Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

WP:DSACTOR

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Actors and filmmakers. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Rose Karr

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

Questionable notability. Done very little. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 16:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done enough to meet WP:NACTOR, though, with significant roles in notable films. Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps done very little but I knew I'd seen her somewhere else when watching kindergarten cop. 2601:5CF:4200:9340:FC10:5F8C:63A2:40BF (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Her filmography probably satisfies WP:NACTOR, however, all the sources I've found about her are primarily about those films she was in (with Sarah being more of a footnote in them), and she appears to have completely avoided the public eye for the past ~29 years (since the end of her child acting career). Refraining from voting either way because not sure what the policy is in these situations. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 18:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is that "notability is not temporary" .... If she was notable enough for a Wikipedia article at any point during her career, she'll be notable enough forever. T1980 (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage here, but not enough for our purposes. [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is about typical of the coverage in newspapers from the time [2] Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets WP:NACTOR and she received considerable media coverage during her acting career. Under Wikipedia rules Notability is NOT Temporary (emphasis mine) --T1980 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find any in-depth coverage about her which is not surprising for a child actor. Everything is brief mentions including the cited source so we have no material with which to write a biography. As noted above, she has "pretty much disappeared" according to this article and "has stayed firmly away from he limelight, with little reference to her career or any of her personal endeavours online" per this one (neither are great sources but all I could find). Given this is a WP:BLP that does not meet WP:GNG, I think we should follow her lead. S0091 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2024 (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 04:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky Benson

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

WP:BEFORE shows no reliable sources that would allow this person to continue to pass the notability guidelines. Note: This person has changed their name to reflect their non-binary status. Please refer to them as 'Lucky Benson' or they/them :) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and United States of America. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 01:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04pf :01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can find and cite significant coverage of this person in reliable sources that are entirely independent of this person. I looked and could find nothing compelling. Of the three references in the current version of the article, one is a dead link, another is controlled by this person, and the third is a school promoting one of their students, and therefore not independent. The recent name change is irrelevant. If the article is kept in the end, the title can be corrected then. Cullen328 (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article fails all the notability guidelines - @Cullen328 I believe @Rich Smith included the name change so we don't misgender this individual. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On WP:BLP grounds and at the apparent request of the subject, I have moved the article from Lily Benson to Lucky Benson and updated this AFD to reflect that, as much as I can without breaking things. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed with Cullen. The newest reference is a press release announcing their being hired by Audience, not independent. Nothing else has come up. JoelleJay (talk) 05:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify My WP:BEFORE on Google Books, Google News, newspapers.com, and JSTOR is unable to locate WP:SIGCOV WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject's employer. However, my understanding is there was a recent name change involving the subject and, without a full naming history, my BEFORE may not be sufficient. I'd, therefore, be open to draftifying this for a period of time to permit the originating editor, or whomever, to work on it. Chetsford (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inspired by a post on Wikipediocracy, I brushed up this BLP with information from the existing sources plus what else I could find. (The sources I found were all under their former name.) I was unable to find extended coverage: the longest I found is the Baruch exhibition write-up that we were already using. They have made several experimental videos; I amplified the filmography. But I see no evidence that their work has attracted enough notice to meet either the GNG or WP:NARTIST. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Laub

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

Restored from a long-ago PROD per request of the subject, but unsourced for the decade before that. BD2412 T 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, New Jersey, and New York. BD2412 T 23:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Fails to assert notability. This could be A7. UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:SIGCOV - Jo the fire dragon 🐉「talk」 20:50, 8 February 2024 (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) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keli Price

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

Article is mostly promo added by IPs. Barely any encyclopedic content would remain if promo is removed. No sources found on this guy besides social media, IMDB, and self-published stuff. Catalyzzt (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lots of links come up to a film with Danny Trejo, but nothing about this person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The roles in 4 of the 5 films in his filmo that have a WP page seem significant so that he might meet WP:NACTOR. Page needs cleanup, that is true-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've been a fan of him since The Clique. He's got countless news articles on him. Noteworthy film producer and actor with tons of great credits under his belt. Not even a question, Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runnings2000 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reads like an example !vote on WP:LIKE. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 17:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple edits over the past 24h appear to moot the AfD concerns, with encyclopedic content supported by legitimate, verifiable sourcing. Leading and other roles in notable films, page seems to fall squarely in WP:NACTOR. Memphro (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Butt

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not yet notable WP:NACTOR or WP:NMODEL. All minor acting roles so far. What's cited here already is all of the reliable sources I could find online in English or Urdu, and all are primary sources: interviews, and an appearance on a TV panel game show. The only secondary coverage I could find was passing mentions in TV articles. Editors wishing to search should note that the first name is sometimes spelled "Osman" in English, and the surname is sometimes spelled "Bhatt". There's a lot of secondary coverage of the unrelated actor Osman Khalid Butt (عثمان خالد بٹ), so I tried to exclude "Khalid" (خالد) from the search, but still couldn't improve on the sources cited. Wikishovel (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. Wikishovel (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:Notable actor appeared in mainstream channels on Pakistani television. As far as your search results are concerned, yes since there is Osman Khalid Butt who is a more popular actor, his results overtake Usman Butt search results. If you'll google him mentioning his projects, you'll find his interviews.182.182.57.188 (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)— 182.182.57.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interviews are WP:Primary sources, and don't contribute to notability per WP:BIO. What's needed here is WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 08:42, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His interview does cover how he started his modeling career and later acting. Usman's interview with The News International is a major newspaper in Pakistan.(2400:ADCC:105:2200:DD7E:47CD:1682:90FC (talk) 12:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)) — 2400:ADCC:105:2200:DD7E:47CD:1682:90FC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Interviews are WP:Primary sources, and don't contribute to notability per WP:BIO. What's needed here is WP:Independent, WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article (interviews) and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth; Source eval:

Comments	Source
Interview, fails WP:IS, "The handsome young man tells Ally Adnan why he is more than just a pretty"	1. "Usman Butt – Good Times". Good Times Magazine. 1 July 2018.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h Khan, Asif (19 January 2024). "Usman Butt". thenews.com.pk.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	Mazaaq Raat", Dunya News, archived from the original on 5 February 2024, retrieved 11 December 2018
Another interview, fails WP:IS	4. ^ "'Baat Cheet' with Usman Butt". The Nation. 3 July 2018.
Another interview, fails WP:IS	5. ^ "Sexual abuse of newcomers is rampant in show business: Usman Butt". Daily Times. 5 June 2018.
Database record	6. ^ "Telefilem Sampai Jannah (TV2)". Myinfotaip. 6 September 2022. Retrieved 20 September 2023.

