nampa) got high news coverage with over 100k hits [16] and those are quality hits with national newspaper, leading news sites. She is just not notable among her peers. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Arnon Nampa and the subject are not "fellows"/"peers": Arnon Nampa is pro-monarchy and wants to reform it, not abolish it - that is very different from Nanthida Rakwong who calls for abolishing the Thai monarchy and changing it into a republic (sources in article). Reform and abolition are treated differently in Thailand, although since a ruling in November 2021, Thai law was changed to consider reform as treason, too [17]. A more recent warning from Thailand's media regulator was that "the act of reporting in and of itself could be interpreted as an attempt to overthrow the country’s constitutional monarchy." [18]. Thailand's severe media censorship is very well documented both on the respective Wikipedia article and more recent analysis such as Reporters without Borders [19] and Freedom House [20]. In addition to previous points from User Sj and myself, search engine statistics should be avoided according to Wikipedia's invalid criteria for notability Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria and the quality of Thai national news is questionable considering such extreme censorship. To the contrary, The Times itself is one of the top circulating newspapers in the UK and the world, with a monthly reach of almost 16 million [21], and The News Lens a monthly reach of almost 14 million in the Chinese-speaking world [22]. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with User Sj on encouraging to add more detail and seeking more references over a few months rather than rushing straight into AfD. -- ThaiFactChecker (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Enos733 (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the article reads like a resume. The creator has provided WP:THREE sources above, but I find none of them convincing. She is acting as a spokesperson in the video piece with the Times; perhaps she is doing so on behalf of a notable group but that video does not suggest to me that she is personally notable. The second one is only a trivial mention of her, and the third one does not even mention her last name. The coverage does not meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a resume; it would be unusual for a resume to contain criticism and lawsuits against a subject... The Times video piece is about the subject as an individual and her experience. Which part of the video makes you think that she acts as a spokesperson? The second one (The News Lens) covers her work in-depth in more than half of the article. How is that only a trivial mention? As for the the Apple Daily article + video, the subject is mentioned several times and also featured in the video. The content about the subject carries significant weight in the wider content. Although not very relevant, in Thai naming convention, the first name is the most important part, while the surname was introduced only very recently. Please also check the above notes regarding censorship in Thailand. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that current coverage does not suffice. There are arguments for why other parts of the bio might be hard to source, including national political work and being the head of her own firm, but they need independent sources indicating significance, which seem scarce in English. TFC: perhaps I was hasty in accepting; better perhaps to return this to draft status while you work on it. – SJ + 03:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • commeent need more trusted citation (comment by soon-blocked sock)
  • Keep. Restatement with new detail due to relisting. Notability according to GNG is established by reliable sources independent of the subject, including The Times (one of the oldest and largest newspapers in the world that adheres to the press editors code of practice [23] and is included in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). More than half of The News Lens piece is about the subject's work, and Apple Daily covers her significantly in text and video. Comments arguing against the notability of the subject appear not to look at the sources in detail (e.g. production of the subject? subject being a spokesperson? there is no evidence for this), nor take into account the context of the topic (Censorship in Thailand, Lèse-majesté in Thailand). Republican content is censored in Thailand, a country which is in the same category for press freedom as Venezuela according to Reporters Without Borders [24]. Wikipedia's advice there includes taking into account alternative sources as state sources are unreliable Wikipedia:WikiProject_Venezuela/Reliable_and_unreliable_sources. The article being discussed uses both high standard international press and other independent sources. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Struck repeated bold "keep". Please don't make more than one !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Sj (who reviewed the article at AfC) suggested above, re-draftifying the article until the sourcing can be improved seems like a good compromise. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was waiting to hear back from TFC, but will return to draft presently. I'd be glad to see the article again after improvement. NB: In general, when censorship is an issue, reliable sources in other countries commenting on that specific censorship can also be suitable sources - the Streisand effect in action. – SJ + 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:12, 3 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 no consensus. and it does not appear one is forthcoming with two relists generating zero incremental input. No prejudice against a speedy renom if you believe it would get traction. Star Mississippi 03:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury (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 has no reason to be notable and sources do not prove otherwise. Notability is not inherited from her son. Apart from a single source (M. R. Mahbub) we have no significant coverage of the subject even in Bengali. If Mahbub's claim that she was among the first Muslim women to join politics in Bangladesh were true (it isn't), such a scarcity of sources is not to be expected: Language Movement has attracted attention of thousands of scholars in S. Asia across the last few decades. Anyways, a single source and some name-drops cannot guarantee passage of WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Such subjective claims are of no value and not supported by scholarship. The body has a lot of objective details and I leave the judgement to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @AleatoryPonderings: I had edited an article drafted by TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and thus responded by criticising a number of my recent article translations from Bengali to English. This is very inappropriate behaviour. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm baffled by the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The article text only mentions her son briefly and he doesn't even have his own article. There's no obvious attempt to coatrack notability here. pburka (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the many arguments.
    Overall, there were thousands of ML Women Cells each having their Muslim women office bearers, who partook in routine party bureaucracy and outreach including submitting memorandum etc and dissenting with higher ups. None of this is an exception including criticism by press. The acts engaged in by our subject do not seem significant enough to merit anything more than a footnote in the annals of Language Movement. There were many women with far-significant contributions.
    And a profile over a single book by a single scholar arguing the subject to be some kind of revolutionary woman (minus the evidence) is not sufficient to pass notability guidelines either. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says her son died in 1952 but according to this Obituary he died in 2008. Or is this a different son?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC) *Keep per this source.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutal- It is written by the same author, M. R. Mahbub.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a source analysis table would be really helpful here. The article makes claims about her notability that look good on the face of it, but I don't know if the groups she's associated with are notable either, and the nominator telling us they're "subjective claims" doesn't help the rest of us understand why. I can't read Bengali so I can't put one together effectively. I am concerned with the tone of the article, though, which doesn't strike me as WP:NPOV. (And what does "indecent" mean, anyway?) And I'm not sure what's going on in the "Political Activism" section. This looks like it's mostly about people who are not the article subject? I think this might be what the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument might have been aiming at, though I agree with pburka that there's no apparent attempt to coatrack notability using her son. -- asilvering (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Might need a subtle rewrite, but is notable.103.109.56.38 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving time for multiple WP:GNG passing sources to be presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:21, 3 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Armitage

