Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

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

The result was keep. Article has changed, discussion has clear direction and no "deleters". (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instagram face

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

"Instagram Face" is something very abstract and unverifiable, ie. two reliable sources may define it differently. It may also be inherently derogatory, as it is based on negative opinions about women's appearances. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something best discussed on the talk page. Thriley (talk) 01:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Since these are reasons to delete the article entirely, I would think this is where it belongs. This is a genuine question, I've never nominated an article for deletion before, and I am probably doing at least two things wrong. With Love from Cassie Schebel (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Popular culture, Medicine, Technology, and Internet. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: Well the "Instagram face" is a thing, [3] and [4], but the wiki article seems to tell a different story. Should be sent back to draft to sort this out, topic seems notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft, This is a topic I was able to find some sources on, so it's optimal for this to stay in draftspace until its ready for main space. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely is a topic. [5] [6] If it needs more depth or a rebalancing, I'm happy to take that on. I note that all the sources listed on this page are written by women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfstevens (talk • contribs)
Keep Plenty of coverage in solid outlets. There is no reason for this to go to draft space with the citations it currently has. Thriley (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Thriley. 12u (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify For clearing up the remaining issues. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are the issues that cannot be fixed through normal editing? If we send it to draft it risks being pruned after inactivity which would amount to backdoor deletion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Thriley (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the reliable sources news search at the top and you'll see plenty of reliable sources give this significant coverage. https://www.wired.com/story/goopcore-body-horror-age-of-instagram-face/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/5c237a34-7a47-4deb-a5b4-a23e77cc88f7 etc. Dream Focus 21:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, divided between those editors arguing for Draftification and those advocating Keep as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've drafted a rewrite using 6 reliable sources including those mentioned in this discussion. It's now two paragraphs with a clear scope. The sources cover a span of about 6 years. I've used named references and welcome other editors to expand where appropriate, especially Lfstevens. @Oaktree b, Samoht27, and ArvindPalaskar: you all voted draftify, does it still seem too far off the mark or is this an acceptable start? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is enough to make this page a safe Keep. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems properly verifiable and is now sourced fairly well; notable topic with interest from major publications. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see the article has been improved since the nomination, which moots out the "draftify" into purgatory !votes. There are reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG. As for the original nomination, i see the only valid ground of the nomination would have been whether the subject was "unverifiable," but it is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on present citations and also additional coverage exists which I have added: The Zoe Report and Tablet Magazine.Hkkingg (talk) 07:52, 1 June 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 23:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M. L. Ashwini

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Was never elected into a political office that makes one inherently notable TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 20 May 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 23:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kriti Singh Debbarma

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

Fails WP:NPOL, subject is only a contesting in the imminent election and has not occupied any NPOL-able office. These sources are WP:ROUTINE and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL as they all say almost the same things, her father being a three-time MP and her mother being a two-time Congress MLA, and they also do not provide sufficient WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG, also, notability is not inherited. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Royalty and nobility, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another example of WP:BLP1E, the subject fails WP:NPOL as she was never elected as an MP or MLA. She received media coverage because of the general election in India in 2024. GrabUp - Talk 15:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is a good article on a living person

please keep thanks Briannemartindale (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as princess and politician is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 12:35, 23 May 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 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found only one potentially WP:RS online, but that is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The actress is also not eligible for any of the WP:NACTOR criteria (no significant roles in notable films or significant contributions to the field). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. The page needs improvements, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 significant roles in notable productions? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isidingo/Maggie Webster; The Story of an African Farm/Tant Sannie. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that her role in Isidingo is significant, it is one of many small parts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ ; https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2013-07-09-isidingo-gets-a-15-year-rewind/ ; https://www.dstv.com/kyknet/af-za/blad/desember-2017/vat-n-vet-kans-om-gewig-te-verloor/nuus ;https://www.republikein.com.na/nuus/vat-n-vet-kans-2018-09-07... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The South African article above was written by a creative content writer with a versatile writing background and is a promotional fluff piece with claims like her talent transcends borders, artistic prowess extends beyond acting and multifaceted career serves as an inspiration to aspiring artists. Creative writing indeed. The others are mentions and the ones used in the article are WP:UGC. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 GPTZero finds that at least sections from https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ were written by AI. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent doesn't surprise me. This is the third or so article I have come across published in The South African that was promo, with the others being written by marketing/PR professionals so likely paid for. S0091 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 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. Star Mississippi 02:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Wells

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

I have been unable to find sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The single source cited in the article is a Wordpress blog. She doesn't seem to me to meet WP:NACTOR either; Coronation Street is a notable show but her role in it was not significant, Kisses at Fifty is one episode of an anthology drama. Overall, she doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Chocmilk03 (talk) 04:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she does have a Wikipedia page, most of her roles seem to be minor, except Get Some In! in which she has acted in 21 episodes, but as a minor role. She doesn't meet the notability criterion. Wikilover3509 (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kisses at Fifty was a one-off TV play, but an important one, where she had an important role. It was one of the best-known plays in Play for Today, and the BBC repeated it quite recently. Here role in Get Some In! wasn't that minor, she appears in the list of characters, and in the box at the start (and I did not put her there). PatGallacher (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to pass WP:NACTOR for 2 significant roles in notable productions. More sources wouldn't hurt. I would have suggested a redirect to Kisses at Fifty, but her role in Get Some In! is also rather significant. Worst case scenario, that might be a solution, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:54, 28 May 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 Withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artha Woods

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

Fails WP:NPOL and also no sources to establish WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Women, Georgia (U.S. state), and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found some coverage for her [7] [8]. She seems notable and I'm sure there's more sources for her in Newspapers.com. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The obituaries [9] [10] and this article [11] are significant reliable secondary sources for WP:GNG. Flurrious (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources provided by MoviesandTelevisionFan and Flurrious. Sal2100 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:52, 24 May 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. Malinaccier (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blessing Ejiofor

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NBASKETBALL as they do not meet any of the criteria, or WP:GNG as the sources are insufficient to establish that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Nigeria, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I contribute more on this? SusuGeo (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Any editor may work to improve articles, even those that have been nominated for deletion. If you can demonstrate that the person is notable for some reason (you can see my reasons for questioning this below), then you might be able to prevent the article from being deleted! Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ [see comment of June 3] unless some reason can be keeping can be located. Normally I would point out that the nominator did not mention having searched for sources, as required by WP:BEFORE. However, this is a college basketball player, and the sources in which you would expect her to be mentioned are probably news sources. A quick search just using the "news" tool above appeared to show minimal coverage: university profiles focused on one of their student athletes, and a couple of basketball scores. Certainly nothing currently in the article demonstrates notability: there are thousands of college basketball players, some of whom are notable, but merely being one doesn't seem to indicate notability. I admit to some uncertainty: is it usual for all Vanderbilt Commodores players to have articles, even those who weren't part of the team for very long and who don't appear to have been primary contributors to their team? It's possible that there's some policy I don't know of here, or some other reason for notability I didn't think of, but it isn't indicated yet. P Aculeius (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius Usually the majority of college players don't have an article. The editor in question seems to have been creating articles of players from Africa rather than Vanderbilt players. There is no inherent notability from playing for Vanderbilt or any other basketball team, college teams or otherwise. All players must simply pass WP:GNG. There are some sources below that have been uncovered since your !vote if you are interested. Alvaldi (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Playing professionally would tend to make her more notable, but if the only thing to add is that she's done so, then it may not be enough. I don't discount local sources, but merely being interviewed by a student newspaper, however editorially independent it may be, doesn't confer notability. The question is whether she's done something to bring her to attention at some significant level. For instance, being a major contributor to a championship team, or mentioned (not just in passing, or noting the basketball scores) in news sources with a greater reach than college papers. Sporting figures profiled in national papers or similar sources may be notable. I'm not foreclosing the possibility of notability; just that so far it doesn't seem to be here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This subject doesn't appear to have nearly enough to meet the WP:GNG. I found 1 paragraph of coverage at [[12]], and the subject was interviewed by 60 Minutes [[13]]. It is a close call though, so please ping me if more sources are found. This source provides depth but is quite local [[14]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also [[15]]. Let'srun (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that locality of sources has no bearing on whether they go towards GNG or not. Proposals to discount local sources have been repeatedly rejected in the past. Regarding other sources, This has a few paragraphs about her. There is also this feature in the The Daily Athenaeum. It is the student newspaper at West Virginia University, something we generally don't consider going towards GNG, but it states in its article that it is editorially independent from the university and does not have a faculty adviser. I'm not sure that changes anything. There is also this feature in relations to the 60 minutes interview. Alvaldi (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that since 2022, she has played professionally in Spain and France so there might be some sources there. She is also a member of the Nigerian national team which could indicate that there might be sources about her in the Nigerian media. Alvaldi (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alvaldi, we have a strong consensus against considering any student papers as contributory to notability, regardless of their editorial independence: However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions. JoelleJay (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay I've usually never consider student papers being contributory to notability but the part about it being editorial independent cast a few doubts in my mind with this particular paper. Thanks for the clearup. Alvaldi (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SI article is not independent and potentially not RS, as it was written by a WVU sophomore for the Mountaineers Now "FanNation" blog section of SI. JoelleJay (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are talking about the one Alvaldi posted? I posted a different one above that one. Let'srun (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: in addition to the WP:NBASKETBALL criteria mentioned above, WP:NCOLLATH may be relevant here. However, while the article has some improvements since this discussion began, I still don't see any evidence of notability. The subject doesn't seem to have won any titles or participated in any championships or tournaments of note, and the only details provided in any of the sources describe nothing more than a brief biography focused on her playing basketball at various schools or being a member of various teams or playing in certain places. Nothing that would naturally bring her to national attention, or distinguish her from thousands of other college or minor professional athletes. P Aculeius (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on presented citations 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 this person will meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO.Hkkingg (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't had a chance to look at the other sources, but the first one you posted is from Vanderbilt (the school she played for at the time the article was written), and as such isn't independent. Let'srun (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to what Let’srun said. Also, I saw these sources you just mentioned before I made this nomination and they just can’t be used to establish GNG, subject already said WP:NBASKETBALL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still removing the primary source, we have 4 other sources. I stand by my Keep vote. Again you don't need to protect your nomination and argue every voter that opposes your nomination. this is not a good practice. Let the admins decide.Hkkingg (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg This is not a matter of protecting my nomination (that sounds weird) or whatever, this is a deletion discussion, and this is a matter of letting you know what the policies and guidelines involved really is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of those sources is independent. The first is from Vanderbilt, the second from WVU recruitment affiliate WV Sports Now (written by WVU students/employees), the third from the Vanderbilt student newspaper, and the fourth from the WVU student newspaper. The remaining French source is routine transactional news. JoelleJay (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my above arguments. I don't see the sustained SIGCOV in multiple independent secondary sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is unusual in that there are several editors here who have put in time to locate sources but they haven't given their opinion on whether or not this article should be Kept, Deleted or maybe moved to Draft space if it looks like they have a promising professional career ahead of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This subject was covered extensively in this SI cover story from 2020 [[16]], and while somewhat local this story from the Patterson Times is dedicated to her [[17]]. Ejiofor was also featured on 60 Minutes in 2020. As such, we have multiple independent, reliable sources providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject with which to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The SI story is a single event, so we would need sources showing sustained SIGCOV to meet N. The (highly local) Paterson Times source fails YOUNGATH and does not count towards GNG, and the fact she was interviewed on 60 Minutes is also irrelevant as it is not secondary independent coverage. If the only good material we have on her is from a flurry of minor pieces regarding one event in 2020, and nothing else substantial since then, we really don't have an NPOV basis for an article. JoelleJay (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with the quality, significance, or relevance of the sources. My question is, what is the subject notable for? Her personal life doesn't establish notability, and being a member of college basketball teams or minor professional basketball teams doesn't establish notability. Being interviewed by sports magazines or similar sources doesn't make her notable. What is it that elevates her above the level of a good but not particularly outstanding young athlete? Has she done something unusual or important that would still be worth mentioning twenty, forty, sixty years down the road? Right now the only specifics about her basketball career, besides a list of teams that she's played for, are that she scored 28 points for the Vanderbilt Commodores over the course of twenty-two games in one season: an average of 1.27 points per game played. In any given year, there are literally thousands of college basketball players with comparable records. P Aculeius (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the references above which establish notability. The SI cover story is one and the other pieces of independent and routine local coverage provided above can count toward the second as expected by GNG. WP:NBIO clearly states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 01:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what is she notable for? She's not notable for having been mentioned or even interviewed by multiple publications. These sources would help if they said anything about her that would be notable; do they? As a basketball player, she's got to be notable for doing something important in basketball, and other than a list of teams she's been on, all that we know about her basketball career is that she scored 28 points one year. That's not notable! Virtually every starting player on every college basketball team in the country scores more than that over the course of a season, and they're not all notable. What sets her apart from thousands of non-notable players? It can't all come down to the number of publications that have mentioned her. P Aculeius (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete P Aculeius and Vanderwaalforces are right. I had to google about her and there was nothing notable to show off as per WP:GNG. A school university website cant be use as a source as well.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 15:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep: according to Nigeria women's national basketball team, Blessing Ejiofor is a member of the team that won the 2023 Women's Afrobasket tournament, an international tournament held every two years, and Nigeria has won the last four tournaments. The team also qualified for this summer's Olympic Games at the 2024 FIBA Women's Olympic Qualifying Tournaments. Now, I don't have enough expertise with the subject to be sure I can identify and cite which sources are appropriate for these, but if Ejiofor is a member of a championship team and (probably) the 2024 Nigerian Olympic basketball team, that might seem to be enough to establish notability. That and what's already in the article would seem to be an even better bet. But someone with more expertise with these tournaments should add this to the article. P Aculeius (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about adding a biography without a reliable source. If she was a member of a championship team. Does that means all members should have a stand alone article without providing sources nor meeting WP:GNG. A Wikipedia page is not a reliable source to why a person should have a stand alone article which you are already diverting to. So pointing those blue link because you found her there still doesn't make her notable. She falls under the category of Too soon. Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my comment, nowhere did I say that Wikipedia was a source for her notability. I pointed at those articles because if the statements made or implied are correct, then she is probably at least minimally notable, and some of the sources cited in those articles could and should be added here. I deferred doing so to someone with more familiarity with the type of source being listed, as those sources are beyond my realm of expertise. I've said all along that the sources aren't what make someone notable or non-notable: it's the information those sources can be used to verify.