BEFORE found interviews/promos, name mentions/listings, nothing with SIGCOV. Keep votes provide no sourcing. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 02:34, 13 February 2024 (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 00:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belhe Zaimoğlu

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found interviews, name mentions, promo, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 11 February 2024 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barış Kıralioğlu

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

I do not think that the person has an encyclopedic value and during research, only sites with advertising references come up. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Redivy (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cited references in the article demonstrate the subject's notability according to WP:NACTOR, highlighting their significant roles in multiple notable TV Shows and stage performances. Please note that sources such as Cumhuriyet, Hurriyet and Tiyatronline (for theater productions) are in general considered to be among the most reliable sources for Turkey-related subjects. In addition to this, there are many more references related to their roles in other productions that they contributed, which are not yet cited. @Redivy, could you provide an assessment of the references with regard to this criteria and explain why you believe the references do not support the subject's notability? TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This recently went through an AfD on the Turkish Wikipedia, where it was deleted as participants agreed that the person did not meet the subject-specific guideline. I find this important to note as WP:NBIO and its trwiki counterpart have the exact same wording when it comes to actors and their roles. Sources cited in the article are mostly namedrops and have no significant coverage on the subject, barring a few non-independent interviews. Fails both the relevant SNG and the GNG. Styyx (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx: Could you explain why you believe the criteria in WP:NACTOR is not satisfied? "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". I'd like to note that the same exact question remains unanswered in the Turkish Wikipedia discussion, and many of the editors there, including the nominator, did not elaborate on any of the references brought up in the discussion, and there was nothing similar to a WP:BEFORE. For comparison, I'd like also to mention a comparable AfD discussion that resulted in a speedy keep on Turkish Wikipedia, due to the actor criteria that I cited, so I am really puzzled to understand why the same criteria was not used for Baris Kiralioglu. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because his roles are not significant enough; he is named last or at least very close to last in most of the sources listing the actors in a production. You can't have an indefinite amount of significant roles in a series so much so that every single actor playing passes NBIO. Also note that just passing NBIO is only an indication that sources might exist and that the subject still may be not notable if those are not found. Throwing every single source in the article where the person is barely mentioned instead of focusing on a few select sources where the person is covered significantly is not helping your case here either. Styyx (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Styyx, for taking the time to respond. As far as I know, there is no Wikipedia guideline suggesting that the order of actors in listings can be used to determine their significance. Wouldn't it be better to leverage reliable sources for determining significance? I think this article in Hurriyet definitely demonstrates that his role in İçerde was significant enough. His portrayal of the former Turkish prime minister in Pocket Hercules: Naim Suleymanoglu was mentioned in multiple news outlets such as NTV and he appeared in the official trailer, so I believe his role there is significant as well. Also, what about all those theater plays he acted in and directed? Regarding finding sources with significant coverage: some of the cited sources are high-quality interviews with detailed introductions. Other than that, we have significant, in-depth coverage for the works that he has significantly contributed to, which establishes his notability. After notability is established, primary sources can be cited for noncontroversial biographical information for the article content. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one thing to add is that the reference list is still likely to be incomplete due to various reasons:

a) Istanbul has a very rich journalism culture; however, not all newspaper or periodical archives are available online.

b) Kiralioglu seems to have professional collaborations with Italian artists, and we might have missed sources in Italian.

c) A number of local or national Turkish news sources gets to shut down every year or so, and as a result, their archives are no longer available online. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The order used by reliable sources is just common sense. If you are the tenth actor to be listed somewhere, then your role is not significant. I still maintain the opinion that the subject is not covered in-depth by reliable and independent sources; furthermore notability can not be based on the assumption that sources exist. I find it very unlikely that they do anyway, given that none of the sources that do exist are of high-quality, so it's an ambitious stretch to suggest that all the in-depth coverage about this person ceased to exist or exists very deep. The theater plays where he did have significant roles are not notable on their own. Styyx (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Styyx for contributing to this discussion. My final remark on ordering would be about the deletion discussion for Güzin Çorağan in Turkish Wikipedia, during which you were an administrator, I believe. I just checked the official opening credits of the show Bizimkiler, and she appeared 25th in the listing. And you had no objection for her role being considered significant there. Barış Kıralioğlu appears within the first 5 or 10 actors in these kinds of credit lists. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on that AfD was an informational note about the involvement of sock puppets to the administrator wishing to close the discussion. There is no remark on notability, nor do I remember evaluating the article in the first place (and for the record, I have never been an admin on the Turkish Wikipedia). Styyx (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx. Aintabli (talk) 17:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Aintabli. I'd like to briefly recap what I would consider to be potential problems in Styyx's arguments.

a) Although WP:NACTOR is very likely to be satisfied here, they don't accept it due to an unjustified argument that his name doesn't appear within the first 3-4 names on actor lists. However, major Turkish news outlets like NTV have published news stories where Kiralioglu's role in a production is even mentioned in the article headline. One could easily regard this as equivalent to being listed at rank 1.

b) Styyx does not recognize that once a specific notability guideline is satisfied, it is considered highly plausible that reliable sources exists for the subject except for rare cases, even if we have not reached them yet. With it, the burden of proof for showing the absence of sources shifts to the other side.

c) SNGs could function independently from the GNG (as with academics or geographical places). It's not explicitly stated whether WP:NACTOR should only serve as an indication that sources might exist or if it is regarded as an alternative presumption of notability. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing a significant person does not always equate to having a significant role. The plot only covering that character briefly doesn't suddenly make it a significant role, even if it's the president, in this case. So no, one could not easily regard this as having the main role in a title.