Rachel Armitage (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)

"Welfare worker and community leader" fails WP:GNG. Also not notable for being related to William Downie Stewart Sr. KidAd • SPEAK 19:32, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah (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 came here trying to investigate the "close paraphrasing" tag. Instead, here we are. First I can find no evidence that this passes WP:GNG; I couldn't find independent coverage of the subject. As for WP:NPROF according to SCOPUS her work hasn't garnered many citations. No indication that her position was a "Named chair or distinguished professor appointment" per the 5th criterion. She has co-authored several books but nothing in WP:AUTHOR seems to apply here. Mysteriously, there's no mention of her at the AUS website any longer, and I can find no news of what she's doing now. To complete the picture, the article was created by a single-purpose account that shared a name with the subject. Certainly no rules broken, but it does fit with everything else to suggest this may be an article created for promotional purposes, and that doesn't meet our notability criteria. Perhaps someone else can turn up some sources? I've come up empty. Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I have removed the fluff. Her work on the political question has been cited in multiple legal articles, but doesn't end up in Google Scholar. I have added what I could find and look forward to hearing other thoughts on her. If this article does not survive AfD, can it be moved to a draft in case more sources are found? DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Thank you DO for your work on this article. Now that we know the subject's current position, I feel it's likely that other sources would exist in Arabic, which (shame on me) I cannot read. So I'd also lean "Weak keep" based on the gentle assumption that there's more material out there, and no benefit to deleting the article. Ajpolino (talk) 18:16, 25 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) 08:12, 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 22:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Joseph

Lynn Joseph (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. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really a HEY, though. These sources can all easily be found. They should have been found by the nom in their BEFORE. pburka (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am always in the mood of shouting HEY! happily whenever someone actually adds the sources to the article, instead of just stating them in the discussion (which I too have been guilty of on occasion). Moreover, the nominator's statement, while given in good faith, has been demonstrated to be patently untrue, and the discussion now meets WP:SKCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a lot of reviews of her work, indicating notability *though* a lot of them are in the one title, Kirkus Reviews, which I'm not sure is a good example of RS if its publishing a high volume of reviews rather than being selective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since when do we nominate authors with this coverage and publication pedigree for deletion? Cannot make sense using WP:NAUTHOR standards. She is being mentioned alongside of her publications in academic journals since 1999. We need more articles about her books, actually. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 08:06, 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 04:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Græger

Nina Græger (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)

Nonnotable scholar, tagged since 2010, no improvmnt Loew Galitz (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google Scholar shows articles by a Nina Græger [31] but this scholar is at the University of Copenhagen and her home page doesn't mention either the Journal listed on the page nor the Norwegian institute she presumably is employed at. Either the information in the article is wrong (and it is not backed up by sources) or we have two people with the same name, only one of which can I find academic output for. Lamona (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in 2019 she moved from Oslo, Norway to the University of Copenhagen (and I put the information provided by the department into her page). No comment yet on notability, but I will see what I can find about coverage of her work on diplomacy and Scandinavian countries. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neither her citation record nor her administrative position as head of department stand out as something that could pass WP:PROF. Web searches found nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree. Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post-close comment: For academics, WP:NPROF works around GNG, because citing a work is the way that academics give another academic sigcov, so to speak. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 7 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Madhumita G Das

Madhumita G Das (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)

Insufficient reliable sources to show that this person meets WP:NACTOR. I moved the article to Draft:Madhumita G Das, but author recreated the article again without working on the Draft. I indicated the problem in a PROD, but the PROD was removed without explaination. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 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 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 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 [32]. 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. 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 [33][34] 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 [35][36][37][38] 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 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 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. 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. 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 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).[40][41]

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 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. [45], [46]. 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 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 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 [47]. 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: [48] 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.[49] 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 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 [50],

[51] and [52], 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.[53][54] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[55] 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 ([56], [57], [58], [59]) There's an assortment of media interest over the past 7 years, she has moved past the library video: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. 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.

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=1067693664"