Whether being a member of a championship basketball team or a national Olympic basketball team is sufficient to demonstrate notability, alone or in combination with what's already in the article is a matter of opinion. But I suspect it is, if the sources can be cited by someone with more experience in this field. Since this wasn't previously discussed and isn't currently in the article, I think it potentially changes things. It provides a concrete basis for claiming notability that was lacking before, even though this material needs to be substantiated. However, deleting the article before this has been done would be premature. P Aculeius (talk) 07:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have the article but can't find significant coverage on google. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:26, 4 June 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 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice J. Buah

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Council of State members are not inherently notable and there’s not enough source to establish GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Ghana. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 26 May 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 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. Star Mississippi 16:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hernández-Mats

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

Prod declined. Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. She is a teacher and a leader in a local union who was chosen as a major party's nominee for governor's runningmate in 2022. It appears that the Miami Herald wrote up one in-depth piece on her during the campaign and there are other WP:ROUTINE articles relating to the election and the Crist ticket that do not cover her in significant depth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Florida. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of coverage about her as a union leader. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election. I reviewed the available coverage and it's either of the Crist campaign or it's WP:ROUTINE coverage of the United Teachers of Dade, quoting her incidentally to her role as president in the process of coverage focusing on other issues (such as the decertification vote or COVID-19). Redirecting connects this page with what most people may be searching for related to her, and it makes it easier to resurrect the page in the future should she be the subject of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article, as of this comment, contains reliable sources for more than just her selection as lieutenant governor candidate in 2022. GNG is satisfied. Zsinj^Talk 23:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional remarks: Arguments for redirect citing the loss of an election do not take into account the published sources that aren’t dated in the fall of 2022. The Axios, WPLG, and CBS Miami sources have sigcov (she isn’t only mentioned once in passing), are independent, and reliable, and they aren’t even related to the election. Then, when you add the numerous articles pertaining to the election, even if the election itself is every four years, she is the main topic and the sources are national, independent, and reliable.

I will respect the consensus, but would really appreciate being educated on the lack of notability given the cited sources. Zsinj^Talk 23:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those three you mention are independent, yes, but I don't think they are significant coverage. This Axios piece mentions her only in passing. The WPLG source about the arrest is also not in depth. CBS Miami, one is a video I haven't watched, this one is about the union, not her. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate the reply and clarification. This one was curious to me and I enjoy the opportunity to refine my understanding of sigcov. Zsinj^Talk 12:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that only WPLG could even be considered as sigcov, and that's a stretch given how brief the coverage is. The rest are providing significant coverage of the union she leads, but her notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from the union. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Miami video is sigcov in my opinion as it’s 10 minutes in duration and she’s one of two primary focuses. Am I misunderstanding the format as it impacts her notability? I have no question about inheriting notability, just seeing sigcov in multiple sources and curious how that isn’t enough for notability. Zsinj^Talk 12:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for Deletion, to Keep and to Redirect so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's some non-campaign-related coverage of her cited here, but I don't think it's enough to argue she meets GNG. It really just comes down to whether or not you think being interviewed by local news outlets a few times proves that someone is notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As a usual and appropriate outcome for a candidate that loses a statewide election in the United States. I agree with Dclemens1971 and Muboshgu about the state of the existing coverage as not meeting our expectations under GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 Florida gubernatorial election: Per se. Most of the article centers here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:57, 31 May 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 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level does not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. No senior level competition at all. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSKATE Claire 26 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:49, 30 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladlena Sandu

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

A screenwriter and theater director who has directed some non-notable films and documentaries fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. There is no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Almost all currently cited sources are interviews, with a few being unreliable or merely passing mentions. GSS ^💬 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Ukraine. GSS ^💬 15:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 1 June 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 Pirate Party Germany. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anja Hirschel

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Subject currently doesn’t pass NPOL as city councilor, and is only contesting for a seat in the EU Parliament. Sources were insufficient to pass GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could potentially redirect to Pirate Party Germany and add a mention there, but I can't see any coverage meeting BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tagesspiegel and SWP sources are sufficient for general notability. Cortador (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pirate Party Germany: Not much for GNG and NPOL. Considering WP:ATD. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold – We'll have results from the European elections by tomorrow evening. As lead candidate, even of a small party, she is fairly likely to be elected. I know we aren't a crystal ball, but I don't think waiting 24 hours is too much to ask. If it is, my !vote should be read as a keep. Toadspike [Talk] 00:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Toadspike that’s fair enough. Please ping me here if the result comes out too. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:06, 9 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Khalid

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

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Russian. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 2 June 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!} 20:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer M. Adams

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP of a diplomat, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for diplomats. As always, ambassadors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage and analysis about their work in independent third-party sources such as media or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by the government (i.e. her own employer), with absolutely no evidence of WP:GNG-worthy sourcing shown at all.
Further, this was draftspaced last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer M. Adams, before being arbitrarily moved back into mainspace earlier this month on the grounds that her nomination had finally been confirmed by the Senate -- but since the notability bar for ambassadors hinges on GNG-worthy coverage, and not on the simple fact of having been confirmed into the position per se, that should never have happened without the draft being significantly improved with stronger sourcing first.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, England, Maryland, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Ambassadors are not inherently notable, and there's no secondary coverage of her. SportingFlyer T·C 00:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Bearcat: ambassadors don’t automatically become notable just by existing. They have to meet WP:GNG or criteria such as WP:NPOL (if they have a political background). I checked the sources and found they are primary, which can’t establish notability. She fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above, sourcing is not good enough to meet WP:BIO and ambassadors are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 19 May 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Pierre

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria; for example, publication output with 46 citations in total from 4 documents doesn't suggest significant impact in the field. The 'selected publications' seems to be all publications. There is evidence of grants (one in the form of the award), but none seem to sufficient to meet the prize criteria of WP:NBIO. Klbrain (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Science, California, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think that it's far WP:TOOSOON for NPROF for this 2018 PhD, although the citation record is a reasonable start. The scholarships and grants do not carry much weight for notability, although they may help the subject eventually become notable. Little sign of GNG; I thought there might be some coverage of the national geographic connection, but it looks like this is mostly (only?) another early career award/grant. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SPA-created fanpage. Subject has H-index of 4 on 70 total citations. 128.252.210.4 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 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!} 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morakot Sriswasdi

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Uhooep (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It might be more relevant to create a section for Thai ambassadors in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Foreign_Affairs_(Thailand)

Individual ambassadors might not merit a stand alone page.

Wikilover3509 (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Laos, and Thailand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand) per nomination. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge suggestion was made by the first commenter, not the nominator. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Does not meet the notability criteria. --TadejM ^{my talk} 12:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure why we would redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Thailand). If there is no "List of Thai Ambassadors to Laos" or "List of Thai Ambassadors to Austria" then I would just delete without any redirect needed. Uhooep (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Agreed. --TadejM ^{my talk} 09:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge/redirect. Not mentioned at target, and it wouldn't be appropriate to do so. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are plenty of news mentions, but virtually all of it is in the context of her official capacity. She was featured in The Cloud's "Talk With Ambassadors" podcast[18], but that's also mostly about her work. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Oppose redirect to Ministry of Foreign Affairs. LibStar (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is absolutely nothing to merge. it is far more when we consider pages per WP:ATD, hence this article doesnt meet minimal inclusion as if doesnt meet WP:SNG. Please deletion will save us those time. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:46, 31 May 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 00:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamales Lardi

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

Questionable notability and clearly WP:PROMO Amigao (talk) 22:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Women, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more than 50 sources in the article which satisfies the significant coverage criteria of Wikipedia. The article should therefore be kept. Dlarrpi (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't about this person though. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only contributions by Dlarrpi have been to this article.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 31 are the only ones in RS and they aren't about this person. Rest are fluff pieces or PR items... I find nothing beyond Forbes Council member pieces, which don't contribute to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ADMASQ, sourced to PR/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 04:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia:Citation overkill with spammy SEO sources has left it impossible to discern whether there is actually any reliable significant coverage of the subject that might pass WP:GNG. I found this through the academic deletion sorting list but her lecturer/visiting/advisory positions at universities definitely doesn't pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Oaktree b and DE above. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A (P)romotional WP:MILL. Refbomb also incorporated. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The photo portrait of Lardi submitted by single-purpose account Dlarrpi is formidable but cannot compensate for the astonishing lack of independent notability. Our subject is certainly determined, so the future may hold differently. -The Gnome (talk) 17:18, 28 May 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!} 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Salmón

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

This subject fails WP:GNG because she enjoys in-depth coverage mainly by primary sources (the UN -- I also found university coverage of her as its associate but did not add it). In-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources appears not to exist. Separately, she remains far from passing special criteria at WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN as well. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty sure her position would meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN, but regardless, there's been coverage of her since the appointment of both her and her activities (and North Korea being angry at her findings from her work). For example:

I think there's enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Silver seren^C 23:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've reviewed the list and ported it to the article as Further Reading, with hopes it might underpin biographical content in the future. I appreciate your research. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, Law, and Peru. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The UN special rapporteur post seems to satisfay WP:ACADEMIC #7: having an impact outside academia in her academic capacity, in this case being appointed by the UN as a legal expert on human rights. PamD 07:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree that she meets NPOL, but being a UN rapporteur and having regular media coverage meets NACADEMIC #7. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Likely passes GNG with the JoonAng and other newspaper articles listed above. I'm unsure about satisfying academic notability, but there is ample coverage in RS for general notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Has anyone searched in Spanish for Spanish sources. They wouldnt come up if looking in English. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not. I would expect searching in Korean and whatever the Hangul transliteration of her name is would also be fruitful. Silver seren^C 20:29, 23 May 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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zaira Meneses