I have already stated above why I find it unlikely that sources exist. If you do, however, want proof of the absence of sources after the burden somehow fell on me, here are some additional sources I have found: __. Do I even have to say this?

From NPROF: "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". In this passage it is explicitly stated that NPROF works different than other SNG's, with NBIO (which includes NACTOR) being used as an example. An SNG overriding the GNG is an exception, not the norm; NBIO is not one of those rare instances. The only other times this is the case is at NASTRO (only kind of, since it requires sources as well) and NCORP, which has even stricter requirements for sourcing than the GNG. All others use the terms "may" or "likely" when talking about notability. Styyx (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per TheJoyfulTentmaker. Kolhisli (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx. Sources are brief mentions or interviews which are primary sources. His roles are not significant enough to meet NACTOR. S0091 (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to the discussion, @S0091, really appreciate your time. One thing to note is that there is no general agreement about whether interviews should be considered to be primary or secondary sources, as discussed in WP:INTERVIEWS. Also, I was wondering if you could tell more about how you determine the insufficient significance of his roles in a) films like İçerde and Cep Herkülü, and b) theater plays, such as Karanlıkta Komedi, and Müfettiş. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Styyx has already explained why Kıralioğlu does not meet the significant roles criteria so I am not going to cover that ground again other than to state I agree with their assessment. For interviews, anything he says about himself is primary, per both the policy (read both primary including note d and secondary) and the essay which states The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source. Above, you tout this interview as "high-quailty" but is a Q&A with a standard introduction which is a couple sentences about him as were the others. At this point you veering into WP:BLUDGEONING the process so you might consider stepping back. S0091 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some final remarks... Firstly, let me clearly state that I have no conflict of interest with this subject, if anyone was wondering. I came across its deletion discussion on the Turkish Wikipedia, and after that, I created the English stub. It remained a stub for more than a month until this AfD was created. My questions were honest, sorry to hear that S0091 considers them to be bludgeoning. The author of the bludgeoning essay accepts that it is often misused, by the way. If it was already clear to everyone except to me that the two Wikipedians would be in perfect agreement with regards to a) significance in this context is determined by being within the first 3 or 4 actors in a listing and b) the theater works should be considered non-notable even though they have received significant coverage in the Turkish mainstream media, then I apologize for my last question. Regarding interviews, the footnote d in primary states that, whether an interview is primary or secondary is context-dependent. In the ones provided, I believe there are sufficient remarks by the interviewer throughout the interview such that those would constitute information from a secondary source. It is not easy to get an interview in Hurriyet, as one can easily guess. Also, NBIO states that if a single source is not in-depth, then information from multiple sources can be combined, so the sources contribute to notability, even if we did not have NACTOR. --TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Styyx source eval. I agree found sources are database records, name mentions, or interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. If someone finds WP:THREE sources meeting WP:SIGCOV, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 21:41, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lew Baldwin

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

Fails GNG and is insufficiently supported by reliable sources Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Paul W (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry User:HermanDF, but the added citations are only fleeting or passing mentions, not significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Paul W (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which parts need to be removed to keep the article from deletion? or which parts qualify as independant/scondary?

In other words, how do we keep this article on wikipedia? HermanDF (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Any significant assertion which cannot be substantiated by at least one reliable source could/should be removed. Reference 1 appears to be a self-penned press release; refs 2, 3, 5-7 and 9 are routine/passing mentions; refs 4 and 10 are from IMDb - which "is user-generated, and the site is considered unreliable by a majority of editors" (see WP:IMDB); which leaves ref 8 (seemingly brief mentions in a book, which I cannot verify). The subject therefore fails WP:GNG - it is not suitable for a stand-alone article in Wikipedia as Baldwin has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Sorry, but, in short, I don't think this can be kept on Wikipedia. Paul W (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in clarifying Paul. I've removed the majority of the sources and added a reliable source that is independent of the subject. HermanDF (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. The key GNG requirement remains significant coverage. Paul W (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would any of the references I removed be significant enough? Or what is required to qualify as significant? HermanDF (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi, User:HermanDF. Thanks for asking. I should have explained. WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Basically, 'significant' is an assessment of the depth or extent of coverage; it will give detail that extends beyond routine or passing mentions. As previously discussed, several of the sources previously used for the article were passing mentions. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Captain Raju, I've added missing citations to the article. Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul, I've added missing citations to the article. HermanDF (talk) 14:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else needed to keep the article from deletion? HermanDF (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing the depth of coverage needed to show that WP:GNG is met or to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed with nomination, person fails to meet WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No coverage for this person that I can find. Being quoted in a book isn't the stuff of notability here and as explained in the comment above, most are trivial mentions. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2024 (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 00:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Prateek

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

I have yet to find a reliable source here. All that I have checked are from unreliable sources such as IMDB and equivalents or based on one press release (identifiable by the use of the same images) or interviews. This appears to be a one film actor anxious to publicise himself. Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fail WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.- FitIndia ^{Talk (Admin on Commons)} 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 15 February 2024 (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) 21:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sreejith Mohandas

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

WP:TOOSOON for a director with no feature films in their filmography. The award received by Food on the Road is not notable. Sources one and three are about the film 'E Valayam' and two is the short film directed by the subject. Unable to find anything on WP:Before. Looks like the career and Personal life sections are original research. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well articulated nomination. I might have gone Draftify, but at the rate films get made, it would probably G13. If the creator wants to hold onto the work, it could be sent to user space. As it stands, though, I concur with the nom, and meeting WP:NFILMMAKER seems to be a long way off as well without having established clear notability of the films to make up a body of work. -2pou (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have received the award for my short movie. I have added the image to my Wikipedia. But the news is not available on the internet. The news was published in the newspaper. I have the image of that news. But that image is not in good quality to publish in Wikipedia. The Indian Cinema (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: not yet notable per WP:NFILMMAKER, and from the reply by creator above, evidently an autobiograpy. I can only find passing mentions of him online in articles about films he's worked on. Wikishovel (talk) 12:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA article creator says at their user talk page that they are indeed Sreejith Mohandas, an associate director of E valayam, and that Wikipedia is "one of the perfect tool for the public relation", so draw your own conclusions. See also WP:Articles for deletion/E valayam. Wikishovel (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination, not yet notable per WP:NFILMMAKER, also failed wikipedia general notability guidelines, no in-depth articles. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2024 (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) asilvering (talk) 03:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koriki Choshu

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

It's borderline, but I couldn't find sources to be sure it meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a preliminary comment, he is definitely a nationally-known television personality, so I am quite confident he will pass all of the relevant notability tests once someone has a chance to look for sources. Dekimasuよ! 13:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some basic sources: this from Sports Nippon, this from Oricon, this from Asahi Shimbun, this from Sankei Shimbun. Also quite a few discussions of him in Google Books. Keep and improve. Dekimasuよ! 14:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sources, and an Expand/Ja template but the sources on the Jp Wp are mostly interviews. I don't have time to look any further now. At least a redirect to List_of_Japanese_comedians#C, where he is listed seems warranted. And hopefully, users who have time and interest can revert the redirect and add sources. But, considering he is a Jp celebrity, keep, hoping that other existing sources like this, this (etc., it's never great but it seems independent enough and does show he is a well-known TV personality; you need to search in Jp, though) are deemed sufficient by other users. Opposed to deletion. Article needs trimming (I did remove a few things but more can be cut if the page is retained)..Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources found above. Clearly passes notability threshold. DCsansei (talk) 14:59, 7 February 2024 (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 14:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kingsmill (actor)

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

Successful career, but I couldn't establish he meets notability as an author or an actor. Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have this in The Sydney Morning Herald.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Austlit has 13 works about his works including in the Weekend Australian, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Canberra Times. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, there are book reviews and more on WP:LIBRARY and the link above from Mushy Yank is a full obituary in the paper of record. Jfire (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme, Jfire. Cabrils (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2024 (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!} 07:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brückner

AfDs for this article:

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

There are no sources per WP:GNG, does it fail WP:NACTOR. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Germany. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 05:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject is a very notable German voice actor who also has a minor career in film and television. He is the subject of a 45-minute documentary and has won numerous awards. Lack of sources does not automatically mean lack of notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two sources cited, it needs more English reliable sources. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does need sources but they exist and they don’t have to be in English. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure I understand the nomination: is it a question? There's a template on the page inviting to expand with the German article. Did the nominator have a look? Brückner has received numerous awards as voice actor (for audiobooks) and part of it is sourced with independent coverage. Keep (and expand). I might do it but not just now. (Only added 2 sources, taken at random, to remove the unsourced BLP tag) The article does not need to be as long and detailed as the German one but can be fairly developed with the numerous existing sources.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC) (Note: A lot of coverage you will find first is about a German or Austrian criminal with the same name in the context of the Maddie McCann case; not connected, of course. You might want to perform a search with "-Maddie -McCann")[reply]
Only the suspect's article it related to WP:BLP1E for Madeleine McCann. Ferret-o-meter (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not related. Please read the 2 existing !votes again carefully, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Flawed nomination. The user asks for English sources, yet all three of their sentences consist of English with incorrect grammar, to the point that their follow-up questions are difficult to comprehend. This comment is not in mean spirit, only highlighting that it's in our best interest to understand eachother. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like there are sources, two on the page at present, highly likely others exist. JMWt (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Speedy close of nomination. The nominator is a sockpuppet of SwissArmyGuy, who is in turn indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madeleine Wade

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

Non-notable actress with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The only significant coverage cited in the article are interviews, which lack independence; the rest of the articles cited are trivial mentions. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, and Germany. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only: She's presented as a "veteran character actress" (brief mention, here). The current version of the WP article notes that "One of her most recognizable roles comes from starring in the music video for "Sing" by Ed Sheeran featuring Pharrell Williams, in which her character had love scenes with a puppet version of Sheeran." but is that enough?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't believe she satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it is enough for GNG. Ben Azura (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2024 (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. Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debjani Modak

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

Non-notable TV actress. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NBIO. Could not find any sources apart from the promo interviews and film-gossip websites. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Television, India, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 21:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am sorry but she had various lead/significant roles in notable television works and therefore appears to meet WP:NACTOR. Some of the coverage on the page and available online is in TOI and MSN, for example, which, without being top rate journalism, is a bit above promo and gossip in my view. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the TOI and MSN sources - see WP:TOI and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of the sources on the page are definitely 'reliable' (and I'm struggling to find any potential sources for her which aren't puff pieces), which is still problematic. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The creator just added many references, from YouTube and other Un-RS sources. Agreeing with the nominator, the subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:NACTOR -- QuadriSyedSahab(T · C 09:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does she fail WP:NACTOR when she had significant roles in notable television productions? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, We might not know the standards and we would request you to keep the page altering any information which you think is not relevant to Wiki norms. We would also like to cooperate with you if you have any questions related to the Content. Kindly, Please refrain from deleting the Page as you all know we have did our ROI and spent lot of time in maintaining the Page. Hope you understand on humanitarian ground. Thanks for understanding. Renu214 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Renu214 Do your colleagues also maintain other pages? If so, could you please tell us which ones? Also, you must declare the connection as per WP:PAID policy. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 11:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have not got an opportunity to interact with other wiki authors/users. I am not a pro in this. Learning step by step everyday on editing. Your valuable suggestions are always helpful in learning. Renu214 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a perfect opportunity for you to interact with other wiki authors/users (in fact, you did it just then!). You also said that you would like to cooperate with us, so please kindly do so - by doing these tasks which you have a duty to complete:

Firstly - Have you read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW? Your talk of 'colleagues' implies that you are editing wikipedia on behalf of someone - and you are required to disclose who you are editing Wikipedia for. Please follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID.