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

This article does not meet the notability guidelines outlined in WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It was accepted through AfC by an inexperienced user. The reference to The New York Times is merely a passing mention and is behind a paywall. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, and Mexico. Hitro talk 13:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have added in citations and removed statements where I could not find reliable sources. I think the best coverage of her work is here.^[1]^[2]^[3] As noted above, the New York Times article also includes a few sentences on her performance in New York; I think that this is an acceptable citation even if it is behind a paywall or available at ProQuest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mention of the paywall was merely for informational purposes and not to express any opposition to the source. Whether behind a paywall or freely accessible, a good reference is always valuable. Hitro talk 11:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Shaw, Punch (2008-05-24). "Guitarists' concert is well worth the wait". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. pp. A16. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
^ Siegel, Steve (2013-10-06). "Music is family affair for guitarist Eliot Fisk". The Morning Call. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-05-17.
^ Small, Mark (2021). "An Afro-Cuban Legacy". Acoustic Guitar ; San Anselmo. No. 331. pp. 30–33 – via Proquest.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NY Times is a trivial mention; all I find are streaming sites and record label profiles. Nothing to satisfy musical notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of failing general and specific criteria of notability, a fact unshaken by the abundance of what the main contributor wants to pass as sources, which are, actually, trivial listings, passing references, and name-drops; nothing affirming independent notability. And advertorials such as the gem in NY Latin Culture: "As you can see from the picture, Zaira puts a lot of energy into her career and plays with a wide open heart," etc. (The NYT article is explicitly dedicated to "guitarist Eliot Fisk".) Our subject is a classical guitarist like millions of others. And it truly does not help that the article has been created and curated by a kamikaze account. -The Gnome (talk) 17:34, 28 May 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!} 06:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly Mazimhaka

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

Only links to one article being her husband. Searching in google news, google scholar and JSTOR yields very little. Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Rwanda. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof or WP:GNG. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Subject not notable neither does it passes WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article lists authorship of two books. If it is possible to find reliably published reviews of these (not pay-for-play newspaper placements), then WP:AUTHOR might be in play. I did not find any reviews in academic sources but there might be other types of source that my searches didn't cover.

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

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

The result was keep‎. The sources provided by DaffodilOcean have demonstrated notability. (non-admin closure) Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polly Namaye

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

The first source is a blog, the 5th source is Twitter. Sources 2-4 are dead. Fails WP:BIO. No notability from the roles she has had. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable, just known as a police woman. From searches on google she still doesn't meet WP:GNG.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is coverage of Namaye in the news, with the three best sources as follows [19],[20],[21]. These articles discuss her career path, her role in the police department, and cases she has been involved with. DaffodilOcean (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean enable subject to pass WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:24, 31 May 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!} 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Zueva

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

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible. Typically, articles in other language sections were made by the same participant with the only interest in Wikipedia in the form of creating articles about this person.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, Netherlands, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the apparent COI, all the film and TV roles appear to be bit parts, except for the short film. I'd say WP:TOOSOON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage about the subject.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After my own research, I second Ssilvers's analysis. Can add that there are some sources [22][23] but not independent enough for the GNG. The professional guideline isn't met either. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the the sources identified by Gidonb are valid and establish notability through GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete. Typical cross-wiki advertising/spam, fake sources (paid articles), does not match WP:BIO. On ru.wiki same article deleted, creator became the subject of a request to CU. Кронас (talk) 19:16, 19 May 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 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Faye Parney

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claim of notability here is that she got nominations/wins from a minor regional music award that doesn't fulfill NMUSIC #8 (that's looking for top-level national awards on the level of the Junos or the Canadian Country Music Awards, not just the Saskatchewan Country Music Awards) -- and otherwise, this is written more like her self-published marketing materials on a primary source than a proper encyclopedia article, making it unsurprising that the only footnote present here is to her own self-published marketing materials on a primary source.
And on a WP:BEFORE search of proper media archives, I'm not finding much to salvage it with -- I found a few hits of "local woman does stuff" in Saskatoon's local media, but nothing that would support a meaningful notability claim under NMUSIC, and mainly I just found concert listings.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't even find mention of her in media sources, no album reviews; I don't think the regional music awards give her notability here in wiki. I can't find album reviews or any critical coverage of her music. Best I could find was a performance listing at Expo in Japan in 2005 or 2007 [24], see page Q... This appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She appears to have been active in the 1990s, so it's hard to find sources. Library and Archives Canada has this [25], she seems to have been featured on a CBC television item back in the 1990s, but I have no information of how extensive it is... Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tried searching .ca and .jp websites, only have confirmation of her performance at the Expo in Aichi, Japan. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She doesn’t seem to have the necessary sources and coverage, but I’m open to keeping the article if those sources can be found. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:35, 18 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memoona Qudoos

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

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this, this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable. In this source her education and how she started is all mentioned [26] and her married life source in this [27].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not talking about WP:V. I am saying that it meets WP:NACTOR. It has mentioned her drama roles and her recent role of Shehna.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, Could you provide evidence that the subject had major roles? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because the interviews in rather reliable sources have a presentation that might show her roles are signficant. If not why not DRAFTITY until better sources are found, so as to avoid the risk of constant recreations/deletion and mutual frustration?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Roznama92News isn't even a RS. It's just one of the countless Urdu language newspapers circulated in Pakistan. And I wouldn't outright label the interview in The News as a paid placement since I lack evidence, but considering the nature of the questions posed by the interviewer, it's a plausible possibility. Anyhow, I'm fine with DRAFITIFICATION, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean up shouldn't be deletion. Appearing in multiple notable films meets WP:NACTOR though requires whether it is significant or not (though should be); it is a known role in the films. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SafariScribe, Fwiw - In Pakistani TV dramas, supporting roles do not have the same level of significance as in Western or even Indian TV series. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then a policy should be initiated in Wikipedia:Village pump. Fwiw also, supporting roles can be notable when it has been done for multiple times. Why then do you see a supporting actor or actress awards? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SafariScribe, But the fact is she hasn't even really had any supporting roles in the series she's been in so far. No one's provided any evidence for it, not even for dramas like GT Road, Guddu, Farq, Nikah, Kalank, Umm-e-Haniya, and Jaisay Aapki Marzi, which she's known for. So, it seems she's just part of the ensemble cast. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not convinced that the GNG or NACTOR have been met. Keep counterarguments have been unconvincing, so I am inclined to side with the nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 7 June 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 00:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Nassolo

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

An orphan article. A search for sources yielded just 1 hit in google news. Being the founder of "Miss Lira Beauty Pageant" is not really a claim for notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random run of the mill nightclub owner who happened to do some work for some small scale beauty pageant. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 20:02, 16 May 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. Owen× ☎ 12:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K

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)

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Paganism, Illinois, and Wisconsin. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, see amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amber-K/author/B0958H3NY3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

I have her Covencraft on my shelf.

I have no idea who you think you are when a simple google search can confirm

A)who she is

B)what books she wrote.

I say we nominate your account for deletion Timknit (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a book, we need confirmation of critical reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.

When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.

(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is more notable as a religious leader rather than an author? There's a 1993 Santa Fe New Mexican article (page 1, page 2) on the reaction of her local community to her work; a 2003 article (page 1, page 2) in the Albuquerque Journal on how she helped found a pagan learning center, Ardantane; a 2008 interview in the Santa Fe Reporter; and coverage of a ceremony in 2022 from The Santa Fe New Mexican (alternate link). There's also some info on her on in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2000) by Raven Grimassi – see pages 9, 10, 19, and 246. Maybe someone else can find more coverage, given this history? Best, Bridget (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe. I think some of that is a little letter-to-the-editor type of routine coverage, so I'd like to see something a bit more distant from the subject, but I could be convinced in that direction. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock: There were some correspondences, like letter to the editors, in newspapers in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but these aren't. After searching a bit more I found this article that briefly mentions she was elected leader (National First Officer) of Covenant of the Goddess in 1985. She contributed to Spiritual Parenting in the New Age (The Crossing Press, 1989), which was reviewed in the New York Daily News among other outlets. Bridget (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what happened. IMO writing those notable books may meet NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Bridget provides above are intriguing examples of third party coverage. There definitely does not appear to be a lot of third party coverage (hence "weak keep"), but some does exist. Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep somewhat reluctantly, I think there's a case similar to the reasoning behind WP:NARTIST and WP:NMUSICIAN. There's precedent for keeping articles on figures who have been influential within a notable subculture, even if they are not known beyond that subculture. It seems to me that on grounds of WP:SUSTAINED, the volume of work published, and reliable sources describing her as something resembling an authority figure on new age Modern paganism in the United States, she probably edges over into notability. The existing article that's written should probably be tagged for FANPOV. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 7 June 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Kapumealani Ng

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Hawaii. Hitro talk 09:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Brief coverage with only four hits in Gnews, but nothing extensive that would help meet notability. Sourcing in the article isn't useful, 3 and 4 are red per Cite Highlighter, with 5 being marginal. On the whole, we don't have notability for this artist. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 May 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!} 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Bomer

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

None of the sources provided provide the kind of WP:DEPTH needed for WP:GNG. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Than you for nominating. Doesnt go anywhere near to satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one is an easy call. Does not meet notability guidelines to merit an article. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found a handful of other mentions of her in the NY Times, but nothing about her. Lamona (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First off, there is no allegation of notability. Secondly, a few brief mentions in reviews is not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:28, 21 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage is limited to passing mentions and professional profiles in non-independent sources. The listed song credits are misleading, as she is not the primary recording artist of any of them; professional songwriters do not typically receive the same level of coverage for their work, and should not be presumed notable on the basis of having collaborated on notable works in the absence of actual RS coverage about their influence on the work. Searching online did not turn up any coverage better than what is already cited. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go with delete. I don't find any reasonable sources beyond what is here, and since the editor who created this works on and creates many articles for modern music I have to assume that what is here is the best that can be found. What I see in the sources here are mainly name checks. The only significant piece about her is on a site that I presume is that of her agents (Arthouse Entertainment). The "Genius" site that includes her in "best" lists is crowd-sourced and therefore not a reliable source. Lamona (talk) 02:05, 25 May 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. Could any valid sources be added to the article? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leyla Abdullayeva

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

NO GNG. Created for advertising and PR purposes. --Correspondentman (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, Azerbaijan, and France. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 13:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The other language Wikipedias seem to have a better sourced version of this, with around ten separate sources, however I'm not sure about their quality.