Secondly - Please ensure that your colleagues have read WP:PAID, WP:COI, and WP:PEW (and follow the instructions in WP:DCOI and WP:PAID) as well.

Finally - Please confirm when you have completed these tasks.

It is vital that you complete these tasks, regardless of what your employer may say on the matter - as the policies of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation have priority over your employer's instructions here on Wikipedia (and failing to follow them could lead to quite a bit of negative press for yourself and your employer). Thanks for understanding. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 12:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! To share light, I am not doing this for any one's sake. writing is my passion and i have not created this page to be honest. I am just updating the content based on my research. Since, you said this is the perfect time to get valuable information from you all expertise writes and wiki editors, how can i add my newpaper cuttings beacuse they are from 2013 and at that time online archiving was not found. Please help. Renu214 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies for completely misinterpreting your word choice. Anywho, to answer your question - use Template:Cite news (newspapers) or Template:Cite magazine (magazines/newsletters) for those non-online sources.

I would also suggest quoting the important bits of info from these offline sources in the quote parameter of the citations (like |quote=important words from the article go here), think of it as archiving the important details where everyone can see them.

For example,

{{cite news |last=Doe |first=John |title=Thing happens at place! |work=The Placeholder Times |date=1970-12-31 |page=39 |quote=The thing happened at place yesterday}}

. Hopefully that helps :) 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 17:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
One paragaraph promo database bio	1. "Debjani Modak Biography by nettv4u". nettv4u.com.
Promo about series, annouces subject has joined, nothing meeting WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak has replaced Pavani Reddy in 'Rasaathi' Jan 27 2020". The Times of India. 27 January 2020.
"Exclusive Interview" fails WP:IS	3. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". NTV News Interview.
Duplicate of #3 above	4. ^ Jump up to:a b "Actress Debjani Modak Schooling details in news channel interview". SumanTV Entertainment news.
Does not mention subject, article is titled differently from ref, may be incorrect link	5. ^ "Debjani's Bengali Movie 'Knock Out' debut 2013". Times of India.
Interview Fails WP:IS	6. ^ "Debjani's ANDHRA JYOTHI TS 21 OCTOBER 2021 newspaper interview". NTNB NEWSPAPERS.
Nothing meeting SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	7. ^ "Colors Bangla launches 'Aponjon'- a Tale of love and revenge, 26th June 2015". The Times of India. 26 June 2015.
Mill enterntainment news about quiting a project.	8. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 26 April 2023.
Duplicate of #8 above	9. ^ "Actress Debjani Modak quits Tamil daily soap 'Vaanathai Pola' 26th April 2023". The Times of India. 23 November 2023.
Film trailer, nothing SIGCOV about the subject.	10. ^ "Knock Out official theatrical Trailer HD 2013". YouTube.

Sources #10-54 in the article are promo refs about media they have been in. Nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Notability is NOTINHERITED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - it appears that sources 8 and 9 were different sources (different URLs, editor probably forgot to edit the `title=`), but source 9 is just a gossip listicle anyway (published by WP:TOI). 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All the sources on the page are either outright promotional or are covered in WP:NEWSORGINDIA promotionalness, and I'm struggling to find a properly reliable source about her myself. Granted, she has had top billing roles in a couple of serials, but I'm not sure how notable those serials are, and, ofc, WP:NOTINHERITED, so probably doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. 🔥HOTm̵̟͆e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as explained in the chart above, nothing is usable as a source. I don't find anything we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be a beginner but there are so many pages out there who does not have proper reference added but still no complaints from wiki so called editors and users. I don't understand this partiality sorry to say but I am little bit biased with the kind of proceedings happening here. As experts, someone will expect the required changes to be made to the page encouraging the fellow authors/writers but its completely out of my knowledge, why would somebody is so particular to delete the page. respectfully, please do what is according to the norms and what you think best and kindly, keep the norms and do it for all the pages and Thank you for your time. 146.146.7.1 (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2024 (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. ✗plicit 04:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Álvarez

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

BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Source in article is IMDB and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found name mentions, listings, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few sources. Might meet WP:NACTOR. Coverage about her private life and how much she has changed since she played a nerdy teenager in a 2003-2004 telenovela also exists. So Redirect to Alegrijes y Rebujos#Main. Not opposed to keep. Rather opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article subject's location, it seems unlikely that she would receive English-language coverage unless she attains international fame, which is not a threshold for notability. WP:NONENG sources are perfectly valid. I ran the sources recently added to the article through a browser translator, and they appear to discuss her directly and in-depth, and I see no reason to doubt their reliability or independence. Left guide (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The El Heraldo source is the only notability-establishing source I could find. There are other sources mentioning her, but they either lack significant coverage or are primary sources (as is the case with all the "look at where the actors of this kids show are now" articles). I don't think a possible NACTOR case justifies keeping an article that can't be expanded beyond a stub, and redirecting to one show seems arbitrary. Mach61 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan-O

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Most statements in article are sourced to the author's website, another to an article that mentions him, and another to IMDB. Searching only turns up results for "Dan O Seasoning" and the General Hospital writer, Dan O'Connor. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain. While it once seemed that this guy (and especially his unusual business model) might be going somewhere, he does seem to have faded away. However, he seems no less notable than, say, the Hollywood Freeway chickens or Ayalahi, to name two. Minturn (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as one reliable source does not an article make. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the current sources, the first is from the website of the company owned by the subject, the second is independent but lacks depth at only a couple of short sentences, and the third is a database. A BEFORE check doesn't come up with much else. Let'srun (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No SIGCOV and GNG. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2024 (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. BusterD (talk) 19:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosemary Lillu