=== Russian language ===

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32]

=== Azerbaijani Wikipedia ===

[33]

Testeraccount101 (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, because AFD is made by sock of the banned user. User:Correspondentman is banned in Azerbaijani Wikipedia as a sock of User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman). Here is the discussion. He (User:Elshadiman) has been banned on English Wikipedia for sockpuppetry. You might check the archive through this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elshadiman/Archive. On top of that he continues to use the same sock accounts in English Wikipedia that he used in azwiki: User:Redaksiya, User:90AA123 and User:Correspondentman, which has only 36 edits, all in AFD. Sock accounts cannot create AFDs. — Toghrul R (t) 06:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you believe an editor is a sockpuppet, please file a reports at WP:SPI. It's not a matter that can be resolved in a discussion about possibly deleting an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Azerbaijan's ambassador to France and former spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign affairs is a notable diplomat, and meets WP:GNG.--Nicat49 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Testeraccount101 on [34], [35], [36], and [37]. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:04, 9 June 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Maria de Roumanie

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

Wife of an ex-king’s grandson, member of a royal house deposed in 1947, 70 years before she joined. Achievements: organizing events, getting married, having two children, attending a baptism, two funerals and a wine festival. Biruitorul ^Talk 05:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Romania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she does WP:NOTINHERIT her husband's notability, and does not meet WP:GNG in her own right. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with redirect to Nicholas Medforth-Mills where further details can be added.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Public relations specialist isn't notable alone and being descended from famous people isn't helping notability. There is some coverage in RS, about having a baby for example, but it's more for the celebrity gossip crowd, not really helping notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One small point, if I may: the subject herself isn’t descended from famous people; her husband is. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's even less notable then. Oaktree b (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTINHERIT , Tried find source on Google but nothing tangibleWasilatlovekesy (talk) 14:49, 18 May 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, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Sanvitale

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

The only sources that come up on a google news search are articles by her. Fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. The Italian newspapers and magazines where we could check for reviews are behind paywalls so it's very hard to find sources. I looked on Italian Amazon but did not find published reviews (nor mention of the award). I can say that the creator of the article has the same name as her collaborator on most of her books, User:Castellacci. That user name conflicted with another when user names were normalized across wikis. Another SPA User:PuzzleInk comes in later and that name is also the name of the publisher of one of her supposed works. Lamona (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gliding aside the COI or UPE, the subject doesn't seemingly have significant coverage, at least online. I've dug in Italian as well (cursory), but was unable to find anything of use. Printed sig coverage is unlikely, and is pretty hard to find in a foreign language which I don't speak myself. X (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:SIGCOV failure. Right now, it's basically a mixture of WP:OR and WP:RESUME. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 20 May 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 00:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mumford

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

No sources beyond the ones here, which are not independent. Unfortunately, this means she fails WP:GNG and a lack of google scholar cites means she doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC either. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Management, Spaceflight, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Undisclosed COI by the creator? Looks like they work together. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:49, 23 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Ryder

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

Very questionable WP:SUSTAINED notability Amigao (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [38], [39],[40]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Junior (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*: <~~/"keep">~~ this article has been edited to comply to NPOV since it's nomination allied by a declaration of COI from editors in the View AfD the page in its current existence complies with NPOV User:Gold Junior Talk 09:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the Wikipedia:Deletion policy Number 7 states article can be deleted of it has no reliable sources. this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hannah Ryder was edited by User:DaffodilOcean adding multiple reliable sources with encyclopedic knowledge highlighting the article notability across the spectrum of Africa-China economic trade. User:Gold Junior Talk 02:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further opinions from as-yet uninvolved editors regarding the quality of sourcing available would be beneficial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she's mentioned in a broad range of reliable sources, many cited in the article including the BBC, The Guardian, Reuters, The New York Times, Bloomberg, and The Washington Post. The mentions are usually brief, but these three secondary sources at least offer brief bios to base an article:[41][42][43] Also, the article was almost entirely rewritten after its nomination. The writing has issues, but the subject seems notable. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:17, 2 June 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 Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kadammanja

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

Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing much available to establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi_Broadcasting_Corporation#Anne_Kadammanja where she is being mentioned in trivia. I am the creator of the article, and it would be best to simply redirect it as there are not much sources to support it as standalone article.--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Maldives. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Malawi Broadcasting Corporation#Anne Kadammanja: per Tumbuka Arch. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:23, 19 May 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 which does not preclude a potential merger. Whether it's a weak keep or a N/C is moot as consensus to delete the content isn't going to emerge from this discussion and input has tapered off. If a SNG needs deprecating and that happens, this can be revisited sooner than the typical AfD timeline. Star Mississippi 13:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Hinterdobler

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

This soprano has not received significant coverage in independent sources, bar this one article.

Citations 2, 3, and 7 are from institutions with which Hinterdobler has been associated. The rest provide insignificant coverage, often not more than a half-sentence.

As there is only one source which is both independent and provides significant coverage, the relevant notability criteria (WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO) are not met. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Theatre, and Germany. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent about an hour trying to find WP:SIGCOV prior to this being taken to AFD. You can see my comments on the nominator's talk page as we discussed this before taking it to AFD. I looked at over two dozen critical reviews, and while there are many reviews of the operas she has been in, she is only mentioned in passing or not at all in those reviews. Likewise on reviews of her recordings. The most we get is a single sentence (two at most; and those are rare) with a general critique of her performance. For example, The Guardian review only mentions her name in the title list of leading singers but never actually talks about her contribution to the recording. This is not in-depth. The only in-depth independent source is the first source cited, Opern News magazine article. If a couple more sources of this latter kind are found that would prove WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV are met. Please ping me if sources with in-depth independent coverage are located and I will gladly change my vote to keep.4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SINGER #6 "having performed two lead roles at major opera houses." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is that SNG, but I honestly think that we need to deprecate that in the same way that the RFC on WP:NSPORTS deprecated many of its similar SNG language. We really shouldn't be building articles on singers that can't meet WP:SIGCOV for verifiability reasons; particularly on BLPS per Wikipedia:BLPSOURCES.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion that that SNG should be deprecated does not mean that that SNG no longer applies. What is not verifiable about this article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that SNGs don't apply. SNGs by their nature often contradict other policies, which is why they are often contentious at AFD. It’s perfectly fine to make a claim to notability using an SNG. It’s also equally fine to criticize the SNG for being a bad policy because it doesn’t align with other policy language elsewhere. There have been many RFCs over SNG language, and several of them have led to policy changes that have→ deprecated certain SNGs within the the last five years. I think it’s reasonable to point to those RFCs as an example of how in certain content areas we have moved towards requiring more in-depth coverage. The need to re-examine our policies only gets established if people start raising that issue in discussions at AFDs. That’s what happened in the NSPORTS case prior to the NSPORTS RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to criticize SNGs, but your opinions of the SNGs are not valid reasons to delete an article passing it; neither is the fact that other SNGs being deprecated sufficient reason for overriding this currently standing and completely valid SNG to delete this well-done article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 Not true. Per WP:SNG "Articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." Those calling for deletion are making a valid argument that this particular article lacks adequate sourcing. The main issue of contention here is whether a bunch of low level not in-depth coverage constitutes "adequate sourcing". Those of us voting delete are specifically making the argument that it does not constitute adequate sourcing, which is a valid reason to override an SNG per SNG policy.4meter4 (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May be, not required to be. The guideline was never intended to get rid of well-done articles like this. In what way is Wikipedia benefited by deleting here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON where the subject is likely to prove notability in the future, and we have simply jumped the gun and created an article before the independent sources have come into existence that contain in-depth coverage. I think it's best practice to wait to write articles on BLPs when we have a minimum of two in-depth sources for a variety of reasons; many of them articulated at WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:BLP, and WP:OR. One of the major issues in this article is that the majority of the biographical content is cited to PR materials written by talent management and PR firms for theaters, opera houses, etc. It's not best practice to build articles on BLPs from materials of this kind. We do the encyclopedia a disservice when we don't uphold quality standards that emphasize building biographical content within biography pages from independent materials. Not doing so, allows wikipedia to become a tool of promotion for talent management and PR firms, which ultimately creates a conflict of interest between wikipedia's goal of building an encyclopedia, and the potential to use wikipedia for other motives. One of our best means of quality control in terms of both verifiability and maintaining NPOV is making sure we build articles from independent sources with in-depth coverage. That's why we have WP:GNG. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, only six of the 21 references in the article are from Hinterdobler's opera houses? What parts of the article are not verifiable or original research? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and they also are the most used sources, which verify over half of the article including almost all of the biographical information. The other sources only verify specific roles in specific opera performances. Asserting "only six" doesn't actually look at what information and how much of that information is coming from those non-independent marketing materials. If you can't see the ethical problem here for using marketing tools to verify a BLP article I don't know what to say further. We have two very different ideas about the ethics of editing and sourcing articles on BLPs.4meter4 (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I noticed that one of the two cited references for her Eva in Die Meistersänger, in Online Merker, includes 3 or 4 lines on her performance, both vocally and in characterisation, calling it "ein starkes Plus" (a definite plus). A search for other reviews in the same publication yielded other critiques of a similar length:
- "debutierte als Chrysothemis glanzvoll ... Das wird eine große Rolle für sie werden!" (made a glittering debut as Chrysothemis ... This is going to be a major role for her!)—we cite this role only from the Frankfurt Opera's summary professional bio
- noting her stagecraft as Susanna in Le Nozze but "vokal wirkt sie an diesem Abend strapaziert" (vocally, this evening she gave an impression of strain)—we don't mention this role
- a review of her Dorella in Das Liebesverbot in 2013 that she may want to forget, "quält sie sich ohne zuverlässigen Stimmsitz und ohne tragende Resonanz durch Wagners Noten" (tortures herself through Wagner's notes without reliable pitch or sustained resonance)—we don't mention this role either.

There are also briefer mentions that are not mere listings of who sang which role: "eine resolute, selbstbewusste Eva" (a resolute, self-confident Eva); "auch die 'kleinen' Walküren ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, die auch die Gutrune sang, ... sangen ansprechend" (the 'lesser' valkyries too, ... Magdalena Hinterdobler, who also sang Gutrune, ... were equal to their roles)—this compressed Ring is also not in the article. I suspect there are similar short reviews of her performances in other magazines and newspapers, and the article isn't reflecting that coverage because of a desire to focus on her leading roles, use English-language sources where possible, and / or avoid negative coverage. From the point of view of notability, however, I believe that mass of small stuff about her, together with at least one extended biographical article (I don't see the Frankfurter Allgemeine cited anywhere; has anyone searched there for coverage of her joining the company?), puts her over the top. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have enough for WP:BASIC. Artists are known for their work and this soprano also meets WP:SINGER. Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst can you please identify more than one source with "significant coverage" to meet WP:BASIC. The whole point of the nominator is that there is only one (not multiple sources) with significant independent coverage. Both Yngvadottir and myself have confirmed this is the case which is why I voted delete. Yngvadottir was able to locate several reviews mentioning the subject in one or two sentences but specifically stated they didn't contain significant coverage. Asserting that BASIC is met is just not true with the current sources in evidence. You are the only commenter here asserting BASIC is met, and you have provided no evidence to substantiate that argument. Basic states, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] Please produce a second source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The next section after BASIC reads People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. and A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. You do not need coverage to prove notability, you can meet a subject specific guideline instead. Dream Focus 16:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You don't need to repeat yourself Dream Focus. I am aware of the SNG guideline. That still doesn't change the fact that BASIC isn't met which is why you yourself made an argument based on criteria 6 of WP:SINGER. That's fine if that is the WP:CONSENUS opinion. I personally am of the opinion that criteria 6 of SINGER is a poor predictor of notability, runs afoul of WP:BLPSOURCES policy, and is so subjective in its meaning and interpretation that it isn't a well crafted policy. After this AFD closes, regardless of the outcome, I am considering creating an RFC along the lines of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability which deprecated similar SNG language for athletes. In my opinion BASIC should be our guide. We need at least two sources with in-depth independent coverage to build an article on any BLP in my opinion to meet the spirit of our policy guidelines at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale stands and we disagree so please observe WP:COAL and I will do the same. Lightburst (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer. Please consider the evidence and strength of the arguments in your close. I strongly urge you to ignore/overrule arguments made without supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guidelines exist for a reason. Someone can be notable for their accomplishments, not just for media coverage of them. WP:SINGER #6 Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03s64z1 distinguished Austrian pianist Rudolf Buchbinder, in London for a rare appearance at the Royal Festival Hall, and the rising star conductor Lionel Bringuier. Pianist Mark Swartzentruber will perform live on the show, ahead of his concert at Kings Place tomorrow. So she is in an ensemble that contains a distinguished pianists, a conductor called a "rising star" in an opera review, and a guy with his own concerts and notable accomplishments. http://markswartzentruber.com/biography/ She was on an album that got a long review. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/feb/14/bruch-die-loreley-review-andrew-clements She is a member of the Frankfurt ensemble, a notable ensemble which she has performed at major opera houses with. https://oper-frankfurt.de/en/ensemble/ensemble/?detail=1256 So a singer can be notable for having performed two lead roles at major opera houses. She performed as Elisabetta in Verdi's Don Carlos Dream Focus 16:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just added another RS and performance. Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there is some LOW-level coverage, there is not enough SIGCOV. Performing with a notable ensemble doesn’t automatically provide notability in its own right to an individual. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Oper Frankfurt: Coverage seems to be too trivial to have an article about the individual, but they do seem notable in context of the opera company. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b I would disagree with that assessment. There are hundreds (perhaps thousands) of more significant singers with biographical entries in music encyclopedias that have been resident performers at Oper Frankfurt during its nearly 250 year long history. If we were to look through the Großes Sängerlexikon for example or The Grove Book of Opera Singers I would imagine we could compile a list of more than a thousand singers who were at one time or another employed by Oper Frankfurt as a resident artist; and all of those would be encyclopedic by virtue of being in an encyclopedia. If we are going to start covering indiviudal singers in an opera company article it should be the most prominent ones. Hinterdobler is a rather minor figure from an institutional point of view, and currently the article doesn't talk about any of its artists from a historical framework. It would be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. A company like Oper Frankfurt at any given time employs close to a hundred leading singers in a season (Currently there are over 90 leading performers with the company between resident and guest artists) They have over 20 operas in their repertory for the 2024-2025 season between revivals of older production and their plans of more than a dozen new productions. Focusing on a single leading artist, particularly one with little coverage, seems inappropriate; particularly when many of their other artists would be high profile artists with lots of WP:SIGCOV. I note that many of the singers currently employed by them have articles, as well as lots of past performers. 4meter4 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
  - @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
    
    Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
    
    "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season ..." (cut 14 June, read in source)
    
    Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded by the additional sources Yngvadottir located and analyzed as well as by the WP:NBASIC guidance that BeanieFan11 pointed out: multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. While there is the caveat that this coverage should not be trivial, I don't think it is in this case, based on the measure of trivial coverage provided in the notability guideline (the bare mention of Three Blind Mice), as the coverage identified through this review process examines and weighs the tropic's performance quality. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that measure is supposed to be an upper threshold for "trivial", as you imply, then the book-length coverage from the second example must be the lower threshold for "significant"... JoelleJay (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to imply the Three Blind Mice example is the upper threshold for trivial mentions (it's possible for coverage that is more than the Three Blind Mice example to still be trivial; a hypothetical In college, Binton Krill was in a band called Five Eye Lice. Five Eye Lice toured the West Coast in 1988.). I nevertheless think there's sufficient coverage that rises so above the Three Blind Mice example to the point that it's not trivial coverage. As for lower thresholds, I don't think there's consensus in the Wikipedia community for book-length coverage to be considered a lower threshold for significant coverage. With the exception of, say, multivolume biographies/histories, book-length coverage probably tends to be expected to be the upper threshold/expectation for significant coverage. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not convinced that a couple sentences of praise here and there in reviews really contributes to BASIC, let alone constitutes SIGCOV. Such brief descriptions of performances are absolutely routine in theater reviews and offer no evidence the subject has received sustained secondary coverage. We should not be constructing biographies out of 80% non-independent sources and 20% disjoint quotes on isolated performances -- how can we capture BALASP if separate pieces of information have not been independently contextualized with each other? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this looks like No consensus as editors are very divided about whether or not notability is established by the existing sources. I notice that a great deal of new content and new sourcs have been added since this article's nomination; a source review of this new content would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 18 May 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. And still no discussion has followed. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devora Radeva

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator nominated 49 of these in 30 minutes. No discussion has followed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 24 May 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. Considered keep per WP:NEXIST but no one actually posted a keep !vote. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Towler-Green

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and United Kingdom. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SKATER. --BoraVoro (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:BEFORE came up with the following sources: [[44]][[45]]. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 27 May 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. More discussion was needed. This has already been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dominika Polakowska

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia only contains one source that is a database and no significant coverage. My Google searches also come up with nothing else. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 24 May 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 03:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charissa Tansomboon

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Thailand. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is now a researcher in online learning, though I'm not seeing anything that would indicate notability under WP:NPROF. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find enough WP:SIGCOV from RS for this to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was trying to figure out what "platinum medalist" would be, as that sounded interesting, perhaps specific to Thailand... But no, turns out to be vandalism. The Skate Today piece referenced is good and dedicated to her, but it alone is not enough to meet GNG. -2pou (talk) 20:06, 20 May 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 Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Voll

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Netherlands. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Voll placed third at the senior national championships in 2008 and 2009, as evidenced by the references given. She placed 2nd at the 2007 senior national championships but I can´t find online the results of that competition. Anyhow, there is no doubt that Voll meets Wikipedia:NSKATE. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze and silver medals at the senior national championships explicitly do not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right, I misread. Criteria are rather strict, I´d say. I´ll strike through my keep vote Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- she doesn't fulfill the criteria, especially in current state. if theres more to add to the article, someone should add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No sufficient sources found that meet GNG. Fails WP:NSKATE. --Enos733 (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Per ATD and CHEAP. Doesn't meet the guidelines. I did try to improve the article. Enos733, MaskedSinger, User:Bgsu98, and Ruud Buitelaar, can you all get behind this? gidonb (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a redirect. - Enos733 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Good solution Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 02:42, 19 May 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. Again, the nominator's rush to nominate dozens of articles in under half an hour failed to stimulate discussion about many of them, such as this one. It has already been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Qingyun

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 24 May 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. Because redirect was rejected, there is no consensus here and it has been relisted twice. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Anne Sacks

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Israel, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, and as such, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if any significant coverage can be found. Let'srun (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2008 World Figure Skating Championships per ATD and CHEAP. Let'srun and Bgsu98, can you get behind this? gidonb (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it may be a WP:SURPRISE and as such I do not support. Let'srun (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Let'srun. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just me or are there a disproportionate amount of articles here about ice skaters? MaskedSinger (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger, the nominator PROD'd a lot of these articles, other editors thought it was rash and de-PROD'd them and now they have would up at AFD, all at the same time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks for explaining. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 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. Again, this has been relisted twice without stimulating any discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marta Paoletti

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 May 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. This has been relisted twice without stimulating any discussion. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Pajardi

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 May 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mitsuoka

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [[46]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a living subject and the best we can find is one connected source (faph.org) and one interview (SkateToday), both from when she was a junior in high school 16 years ago? That's all? WP:SPORTSPERSON requires at least one RS which directly details the subject. Nothing close to that here. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have long felt that none of this qualifies as “significant coverage” when I keep getting chewed out for these AFD’s. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails NSKATE. The one SkateToday article, while impressive, is the only SIGCOV I've been able to find towards GNG. The other source linked by Let'srun doesn't count towards the GNG as it isn't independent or sigcov. Toadspike [Talk] 11:00, 7 June 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 23:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan McColl

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Africa. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There isn't any credible source to meet WP:GNG. The gross lacking in WP:SIGCOV made it difficult in popping any result for WP:RS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:33, 29 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject lacks the necessary WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 18:04, 3 June 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 03:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Nicole Martins

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesnt satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 20:49, 20 May 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. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Maksimova

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Belarus. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, despite discussion regarding the nominator's related Akiko Kitamura AfD in the same week, no discussion has occurred yet on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 24 May 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 05:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chu-hong

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to provide rationale 104.232.119.107 (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error; thank you! Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete because this can’t scratch WP:NSKATE. She medaled at South Korea’s national championships, a senior-level event, though this is not international, and her international accomplishments did not earn her a medal. There is no WP:SIGCOV for her in this or another context unfortunately. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:25, 27 May 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 05:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sun-bin (figure skater)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale 104.232.119.107 (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with the exact same rationale I presented at Lee Chu-hong’s. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 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. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Leska

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 May 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 13:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Purdy

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some trivial mentions, this fails to meet the WP:GNG due to a seeming lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if significant coverage is found. Let'srun (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am certain that this article didn't meet WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSCRIT and sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:06, 31 May 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. I see no support for Deletion and Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 24 May 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!} 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah-Marine Rouffanche

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:NCREATIVE. An ice dancer who qualified for the World Junior Championship's free dance competition and finished 15th: an achievement truly admirable by this humble servant, but insufficient for a Wikipedia article. Whence the required numerous, independent sources? -The Gnome (talk) 13:49, 29 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 14:34, 1 June 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!} 02:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Senft

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with [[47]] and [[48]]. Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Excellent coverage in The Province and OK coverage in The Winnipeg Sun in the above links. The latter is much thinner and seems to slightly focus on her partner, but it does turn towards her later, so I lean to find that sufficient to show that enough WP:NEXISTs to meet GNG vice NSKATE, despite the dearth citations to RS in the article itself. -2pou (talk) 19:47, 20 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanshi Arya

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being a the general secretary of a students' union does not inherently makes one notable. There's also generally no SIGCOV anywhere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 22:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Potentially notable as the first Dalit general secretary in 30 years. This article from the Deccan Herald looks like SIGCOV: "Who is Dhananjay? All you need to know about JNU's first Dalit president in nearly 30 years". Deccan Herald. Retrieved 2024-03-26. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain I’m surprised to how you interpret SIGCOV. Is Dhananjay the same person as Priyanshi Arya? Obviously not and the only mention of this person there is

In addition to Dhananjay's victory, Avijit Ghosh from the Students' Federation of India (SFI) secured the vice-president's post, while Priyanshi Arya of the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students' Association (BAPSA), supported by the Left, won the general se..

Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, SIGCOV, WP:PROF, and potentially WP:BLP violations. As a university student she is not notable, absent significant coverage in Chronicle of Higher Education or the equivalent. One reliable source by definition fails SIGCOV and WP:OR. We very rarely keep any academic who has not gained tenure with at least an associate chair. There's also disputes in the sources about whether she's dalit or middle class - a real BLP violation if you're an Indian reader - and very likely to be the subject of an edit war. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources given like Indian Express, Hindu, Deccan Herald, Times of India, Economic Times are major reputed newspapers in India and the three news websites, News Minute, News Laundry and Wire are equally reliable and reputed news houses. Except Sportsgrail all the sources cited are secondary and from mainstream news industry as reputed as Chronicle of Higher Education or much more. All are highly respected news outlets. The article about the subject is not for an academic, per say, but for a political leader in student politics. I could not understand the dispute of the subject being a Dalit. Anyway, I leave it to the editors. If possible, it can be put in the draft space. Thanks and regards, Davidindia (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between Keep, Delete or Draftify arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete University-level student leader is inherently nonnotable unless some national level achievements. - Altenmann >talk 23:03, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ With due respect to the senior editors here, who have been doing great work on Wiki for years, I am just curious to understand if there is a wiki guideline or policy that prevents student leaders from having a BLP page. I saw that many student leaders in Europe from Digby Jacks to Malia Bouattia to Shakira Martin to Zamzam Ibrahim, have articles. Many BLPs on student leaders were created on Wiki with just a reference or two, when they were first created. Here in India, a leader from JNU|Jawaharlal Nehru University is not just a university-level student leader... any leader from JNU gets ten times more visibility and recognition in India than a state university, say Bangalore University. Many from JNU have become National leaders later on. The subject is also notable because she is the first queer dalit student. But this bit was removed to make sure there were no BLP violations and to protect the confidentiality of the subject, as there were not many sources and it was not clear if she was “out” I feel this subject BLP passes the WP: GNG. But I leave it to the editors to decide. Thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.~~Draftify~~. The page is currently confusing with the sources given whether the page is on Priyanshi Arya or Dhananjay. I do not think a local student union leader is notable but seems like the subject must have made some achievement that could be worthy of notice so I lean on draftifying this page for improvement with more reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC) and after going through all the sources more discreetly, many are poor to unreliable to lack of coverage on the subject. General Secretary of a university is OK but it is not a significant enough to be considered notable when you cannot find more reliable sources with indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus The person who "won the Jawaharlal Nehru University student union (JNUSU) election for the post of General Secretary." is Priyanshi Arya and not Dhananjay. The author of this article is suspiciously using the "Dhananjay"'s coverages to imply notability on Arya. Dhananjay is not inherently notable either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the sources and also tried to find sources on the subject but not any help. It lead me to change my vote. Page and the subject fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the outset, I would like to declare that I have absolutely no conflict of interest. I just saw the news and did the article. I have a lot of respect to the editor for all his work, especially with a number of good articles and C rated articles. I am taken aback by a comment that attributes motives. 1000s of editors use the subject in search and cite all the articles that quoted the subject, which is quite normal. AfD discussions are not 'voting' and since it is relisted, I used the bullet as Keep. My only point is when student leaders in Europe have pages why not in India... especially when Priyanshi has at least one article, exclusively about her (Zee News is a reputed media outlet). I just want everyone to know that I am just doing this in good faith, and have no particular interest in the subject. Thanks and regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 May 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. Consensus is the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik