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the previous nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosemary Lillu, BLP fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Film, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as when I !voted on the 19th of January, no sourcing, not enough to build an article with found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1st Afd was closed...today. That's what I call a speedy renomination...-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note about the Times of India: The Sources noticeboard says not to use it for political subject matters for example, which the Indian task force clarifies: "Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable". Consensus is that concern about retributed coverage exists, but not to the point of making it unreliable.. And I was convinced by keep !votes at last Afd, so I'm going to say keep-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the source is reliable, the article is an interview that lacks sufficient analysis/commentary to be considered a secondary source. (I believe it was discussed in-depth in the previous AfD.) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, in the previous afd you discarded the TOI as non-reliable not as non-secondary. Also, it will probably be difficult not to repeat things that were said then since it was closed as no-consensus. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe reliability comes first. There was no need to determine if it was a primary/secondary source(during the previous AfD) when I deemed it unreliable per WP:TOI. Also, the mentioned article is not a film review but an interview. Despite being generally unreliable per WP:TOI, if you feel it needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and consider it reliable in this case, it still does not count towards GNG due to being an interview with not enough commentary/ analysis. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but this not my personal opinion: it seems to be the (no) consensus at Perennial Sources (WP:TOI) and among members of Indian task force. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just one thing: The full quote of the WP:TOI you are citing goes "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." And the source is "yellow" (that is, just under reliable....). (That's very very far from being "generally unreliable" and the Indian task force clarifies why.) Best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point and I want to clarify that interviews with not enough commentary or analysis are not considered secondary sources. Therefore, they do not contribute towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of courtesy pinging other participants to ~~today's~~ previous Afd @The Wordsmith:@Liz, Daniel, Seraphimblade, Rublamb, and Mischellemougly:.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough reliable sources to meet notability. Note that interviews can count toward notability where there are several interviews. Rublamb (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rublamb: Can you please mention here the specific Wikipedia guideline or policy(not essay) that states interviews can contribute to notability, particularly when there are multiple interviews? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. From WP:INTERVIEWS: "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability." Rublamb (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Daniel (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-metroplus/a-filmy-dream/article29474707.ece	Is an interview but with enough analysis/commentary.			✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20230911014500/https://www.deshabhimani.com/women/rosemary/1116116	Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary.			✘ No
https://malayalam.samayam.com/malayalam-cinema/celebrity-news/designer-rosemary-lillu-opens-up-about-her-line-art-tribute-to-mohanlals-romantic-movies/articleshow/77263370.cms?story=11	Article is an interview with not enough analysis/commentary.			✘ No
https://www.vanitha.in/celluloid/movies/rosemary-lillu-designer-fb-post.html			Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject	✘ No
https://www.aninews.in/news/business/business/shortstube-ads-bags-google-partner-badge-status-becomes-a-part-of-the-first-ever-indian-youtube-marketing-partner-agencies-listed-on-google20221021121816/			Passing mention	✘ No
https://cinemadaddy.com/rosemary-lillu-the-lady-who-conquers-mollywood-with-her-art/		Posted by "WEBADMIN". No editorial oversight. Similar to other unreliable entertainment websites from India		✘ No
https://www.asianetnews.com/special-entertainment/rose-mary-lillu-about-poster-design-qrwuj3			Article is about a Facebook note posted by the subject	✘ No
https://reviewbyparivartan.com/neru-box-office-collection-day-10-sacnilk/		Blog website that discusses the Neru Box Office Collection Day 10 from another unreliable website 'Sacnilk'	passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I would like to note here that there are no policies backing the above 'keep' votes. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For policy based input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : 2 new secondary sources has been introduced into the article. One from The Hindu and the other from Malayala Manorama.The Manorama article is a 6 sentence article written from journalist point of view. Clearly passed Notability. Mischellemougly (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the Hindu article, it contributes to the GNG. Six lines on Malayala Manorama do not provide significant coverage but rather a summary of what the article/interview is about. We would still require one more reliable and independent source with significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Even though I am convinced with the news sources provided in the article meeting notability, just to convince Jeraxmoira🐉, I have introduced another detailed secondary news article from Times of India Malayalam into the page, which is written only from journalist point of view and its around a 500-600 word article. Further passes Notability Mischellemougly (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD, you need to convince other editors rather than yourself. The latest source you added reads like an interview and falls under the category of primary rather than a secondary source. Interviews by the subject are not secondary but primary. I believe, till now, we only have the subject's interviews as sources with significant coverage WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The new Times of India Malayalam that was introduced recently is not an interview article. Its entirely written from journalist point of view. Here the journalist is Bibin Babu and the article doesnt even ask any question or quotes anything that the subject said. Its entirely based on facts about the subject from journalist point of view and is purely a secondary news source. Mischellemougly (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the language and Google Translate shows a paragraph in the first person with a prompt for each paragraph. Also interprets 'she' as 'he.' If what you are saying is true, and if someone familiar with the language can confirm the same, then I believe you have WP:THREE now. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am very much familiar with the malayalam language and thats why I said its not an interview article and its a secondary news source. The english translator by google is translating it very wrong. As you said it interprets "She" as "he" , but the true fact is no she or he is mentioned in that particular part in malayalam. It is actually written as a statement by the journalist. The article is fully from jounalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, per nom and above source eval, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. [3] does not have independent SIGCOV showing WP:N. The other ref mentioned above [4] is an promo interview, "Rosemary opens up to Samayam Malayalam about how she came up with such an idea". BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 19:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : There are more reliable and secondary news sources other than the 2 mentioned above by Timothy, which was mentioned in my keep tag and agreed upon by the nominator itself. Mischellemougly (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to clarify that I didn't agree with you. I only mentioned that you may have WP:THREE. My nomination remains unchanged, favoring deletion. Similarly, the source eval is only reflects my assessment. Both WP:THREE and WP:Interview are essays, not official policies and I believe interviews are considered as primary sources by policy. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Your previous comments justifies one article passes GNG and you mentioned the other Malayalam language article (Times of India Malayalam) which you are unaware of as you are not well versed in that language. Both the articles are neither interviews. Both written by jounalists and are secondary sources fully written based on journalist point of view. Mischellemougly (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments and source eval are based on my understanding of the sources provided and does not reflect the views of other editors. While I still agree that the one mentioned on the eval passes GNG from my understanding of WP:INTERVIEW, it is not backed by any direct policy, so other editors may have differing opinions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with Jeraxmoira and think that the Manorama source provides significant coverage, but searches for her name in both English and Malayam find nothing other than what has already been mentioned in this AfD. Maybe if one of the two sources was a really detailed magazine profile, I'd vote keep, but two marginally usable newspaper sources isn't enough to establish notabiliy. Mach61 (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant Ranyal