AfDs for this article:

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable actress. She hasn't done main roles but she has done supporting roles in dramas and her recent work in Mayi was noted[49]. In these she mentioned how she switched from teacher to host and then acting.[50] Her peronal life.[51](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Supporting roles are not enough to meet WP:NACTOR and the coverages you provided can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It meets WP:Nactor some sources are written this way from interviews before that I did my search on the sources it's reliable from ARY News, Images Dawn and BOL News it's both in English and Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, You've to see WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are short and passing mentions. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:NACTOR as the subject was not a lead or significant character in any notable series, film, or drama. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 30 May 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 Maxime Deschamps#Partnership with Grenier as an ATD with which the nom agrees Star Mississippi 01:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Grenier

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. All I could find were passing mentions. Let'srun (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maxime Deschamps#Partnership_with_Grenier as an ATD. The subject's skating partner is notable. The only GNG source I found of the subject was the 2014 GoldenSkate article previewing their season. --Enos733 (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually not a bad idea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:49, 20 May 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. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

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

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per WP:BASIC, [52],[53],[54]

[55], [56] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, the references you provided aren't even RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing seems to be weak (mainly tabloids), but it looks like she may have some notable television credits?-KH-1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KH-1, No. Only minor roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some of her numerous roles in notable productions look significant enough for her to pass WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't see any. If that had been the case, she would have definitely received some press coverage, at least some ROTM coverage at a minimum. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:29, 2 June 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 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!} 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, In which shows, if I may ask? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 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. After two relists, both the balance of arguments and the !vote count favor deletion, with keep !voters declining to address arguments analyzing the timing and depth of the published sources covering the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a former candidate who got exactly 0 votes. Since her 2021 run, she did absolutely nothing that is notable, so I'm renominating this article for deletion. All the sources fit squarely in WP:BLP1E territory. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Canada. Mottezen (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not passing WP:NPOL does not mean that she cannot be notable through any other criteria. The previous AfD from 2021 was kept on WP:GNG grounds; can you clarify why you think that result was incorrect? Curbon7 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the previous nomination, the 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection was not yet completed. While, most !keep voters in the previous AfD did not even acknowledge the BLP1E issue, those that did exaggerated her importance in the election.

Example for exaggerated importance: even if the coverage relates to one event (where both the event & the role of the subject is significant); such articles are usually kept. and Invoking WP:BLP1E here isn't right because she pretty clearly has a significant role in the selection. Remember, she got no votes and no country endorsements, so her role in the event was insignificant. Even the UN ambassador for her own country didn't reply to her request for a meeting to discuss her candidacy.

Of note: about a year after the end of her campaign, her campaign website https://unow.org/ went down, and her last campaign post on facebook was before the 2021 selection. Arora moved on to become a lecturer. Mottezen (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as in the first AfD, I think the question of notability centers on WP:BLP1E, since WP:GNG is clearly met. BLP1E states that we should not have an article if all 3 conditions are met. Here, Criteria #1 and #2 are clearly met (only covered in context of one event, otherwise low-profile). So is Criteria #3 met? Well, the UN Secretary-General selection is clearly significant, so that's ok. Was Arora's role "not substantial" or "not well-documented"? As GNG is met, we can cross off "not well-documented." On "not substantial", we come to a matter of opinion. Since she received no backing or actual votes, I can see why those in favor of deletion would argue her role was insubstantial. On the other hand, this candidacy was outside the norms of the UN system and attracted reliable media coverage for that reason. I would argue it was substantial enough to merit her inclusion as a standalone page. However, a merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection would also be a reasonable outcome. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2021 United Nations Secretary-General selection. Not convinced there's enough here for WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP1E similar to an article about a losing candidate - if there's anything to cover, it can be done on the election page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ganesha811 points out, with the amount of coverage received this is not a case of Arora being "not well-documented". I see WP:GNG met in this case, and losses can be notable if covered in reliable secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those who argue her run for Secretary-general is "well-documented"... it's just not, especially in the crucial stages of her campaign. Let me illustrate: these are the dates the 9 secondary sources in the article were published:

AFP (February 19, 2021)
Arab News (April 4, 2021)
NYT (February 26, 2021)
Hindustan Times (February 27, 2021)
Business Today (March 2, 2021)
The Print (February 13, 2021)
CBC (April 4, 2021)
Forbes (May 7, 2021)
New Yorker (June 14, 2021)

Note that there is only one source published in June 2021, the month the vote took place, and thus the month that attention to the UNSG selection was most warranted. Sadly, the most crucial period of her campaign is barely documented. The June New Yorker source is also one of the lesser quality sources because it merely recounts a day the author spent with her; it's storytelling rather than journalistic work. Mottezen (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Again, our standard is to delete or merge articles on unsuccessful candidates for political office. This was kept at the first AfD likely erroneously because those arguing for keep either met GNG was met (which is irrelevant for candidates, who always meet GNG - political candidates are exceptions to GNG under NOT) and that her run was significant for purposes of BLP1E (she ended up not even being eligible to run.) She's also not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are widely diverging opinions/arguments in this discussion on whether or not this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. Editors who are proposing a Merge/Redirect outcome must provide a link to the target article they are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Apart from some glowing PR pieces, her self-declared candidacy for UN Secretary-General was irrelevant to that event. (She says her campaign was "non-traditional" to try to explain away that she got no nominations and no votes.) And there is no substantial coverage about her outside of that. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E, largely per SportingFlyer's additional comment at 06:56 8 May in response to Mottezen (immediately above). SF's comment addresses the prior AfD result in context of when it was resolved, and is correct in their assessment of our current standards regarding unsuccessful candidates for political office as I have seen at DRV over the years. Agree not notable and this falls in the 1E category. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 28 May 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 05:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Vee

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

lack of notability. little to no 3rd party articles detailing artist Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([57][58][59]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 20 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Oasis

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

Article has been moved disruptively by the creator that has COI without improvements since last decline, so I am taking this to AfD. I cannot tell whether this passes notability, but as I can tell from the comments of the reviewers. Before search shows primarily stories on her releasing songs and albums, and sources listed are rather mostly interviews and videos. Toadette^Edit! 15:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 2, 3 and 4 are listed as RS. Seems ok, some PROMO concerns but we can edit those out of the article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 19 May 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern

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

This article is mainly a resume. Most of the sources in the article consist of dead links from websites that are related to Lya Stern; the rest of the sources either have brief mentions of her or don't mention her at all. After doing a Google search to see if there were sources that could be added to the article, the only significant coverage I found of her was from a website that listed Wikipedia as a source. The rest of the information I found was from her YouTube channel and mentions of her from her students. As a result, she doesn't met WP:GNG or WP:NBLP. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 20:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One source via Newspapers.com goes into some depth. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Weak) - There is a big gap in WP on instrumental performers who have created the American musical/movie music scene, and in general the encyclopedia is too quick to delete (especially for women and minority performers), but here I think the AfD is correct. The Baltimore Sun article gives a bit of notability, but the other sources do not. A blurb on the back of one's teacher's independently published book is not enough. There needs to be more and I could not find anything that led to more than what a local performing teacher would have. Glad to be proven wrong. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a staff written bio at AllMusic here and an album review here to go with the detailed Baltimore Sun article linked earlier by Hameltion. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does Eudice Shapiro have to do with the subject of this article? That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 23:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just agreeing with That Tired Tarantula above -- @Atlantic306 you have linked to reviews for a different musician. If Lya Stern had an Allmusic staff bio, that would be relevant, but I could not find one. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, have struck my vote and comment. In my defence the erroneous AllMusic bio is the first reference in the article but I should have noticed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom lacks coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverifiable claims of notability. doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:20, 31 May 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. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Whelan

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [60] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't say that every winner will be notable but certainly the winner of the inaugural season of a very famous competition. Given the extensive coverage of her win and the controversy surrounding her allegations (later taken back) that Netflix was delaying the payment, I think the subject fulfills the criteria for inclusion. YerkaIlson (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 18 May 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Bradford

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

Not a notable actress and very promotionally written article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to her television work, she is also notable as a stage actress. See https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Brittany-Bradford/#credits Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I drafted the original stub because she was the only of the six actors listed for Julia that didn't have a page. Given the sources I had available I can see why it reads a little promotional would love to see improvements. Guidelines for notability: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On the second point she was the only woman of color in that group of six actors, and one of the few in whole program. Jake (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actress is notable. It needs work but the article has potential and I can't see any legitimate reason for it to be deleted. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:94AF:C1F1:3164:C5DD (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	1. Grobar, Matt (2024-03-05). "Artists First Signs 'Julia' Actress Brittany Bradford, Multi-Hyphenate Amanda McCants". Deadline. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Reiser, Zach (13 January 2021). "David Hyde Pierce, Brittany Bradford To Star In HBO Max's Julia After Series Order". Theatrely. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ VanArendonk, Kathryn (March 31, 2022). "Cozy Up With Julia, a Warm and Welcoming Treat". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	4. ^ "Brittany Bradford on Alice's Julia Child-Inspired Evolution in HBO Max's 'Julia' [VIDEO]". Awards Daily. 2022-06-06.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Go Behind the Scenes of Julia with Brittany Bradford". Town & Country. 2022-04-28. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	6. ^ "Video Actress Brittany Bradford talks 1st screen role in 'Julia'". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	7. ^ Witter, Brad (1 April 2022). "This French Chef Producer Partly Inspired The Character Of Alice On Julia". Bustle. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	8. ^ DeShong, Bonnie (19 May 2022). "An AAFCA conversation with Brittany Bradford from HBOMax series Julia". Chicago Crusader. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	9. ^ "Interview: Brittany Bradford and Thomas Sadoski on Introducing Alice Childress's Wedding Band". TheaterMania.com. 2022-05-04. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Photos, promotional, fails WP:SIRS	10. ^ Putnam, Leah; Gershonowitz, Heather (May 12, 2022). "See Photos of Newly-Extended Wedding Band Starring Brittany Bradford, Veanne Cox, More". Playbill.

Nothing found in article or in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable supporting actress. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ANYBIO Drama League Award [61] [62] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I disagree with the above analysis that the Deadline article "does not address subject directly." It is only a few paragraphs but it recounts her career to date. There is also an indepth review in the NY Times of her performance in "Wedding Band." In this she was the lead, not a supporting actress. While the interviews will not by themselves support GNG, they can be the source of data for the article. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 21 May 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!} 05:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Skating-related deletion discussions. Owen× ☎ 12:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NSKATE. I am not finding any sources that would meet GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 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!} 05:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [63], [64], [65]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight." The rule can be applied to the Indian subcontinent and all media therein. Note that a lot of media in one country is served in other countries in that are. A border does not negate the fact that the region has a history of paid media such as these. The "certain kinds of articles" apply and the "certain publications" are only examples. Creating a listing of ALL publications that do so would be exhaustive. These are just examples and we need to use common sense when applying the rule. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hiba's is a notable actress and she is recently working in drama Shiddat and Rah-e-Junoon.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support your claims. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on general notability. The AfD appears to be partially motivated by some personal gripe Saqib has with the article's original creator. Cortador (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any issues with the person who created the page. But could you please share some coverage that fits WP:GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet and little policy-based opinions stated in this discussion. Yes, there have been run-ins between editors in this subject area but can this discussion focus on the merits of this standalone article and not on the perceived motivations of any or all discussion participants? Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source are interviews, based on what she says or brief mentions. The other issue is when I look at the articles about the shows listed in the filmography to see if any sources have info about Khan, I am finding those articles are also poorly sourced. For example, the sources used for Kitni Girhain Baaki Hain are not about the show and are only brief mentions. That's just one but I looked at a few. If anyone comes up with a couple RS that has in-depth coverage about Khan, please ping me. S0091 (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, I searched for sources with in-depth coverage of the subject but found only interviews with some passing mentions, which can't establish notability at all as per WP:GNG. She also fails WP:NACTOR as she did not have a significant role in a notable film. GrabUp - Talk 16:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For someone with so many listed roles, I initially assumed there would be a ton of references available. However, there are not. And, the ones that do exist simply verify roles but do not add up to significant coverage. They are interviews, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Note that WP:NACTOR only presumes notability for certain roles, but does not guarantee notability. It is still based on sourcing. Here are the references currently on the page:

The News International, an interview which is not considered independent.

ARY News, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA but it does include a video of an interview she gave. Unfortunately, it is still an interview and the information is not considered indepdent.

Dawn, mentions her as part of the cast. Verifies role but verifiability is not notability.

ARY News, same as the ARY News assessment above.

City 42, announcement of her marriage. It does say she changed her name but searching that name found no references suitable to show notability.

Dawn, another one that mentions her name to verify a role, but does not talk about her outside of that. Brief mention only.

Daily Times, Falls under NEWSORGINDIA, but even if disputed, it still only verifies a role. Her name is mentioned one time. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 21 May 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehak Malik

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

Does not satisfy WP:NBIO nor WP:NMODEL. Entirely unsourced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The BLP previously included references, but they seem to have been deleted. However, I agree that the subject may not meet the WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any good sources for this individual. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The [e]ntirely unsourced claim in the OP seems to have been made based on a version of the article that existed after it had been blanked by an IP. There do seem to be sources, and I am presuming good faith about the coverage in sources written in a language I am not able to read (as notability can be provided via non-English sources). I have also found coverage of Malik in the Journal of Media Studies and the Journal of Economics. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:05, 16 May 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 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. Owen× ☎ 06:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Tshibaka

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

Per Talk:Kelly Tshibaka#Notability 2, I do not believe this unsuccessful political candidate is notable. Despite being well sourced at a casual glance, most of the 30+ references are related to the election, and in many cases focus on the eventual winner, with Tshibaka only mentioned as an opponent. Even if this was a particularly contentious or notable election, WP:ONEEVENT would dictate the content is better merged into the election article. Of the non-election references, only one is actually about the subject (appointment to Commissioner's office). The rest just have trivial mentions where the subject has been quoted as a government official in relation to the primary topic. We don't have articles for every local government commissioner just because they occasionally get quoted in Press (and indeed, neither her predecessors nor successors have articles). This article was created around the time of the election campaign and seems like it was probably created as part of the campaign. There is no suggestion of notability prior to subject's unsuccessful election campaign. Fails WP:Politician (not a politician), WP:Bio and WP:Sustained. Hemmers (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Alaska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There’s plenty here, and I just added a new section about her career following campaign. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "there's plenty there" doesn't confer notability. I can write full length articles going into excruciating detail about local politics using local news. I can write articles about local sports clubs using 150years of local media reporting of results and prize-givings. Literally hundreds of references. There's plenty there... but that doesn't mean those people or organisations meet GNG. And that's the thing. There isn't that much there. It's overwhelmingly WP:ONEEVENT about her unsuccessful election campaign, or else trivial mentions. Hemmers (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's not really notable outside her campaign loss, can be redirected to the campaign page. The new section is just a sentence that would not grant her notability if she hadn't run. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Misunderstanding of WP:NPOL: unelected candidates can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline (meaning: has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists). No part of the guideline counts only non-election references; that would be an unreasonable standard for a politician. I see significant coverage of her life in long features from the Anchorage Daily News, Juneau Empire, The New Yorker (contains lots of profile), etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Plus, she has held state/province–wide office, as commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting though that literally none of the other Commissioners who held that appointment (not elected office) have an article. This is not to say it can't contribute to notability, but we need rather more than "former public servant who controversially but unsuccessfully ran for office" to clear GNG. Hemmers (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that an unsuccessful candidtae can meet GNG. I just don't believe Tshibaka does! In my view, the issue here is that her personal (non-)notability is being conflated with a contentious race and internal conflict in the Republican Party. It's totally reasonable that her name would be mentioned in relation to that issue, but it doesn't get her over the fence of notability herself IMO.

Those three features are explicitly in relation to the election race, not profiling her as a notable individual in her own right or on the merits of her career. This gives us an issue of WP:SUSTAINED. She doesn't pass WP:POL cleanly, so if we fall back to GNG, we need significant sustained coverage. But the coverage is all WP:ONEEVENT.
Specifically:
- Juneau Empire "This is the first in a three-part series of interviews with U.S. Senate candidates." We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro who was similarly profiled as a fellow candidate. Should we? Literally every candidate who stands for public office will get a local news profile. That doesn't not pass GNG on it's own.
- The making of a U.S. Senate candidate: Kelly Tshibaka "Second of three stories on candidates for U.S. Senate in Alaska in the Nov. 8 general election." Same issue. She ran, there was some local coverage. So what? This is well into WP:ONEEVENT territory.
- The New Yorker This is the best of the lot since it's not an Alaskan paper - national interest starts to hint at notability. Except the article isn't about her - the title is literally "Alaska’s G.O.P. Proxy War". Tshibaka isn't notable - the story is that the GOP were in a state of internal conflict and there's a split in the party between moderate conservatives and a growing alt-right movement.
If Tshibaka is truly notable in her own right then I would like to see at least one in-depth profile that is not from the election - some example of sustained coverage where an independent journalist has decided "This person is someone worth spending some time on in their own right", but I haven't managed to spot such an article. Given that the election race was contentious (Alaska & National Republicans falling out) and received unusual attention because of that, the relevant material would surely be better MERGED into 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska and this article DELETED or REDIRECTED. Hemmers (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race: “Kelly Chaundel Tshibaka (/ʃɪˈbɑːkə/ shib-AH-kə; born September 5, 1979)[1][2][3] is an American attorney who served in the federal government from 2002 to 2019 in several inspector general offices. Upon moving back to her home state of Alaska in 2019, she served for two years as the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Administration until 2021. Tshibaka was a Republican candidate for the United States Senate in the 2022 election.[4] She lost to the incumbent, Republican Lisa Murkowski, by about seven percentage points.[5][6] Thereafter, she became a leading opponent of ranked-choice voting in Alaska, as well as head of the Trump 2024 campaign in that state.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear what your purpose is in quoting the entire lead. The other holders of those federal government posts do not have articles. Should they? If anything, that's an argument against her notability. Pretty much every political candidate has a pre-politics career. Working in govt is no more notable than working in the private sector. Is Tshibaka's work in government considered more notable that Pat Chesbro's career in teaching?

As I have stated, we need some evidence of significant, sustained coverage outside of the election to show this article goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. A couple of trivial mentions in articles relating to strikes? That's not GNG.

As for this statement: The lead of this BLP plainly shows that she’s notable even without being the runner-up in a close U.S. Senate race. I'm afraid this is plainly false. The article was created when she ran for office - not when she was commissioner. None of the other commissioners have articles or are considered notable. Even if she is notable now (which is dubious), she was definitely not notable prior to her campaign. Her latest work against ranked voting may make her notable WP:LAGGING, but I'm still on the fence whether she's there yet. Anyone can start a political lobby group on paper and shove out some press releases. Still doesn't make them notable. Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemmers (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m glad you’re on the fence now. Notice that Pat Chesbro was a relatively minor candidate, she got about 10% of the vote compared to 43% for Tshibaka. Even if Tshibaka had not been runner-up in a statewide election, hadn’t campaigned against ranked choice voting, and hadn’t been put in charge of a statewide presidential campaign, still being commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Administration for two years could be enough. See the people listed at Ministry of Public Administration (Croatia). If anyone is still unsure about notability here, take a look at the list of references. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Croatia analogy doesn't make any sense as that is a ministry, and not all of those people even have articles. It's very simple: she would not have had an article created on her if she had not run for office, and candidates are rarely notable. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A ministry is the same thing as a department. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really on the fence. She's not dead - consequently I'm open to the idea she will be deemed notable in future (WP:LAGGING). But I don't think she's there yet. This is not a high bar. I could also be notable in the future. So could you.

Her commisionership is absolutely not notable. AFAIK she wasn't involved in any notable reforms/revolutions or scandals during that time. So what would make her two years in office any more notable that any other Commissioner (she would be the first to have an article)?

All I'm asking is "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

WP:NPOL allows that some unsuccessful candidates may be notable. But I keep being bombarded with "Here's coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other (non-notable) candidates got too", which doesn't really help! What is the "extra" that gets Tshibaka over the line?

Your list of Croatian officials is misplaced - those individuals are (as far as I can tell) elected politicians - not employees of the ministry or civil/public servants. As we all well know, Tshibaka is not - and has never been - an elected representative. That's why we're having this discussion. Hemmers (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Death would be a rather high bar for notability (although such a bar would probably improve Wikipedia). NPOL is unambiguous: “The following are presumed to be notable: [1] Politicians and judges who have held … state/province–wide office…. [2] Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage…. [3] people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.” Tshibaka qualifies under all three of these, though only one is needed. Her notability is also a lot more substantial than unelected officials like Richard K. Allen, Arsen Bauk, and Dubravka Jurlina Alibegović. This is my last comment here, let’s see if other Wikipedians would like to weigh in. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S. Just came across List of third-party and independent performances in United States Senate elections. You can see dozens of BLPs listed there for losing candidates who have a lot less notability in reliable sources than the person we’re discussing. Also, people here who support a redirect are not suggesting moving this article’s content, which violates WP:PRESERVE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a disconnect to me in asking to show that a political candidate is notable without using sources about her political candidacy—again, all NPOL asks for is multiple news feature articles, which is plainly not something every candidate gets; your emphasis on in her own right is misdirected. I hate to bring up WP:OSE, but We don't have an article for Pat Chesbro is textbook. Your point about WP:SUSTAINED/WP:BLP1E coverage rules out only people likely to remain ... a low-profile individual, which she is not. And as for the [New Yorker] article isn't about her, WP:SIGCOV means more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I am asking is: "What makes Tshibaka notable, given that unsuccessful candidates generally aren't considered notable?"

All I have received in response is "Here's a bunch of coverage during the election, which incidentally, the other candidates got too".

Please let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this and let's focus on this one question which I have now asked twice and received no response to. Her candidacy is NOT on it's own notable. Otherwise we would be doing articles for EVERY candidate (yes Chesbro, but also EVERY candidate for EVERY Senate/House seat), and we patently don't do that. So this is not WP:OSE. This is asking why Tshibaka is the exception to the rule. The occasional unsuccessful candidate who tips the scales into notability. Yes - WP:NPOL allows that. Why does Tshibaka qualify for that? What else has she got going for her? Hemmers (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, and yes, the best sources I've found come from the election. But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines; let's leave individual sources & profiles out of this is rarely the way to go about determining notability. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But your standard doesn't seem to be in line with our guidelines

It certainly is. Our guidelines (WP:NPOL) are that an unsuccessful candidate may be notable, but this is exceptional or predicated on independent notability (e.g. Donald Trump was notable before he ran for office. George W. Bush was previously Governor of Texas, etc). Tshibaka is not notable. She doesn't pass NPOL and she doesn't (as far as I can tell) pass WP:ANYBIO either. No Commissioner before or since has been deemed notable. This is not WP:OSE. It's possible that she is notable... but notability must be clearly shown. What makes her exceptional? I have asked repeatedly for someone to put forward some suggestion as to why she is notable over and above her unsuccessful election campaign. Nobody is able to do so.