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

I couldn't find in-depth coverage of the actor showing he meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. No obvious WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim or references for notability. Llajwa (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Frederick Vining

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

This person probably existed, but it seems like they weren't notable. We have fondagrave.com and a vintage photo from a book of vintage photos, which doesn't substantially cover the subject of the article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Theatre. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:17, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long paragraph about him in the DNB article about his brother George Vining. The article is probably worth retaining since it can be expanded (which I intend to do, since I created the WP article George Vining). AtticTapestry (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Material added regarding his reputation and material from his obituary.Leutha (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page has been improved with references that seem to show he satisfies the requirement for notability (Note: Find a Grave, although it's generally accurate, I find, is a bit like IMDb, and not accepted as a source on this Wikipedia). Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Dababase entry	1. Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining". Library of Nineteenth-Century Photography. Paul Frecker. Retrieved 7 October 2021.
Source appears to be society Who's Who style promo bio from 1824. Fails WP:RS. Subject is mentioned, not named, brief information, no SIGCOV about subject, doesn't use the subject's first first name.	2. ^ Jump up to:a b c The Biography of the British Stage: Being Correct Narratives of the Lives of All the Principal Actors & Actresses .. Interspersed with Original Anecdotes and Choice and Illustrative Poetry. To which is Added, a Comic Poem, Entitled "The Actress.". London: Sherwood, Jones & Co. 1824.
Blog post/database entry	3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Frecker, Paul. "Frederick Vining (1790-1871)". paulfrecker.com. Paul Frecker.
Find a grave	4. ^ "Frederick Augustus Vining (1790-1871) - Find A..." www.findagrave.com. Find a Grave. Retrieved 7 October 2021.

Nothing from WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. #2 above comes the closest, but a single source from 1824 does meet WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 12:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG and criteria 3 of ANYBIO. He has an article in the ODNB and in Boase's Modern English Biography:[5] [6]. These are the standard biographical dictionaries. There is a biography in Roach, listed here: [7]. Profile in The Theatrical Times: [8]. Obituary in The Era, 11 June 1871, p 11: [9]. Both cited by Boase. There is other coverage: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. He was "well known": [17]. There is a lot of other coverage, including, amongst other things, coverage of his performances, and even a garotte attack on him in 1867, in the British Newspaper Archive. Our article already even cites his obituary in the Birmingham Daily Gazette: [18]. A newspaper article from 1871 does not become a "blog post/database entry" just because it is quoted on a website. There is no indication that there is anything wrong with the Biography of the British Stage, which is cited by other sources (including 40 articles in the ODNB) that are certainly reliable. Praise, even when very enthusiastic, is not the same thing as promotion. It certainly is significant coverage, and it would be perfectly obvious which Mr Vining the book is talking about, even if that fact was not confirmed by this: [19]. James500 (talk) 01:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given sources James500 has provided. Seems to fulfill GNG. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This actor is notable enough to have several reviews written about him and, although not all favourable, it is not clear where the full breadth of information about him is published if not on Wikipedia. Tithon (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A scholar or author will find this article a godsend when writing a footnote. Just because he's deeply historically obscure, doesn't lessen his notability. MisterWizzy (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2024 (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 12:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ronzio

AfDs for this article:

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

The article subject still fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG same as last time this was at AfD. A WP:BEFORE yielded no significant coverage, just brief mentions in books. Although the American Air Museum source appears to be new, it is apparently a user-generated source written by an author with no expertise. The actor has been deceased for over thirty years and more coverage is unlikely to come up. The Night Watch (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 15:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator's assessment of the American Air Museum source and I have been unable to find anything beyond a passing credit or phrase about his role as Litmus. Officer-turned-actor sounds like an interesting life story but we've got to wait for others to write about it before there's enough for a Wikipedia article. — Bilorv (talk) 16:28, 4 February 2024 (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) TarnishedPath^talk 15:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Paterson

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ENT or WP:GNG. It has been in CAT:NN for 14 years; hopefully we can now resolve this. Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies NACTOR with main roles in Dreams for Life and Happy New [20], the latter of which had reviews in Agenda, A3 and The Herald Sun in addition to the linked Age article already in the refs. And a significant role in Dog's Head Bay (as David Paterson). Also a significant role in God, the Devil and the True History of Mankind with short reviews in The Age and Herald Sun but that might not reach the bar of notability without more coverage being available. He was also a big bad in the second series of Beastmaster but online coverage of that series is severely lacking. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2024 (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)} 02:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme above Llajwa (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE searching for the subject name showed nothing from IRS with SIGCOV, a review and search for Dreams for Life which seems to be their most significant role, turns up no SIGCOV for the individual. BLPs require strong sourcing, and notability is not inherited.

The only source duffbeerforme provides [21] is a database record of an event, their rationale fails per NOTINHERITED. Llajwa is just a me too vote. If WP:THREE sources are added to the article that meet WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth, ping me. // Timothy :: talk 02:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional analysis of the available reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Tim's boilerplate vote is about the contents of BLP, not their existence. NACTOR is part of NBIO so a pass of the former is not a fail of the latter. Tim dismisses the above link I provided as merely a database record but fails to look at what is contained in the record

Review: Bill Perrett, Agenda, 13 June 2004, 23

Review: Helen Thomson, A3, 8 June 2004, 8

Review: Kate Herbert, The Herald Sun, 16 June 2004, 62

When combined with the also mentioned Age article it shows that this production is notable and as Mr. Paterson has a significant role in the production it counts toward NACTOR section about significant roles in notable production. This is not a NOTINHERITED failure but a direct application of the relevant SNG.

A look at the article for Dreams for Life (which if all else had been found wanting would be a good alternative to deletion target so no deletion would be required) shows that it too is notable and that Mr. Paterson has a significant role (as acknowledged above by Tim above). So there is another role that directly addresses that same NACTOR criteria. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Notability is not inherited. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Database record, no info except photo	1. "David Paterson". United Agents.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject	2. ^ "Silverchair - Emotion Sickness (Official Video)". YouTube. 28 September 2012. Archived from the original on 19 December 2021.
Official video on Youtube, fails WP:IS, no WP:SIGCOV about the subject	3. ^ The chicken or the egg?
	From above
Database record for event, no info about subject, has links to other subjects, notability is not inherited	https://www.ausstage.edu.au/pages/event/65671

BLPs require strong sourcing, not just editor opinions. // Timothy :: talk 03:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Oops, sorry, forgot that it has been confirmed at Deletion Review that editors can ignore the existence of any relevant source that exists but is not currently refbombed into the page. That and they can ignore any relevant notability policy if it doesn't suit their arguments. Oh, and your source review sucks, maybe check it again. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2024 (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 Dolly Skilbeck. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Barker (actress)

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

Minor mentions in coverage, but I couldn't establish that she meets WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:18, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dolly Skilbeck, her only significant role. She fails WP:NACTOR, which generally requires multiple significant performances, but 169 episodes is nothing to sneeze at. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2024 (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)} 02:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dolly Skilbeck. BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and BEFORE found nothing with WP:SIGCOV from WP:IS WP:RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. I considered a merge, but the sourced info is already in the target, I did not see proper sourcing for the remainder. There isn't even an IMDB EL in the article, I added it to the target. // Timothy :: talk 01:51, 9 February 2024 (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 16:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trupti Toradmal

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. She has not played any significant roles. The provided sources consist mainly of gossip and interviews. I couldn't find any GNG-worthy sources in BEFORE search. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thee seems to be more than a few passing mentions about this person [22] and [23] for example. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b The first source, published by the DNA WebTeam, doesn't have any specific author mentioned. Given that articles from Desk Teams are often part of press releases, it should not be considered a reliable source. The second source is an interview, which is a primary source. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not yet notable in her industry - she has a long career ahead of her and can be written up when she makes her mark. Llajwa (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. Not yet notable. IMDB can track her if she ever makes a mark. MisterWizzy (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2024 (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 Lily (film). Discussion about renaming the target, if needed, can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 00:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sivam M

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

Not yet notable per WP:FILMMAKER. A WP:BEFORE search for his name in English and Telugu only turns up routine coverage of the film, which claims to be the first children's film released nationally in India. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Sources call him Sivam not Sivam M. ~~What I suggest is to create Lily (film) and then move the page Sivam M to Sivam (director) and redirect the page to Lily (film).~~ I can do it if such is the path chosen.Sources tend to demonstrate the film may be notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-->Changing to Delete now that the page about the film exists, and considering the name is not correct (which would have led to double redirect, I think). Simpler solution. When he has other films, Sivam (director) can be created.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The film is banking on the term pan Indian release for marketing purposes. With one film under his belt, he is not notable as of now. DareshMohan (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the film was/is notable, that could be OK. ~~But you seem to believe it’s not.~~ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to page for the film Lily if someone creates that - but at this stage of his career he does not seem to be notable enough for his own page yet (and the sources here clearly don't support one). Llajwa (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For information. I rebooted the draft today. See draft’s talk page also, with input from DareshMohan.... maybe a merge of both can be okayish..... if someone wants to move it to Main, it’s a click away. And then yes, redirect?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that Lily will not meet the requirements for notability, given that it seems like it hasn't had much success. Llajwa (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Success, apparently no. But it received coverage for its planned pan Indian release (even if so far, it's not pan at all). Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Llajwa: @Mushy Yank: The Lily (film) film has 2 notable reviews. DareshMohan (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The film article presently exists at Lily (film); more discussion around whether or not the proposed redirect is reasonable would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting might be a problem as the current name of the page is wrong. See above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:55, 31 January 2024 (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. Moving to draft per consensus. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hutchens

AfDs for this article:

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

Ranges from press releases, "community contributor"s, and other non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources. Aside from possible WP:UPE, idependent/reliable sources here only mention Bill Hutchens per WP:ROUTINE. TLA (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, United Kingdom, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that he was in many films that have articles and references suggest that it should be kept. Bduke (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the criteria in WP:NACTOR he needs to have some leading roles, not any roles. All these roles could have been non-leading. I will see if I can do some further research in this and post a vote later. Royal88888 (talk) 01:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. after a review of his credits, I do not think he meets WP:NACTOR, but he meets WP:BASIC. In particular, these 2 articles here would work towards notability: Shokya.com and newexpressnews.com. Royal88888 (talk) 07:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft; the article indicates that he was "on the set" of a 2023 production, and had another in post-production, apparently, since 2019. If new coverage arises on the subject's involvement with either of these, the article can be submitted to restoration to mainspace. BD2412 T 01:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:00, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refbombed spam lacking coverage in independent reliable sources. Probable UPE with a good chance of socking. Two sources mentioned above are rehashes of press releases so lack independence. Just being in films is not enough, needs significant roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see evidence of multiple significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft per BD2412. If the actor is on set then perhaps this can worked on in draft. TarnishedPath^talk 13:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify. Has been in multiple films, with a leading role in upcoming film Draft:Joachim and the Apocalypse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

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

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