So in what way am I out of step with the guidelines?

I'll be honest, I almost feel a bit gaslit at this point.

All I want is for someone voting 'Keep' to answer:

What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?

She is not unique or special for being a government official who later ran for office. And her government career was undistinguished - no major scandals/reforms/projects.

Nobody can tell me what the 'extra' is that gets her over the line. That's all I want to know.

I'll be leaving this conversation and Afd here because people seem to be more interested in citing policy (WP:NOTBURO) than answering the very simple and reasonable question of "How does she meet GNG?", and I don't want to start accusing people of poor faith. I've made my points so continuing to go round in circles seems unproductive. Hemmers (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The article does not meet GNG, as her notability comes only from that election. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. The sourcing is because of her campaign, she is not independently notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably not meeting political notability, but we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep. The USA Today and AP articles are about her. Not really notable for one thing, but many different things together, if that makes sense. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> we have enough sourcing as a civil servant to !keep

Is that notable though? Does an unremarkable period as a Commissioner qualify as notable? It hasn't for other commissioners. Maybe she's notable but she would be the exception. Most civil servants are not notable unless they oversee some major scandal, reform or event. The sources on her government career are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions relating to strikes and such. They're one-liners of "the commissioner said", not articles about Tshibaka. Hemmers (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous arguments. Coverage of Tshibaka as a commissioner almost entirely consists of passing mentions. No evidence of notability, especially now that she's lost her campaign. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I suppose keeping the page would be suitable as well, but as has already been discussed, the insufficiently non-election related sourcing causes me to interpret the page as one relevant to the broader public more for election notability purposes than as the civil servant she also is. The page may also justifiably be kept as the length of the encyclopedically relevant body of text already embedded into the article meets Wikipedia's standards, not to mention how there is an overall mixed attitude by the users in this debate on the subject's broader political notability (ex. lack of consensus on the article's future potential); some are right when suggesting that the article provides just enough sufficient information on this candidate per the extent of the coverage not normally witnessed in other instances. There is a big downside to this, however: it's tough to say when enough becomes enough, and as such I believe redirecting this page - while keeping would suffice - serves as the better option in this instance. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still see a division here between editors arguing to Keep and those advocating a Redirect. Based on past AFDs, I'm leaning Redirect but thought I'd relist this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with the redirect if it goes that way. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does cover some info about Tshibaka outside the election, it's not that bad in terms of sourcing and per Hameltion. Just because she lost an election doesn't make her any less notable if the article is well sourced. Plus, she appears to be active post-election via activism against rank-choice voting and being chair of Trump's Alaska campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska. I’ll support the group consensus but feel strongly that she does not have the necessary notability in her own right to merit her own article. I’ve edited thousands of Wiki pages for federal political candidates and officeholders, and the difference here is she: a) was unsuccessful and thus did not serve in the office that she sought, and b) she has not yet achieved a significant level of notability in business, politics, education, or other ways one would qualify for a WP:BLP article. Running an unsuccessful race is not enough for her to qualify on her own, but her name should certainly redirect to the 2022 election article about the campaign in which she was a candidate. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Alaska as a usual an appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal office in the United States. I also believe that some of the veriable information can be added to the page about the election. --Enos733 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 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. While the !vote count is close, the NACTOR argument is undermined by the assertions that the subject's purportedly-notable roles have not been verified, an assertion which has not been contested and which is reinforced by later delete !votes. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erum Akhtar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. Furthermore, majority of cited sources fails WP:RS. No evidence indicating significant involvement in notable films, TV dramas, etc. being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted as per AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erum Akhtar —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is a well known actress. She started working in 1990 and she has portrayed leading roles in dramas now she does supporting roles as well sometimes lead roles.^[1](BeauSuzanne (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

References

^ "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

Fyi, the comment above was made by the creator of the BLP. The reference they provided to establish WP:N is merely a sensational news story. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR clearly. TheChronikler7 (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has appeared in numerous notable dramas. I remember her in leading PTV dramas roles. She was a model as well.(2400:ADCC:160:1F00:C166:DEA8:28EC:A094 (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Not enough! you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep- meets WP:NACTOR, rationale provided for deletion is weak.182.182.97.3 (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is akin to WP:JUSTAPOLICY —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further review of the sources, and to allow for further discussion within this debate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, Fails GNG and NBIO. nothing found in article or BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS. Article has a lot of refspam, but none or it meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep votes provide no sources other than a promotion photo spread. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 13:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided to show notability, no reason to keep the article. Niafied (talk) 04:40, 21 May 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. The arguments essentially boil down to WP:NACTOR (for keep) vs. WP:GNG (for deletion), with one editor further disputing that the bar for NACTOR has been met. With a narrow majority of !votes favoring deletion on grounds of failing to meet GNG, delete has the upper hand in terms of both numbers and arguments, noting that like most WP:SNG provisions, NACTOR states that an actor meeting its prescriptions merely may be notable and primarily defers to GNG. A further consideration pushing towards a delete over no consensus outcome here is that the article is a WP:BLP. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sukaina Khan

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Previously deleted via AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead roles/Main cast in Tevar, Fasiq, Teri Berukhi,Fitna, to name just a few. merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. But nobody said that! SIGNIFICANT roles (lead or not, but in the present case, various lead roles). No further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable actress and she started working as child actress in supporting roles. Now she does lead roles as well and she does modeling as well recently she is working drama Sultanat on Hum TV.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC))^[1][reply]

References

^ "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

I acknowledge that she is an actress and has appeared in TV dramas, which naturally garners some media coverage. However, this interview alone ( a primary source) is definitely not sufficient to establish that she had significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE fail WP:SIRS, nothing from neutral, independent, reliable sources addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found promo material, interviews, name mentions/listings, nothing that meets WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the complete lack of discussion since the 2nd relisting, this is less like a 3rd relisting (which, of course, it technically is) and more an extension of the 2nd listing. It would be good to have some other views because some of what has gone on so far seems a bit disruptive (not pointing fingers).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I will stipulate the subject exists, but I can't find sufficient sourcing to meet GNG, ANYBIO, or NACTOR. Keep assertions acquire the BURDEN of presenting RS (or at least proof of RS existing). Nothing applied or presented here puts us past this bar. BusterD (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - The nominator mentioned in here that seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. She is winner of one of the shows mentioned by the nominator, "Desi Kuriyan". So rationale provided as "No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc" in this WP:AfD doesn't makes sense when nominator accepted that show she won have received coverage from RS in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waqar Zaka (3rd nomination).182.182.63.7 (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 182.182.63.7, OK but you still need to backup your claims with evidence from RS. First, prove that she won the show. Second, demonstrate that the show itself received sig/ in-depth coverage. Cheers! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:07, 27 May 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. Discussion consensus is that insufficient independent reliable sources have been identified, applied, or found which put this BLP subject past the bar for notability. BusterD (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Sheikh

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

The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable series. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I was unable to verify if she had significant roles. As I said in my nom, merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one inherent notable. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator of this BLP has peculiar editing history. I've raised concerns about it on WP:ANI. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per My, oh my! (Mushy Yank).182.182.97.3 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is akin to WP:PERX —Saqib (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the IP copied all the formatting for Mushy's signature? ;) Must be a fan. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP account was not blocked. Please do not take it upon yourself to strike out opinions/votes unless the editor is a confirmed sockpuppet. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth, in a non promotional way. Sources in article are programming annoucements, promo, etc, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 12 May 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After checking, I searched for in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources to meet WP:GNG, but I couldn’t find any. Therefore, the subject fails WP:GNG. Regarding WP:NACTOR, I don’t think she has played a significant role in these dramas and films. Hence, she fails WP:NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 12:57, 24 May 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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhuja Rajaraman

AfDs for this article:

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

Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:

1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.

2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html

3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.

No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, Comics and animation, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 25 April 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, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Oh wow, the youngest person to .... Please. It's very easy when you're a nepo baby. Bearian (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Soft deletion is not an option as it was JUST at a previous AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last nomination was one month ago. Bring it to Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the closer made a mistake. And significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Christian75 (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might have missed the note on Last nomination --> Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 22:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 6 explicitly allowed the renom. Suggest a focus on content and not process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For my part I'm not seeing anything recent or meeting RS about this subject, and I'm not satisfied with the applied or presented sources meeting WP:BLP. Reading the DRV leads me to believe there is not much community support for keeping (as the side comments in this process might lead one to believe). BusterD (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the previous AfD found coverage spanning a period from 2011 to 2019. 8 years is too long of an "event" to invoke WP:BLP1E and the nature of the "event" in this case is not well defined. The fact that there has not been significant coverage since 2019 is not a reason to delete per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nominator has a strong rationale as also illustrated in prev AfD. Issues of churnalism/promo remain in sources. Current GoogleSearch brings out heavy PR stuff. Would refrain form making any personal comments about the subject. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 18:20, 23 May 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. Owen× ☎ 08:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Brown (artist)

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

WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books.
But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Women, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.

And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.

It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412 T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not speculating, read your discussion above with PamD then made my decision. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you discarding the CBC interview? FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the CBC feature, combined with the weight of what seem to be adequate sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What adequate sources? I see exactly one. Curiocurio (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the Guleph Today piece and CBC coverage, there is non-primary coverage. Whether aspects of the biography sourced to primary sources are wholly due as paragraphic body text or could be better rendered as a list of works/residences is a content question at the article level rather than an inclusion/deletion question at the encyclopedia level. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nicely done bio on the notability borderline. Don't we have more serious things to worry about? Carrite (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - most of the sources are primary, and not high-quality at that, as they are very promotional. She has very little reliable third-party coverage. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 03:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dozen warm-up edits then creation of a detailed article with mostly commercial non-archival references. Article has a cereal-filler claim to notability ("She is primarily known for her sculptural works which incorporate a variety of natural and industrial materials.") This looks like some kind of fan-page or COI. 2600:1700:8650:2C60:89EE:CBB:BDD3:F68E (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding any RS online to add to the article. She does exist as an author and artist but fails WP:Artist. WP:TOOSOON. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
above people mentioned Guleph Today and CBC, both are RS FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in a RS source does not indicate that the coverage contributes evidence of the subject's notability. I agree with other commenters that this falls short of WP:Artist, her importance in Maple Ridge, British Columbia notwithstanding. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All these guidelines that allow us to say "passed xyz standard", or "fails XYZ standard" is handy to have. But the fact of the matter is, we have articles like this one, where it should be obvious that this is an accomplished artist. Maybe she does/or doesn't exactly fit into the guidelines we so love to haul out for our assessment. Wikipedia has kept stubs and others with far less content and substance than this one. As far as I'm concerned, her article shows her qualifications to be here. We get carried away sometimes on one view or the other. I say she's notable as an artist, and I'm sticking to my perspective on it. — Maile (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll concur with Maile66. I see sufficient anchoring sourcing (Guleph Today and CBC) and plenty of less independent stuff (which may be used to detail the subject once NOTE is met, which I now assert). Given the usual dearth of direct detailing of visual artists in media, this sourcing is pretty good. BusterD (talk) 14:32, 14 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review

[1] Shaw, Punch (2008-05-24). "Guitarists' concert is well worth the wait". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. pp. A16. Retrieved 2024-05-17.

[:0-2] Siegel, Steve (2013-10-06). "Music is family affair for guitarist Eliot Fisk". The Morning Call. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2024-05-17.

[3] Small, Mark (2021). "An Afro-Cuban Legacy". Acoustic Guitar ; San Anselmo. No. 331. pp. 30–33 – via Proquest.

[4] "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

[5] "Suqaynah Khan making waves". Magazine - The Weekly.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]