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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women.

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

Brenda Jean Patrick

AfDs for this article:

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

(Renomination: the discussion from 2010 closed as "no consensus.") I don't believe that Brenda Jean Patrick fulfills the notability requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. She is (was? I think I found an obituary) an educational consultant who touted the idea of "customer care" in school districts. Most of the information I can find about her consultant work is in the form of press releases in local papers when she held workshops for a district. I don't see independent coverage outside of her PR. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Joyous! Noise! 17:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is coverage of her municipal appointment as to North Texas' Water District Board of Directors and a range of coverage of her consultation in education and other sectors (Wikipedia Library required): [1] [2] [3]. I've gone ahead and removed some unsourced information from the article and rephrased elements to be more straightforwardly neutral. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nino Kochlamazashvili

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP that fails WP:GNG. All that comes up are trivial mentions. JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Georgia (country). JTtheOG (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 16:47, 28 April 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.

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]

Anumta Qureshi

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. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 16:50, 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]
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: Anumta is best know for her role Huma in Suno Chanda 1 and Suno Chanda 2. She did supporting roles as well and has also done major roles in dramas. This source it is mentioned when she started her career and her dramas.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC))^[1][reply]

References

^ "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.

Could you share some reputable sources that can confirm she held significant roles? I'd prefer not to rely on sources known for publishing sensational clickbait to garner traffic. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Enough, Saqib. More of this casting aspersions will result in a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I've retracted my comment. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:21, 5 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!} 07:27, 12 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]
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]

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]

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]

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 without prejudice against renomination in three months if sourcing isn't improved. Owen× ☎ 11:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beenish Chohan

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/Beenish Chohan —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:01, 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 ☎ ✎ 17:12, 27 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]
Keep: Beenish is a well known actress. She started working from PTV and she has done notable roles in dramas on PTV. She got awards too and now she is in drama Bayhadh on Geo TV.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her roles and career. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A national news channel cited in the article in Pakistan calls Chohan a Renowned actress of Pakistan's showbiz industry. This, combined with other citations in the article, move me to keeping the article. By way of aside, the text of the OP is nearly identical to that of multiple other AfDs Saqib has nominated (examples: [4] [5] [6]. While this behavior seems to be out of good faith concern for the benefit of the project, I'm starting to worry that some of these AfDs are veering into low-effort WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeauSuzanne has created hundreds of BLPs on Pakistani actors. However, I 've only nominated fewer than ten for deletion and these nominations were made based on my firm belief that they do not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACTOR and even fail to satisfy basic WP:GNG requirements. The websites of Pakistani national news channels clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA therefore our reliance on such websites - which regularly publishj sensational and tabloid content for increased traffic - poses credibility concerns. It render them inadequate for establishing the WP:N of subjects. And I reckon many Pakistani editors would concur with this assessment. It's worth noting that while figures like Ducky Bhai (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) receive extensive coverage in such questionable news websites, but still they do not necessarily warrant a BLP. And why is identical text an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same? —Saqib (talk | contribs) 06:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEWSORGINDIA specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications—Brand Connect in Forbes India, Impact features in India Today, etc., not to all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia.
In a general sense, I grant that using similar text for describing similar problems isn't necessarily on its own an issue. However, some of these articles have seemed more notable than others that were nominated. As I said in my comment, I started to worry that there was some inadvertent automaticness premised on dislike of the articles, rather than per article assessment, slipping in. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As CNMall41 (talk · contribs) noted here, WP:NEWSORGINDIA could be extended to cover the entire media within Indian subcontinent as Pakistan also has issues of paid media. And as CNMall41 said creating a complete listing of ALL publications that engage in such practices would be exhaustive. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets WP:NACTOR.182.182.35.42 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC) Struck per IP blocked Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Care to elaborate? I hope the closing admin won't entertain such WP:VAGUEWAVE. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles in notable productions. (see page, articles about said productions and https://tribune.com.pk/story/550204/lsa-and-the-nominees-are-tv-nominations; https://tribune.com.pk/story/863646/pakistans-top-six-damsels-always-in-distress for example) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, The first source confirms her role in "Chalo Phir Se Jee Ke Dekhen," but I couldn't find much about this show in RS. The second source verifies her involvement in "Babul Ki Duaein Leti Ja" and "Meri Behen Meri Devarni," but there's only ROTM coverage turning up for these shows in RS and nothing which can verify they are signifiant work. So, the question arises. if these 3 shows aren't significant works, how does this actor meet the WP:ACTOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, The quality of the sources is be hard to judge but due to the fact that the editor who created this article is, at best, sock-adjacent and has a poor understanding of notability, I would argue for a delete. At the same time, I will encourage Saqib here take more care in future noms, even socks can (and often do) create articles that can pass notability and it's better to leave those up and focus on stripping WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF from them (bonus points if you can dig up a scandal, which undermines the sock's business). Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Allan Nonymous, See , I'm not advocating for the deletion of this BLP because it was created by a suspected sock or a UPE. My stance remains that this BLP should be deleted because it fails to meet the WP:ACTOR. I've provided my reasoning to Mushy Yank above, while @CNMall41 has provided theirs to @Hydrangeans. I hope Mushy Yank doesn't mind me saying this, but they seem to be casting keep votes on some of my AfD discussions without considering that simply appearing in TV shows and getting award nominations for those appearances in such TV shows isn't sufficient. We need to assess whether those TV shows are indeed "significant" based on whether they've received significant / in-depth coverage by RS or if they've been even getting reviews by RS. If not, then these actors clearly fail to meet theWP:ACTOR even if they do lead roles in those TV shows. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - And please don't interpret my comments as defensive OR pushy. I, on many occasions, withdrawn my AfD nominations when I realized I was mistaken. For instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoosha Syed (2nd nomination)., —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:22, 10 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!} 06:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Chevallier

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted at AfD many years ago, and nothing of substance seems to have changed: my WP:BEFORE search didn't find anything that would meet the GNG (just a handful of blogs, interviews, etc.), and none of the WP:NARTIST criteria appear to be met. Not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and France. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any good sources that show notability. The article itself has a lot of sources, but they are basically all low quality and/or primary. Cortador (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete already deleted from French wiki consensus was not notable. Orange sticker (talk) 09:51, 3 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Grandstaff

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 13#Tracy Grandstaff * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Daria Morgendorffer for single character notability.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my vote at the RfD, the page is not suitable as a redirect to any target. Jay 💬 21:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With coverage in TV Insider, Yahoo News, Vice, and TV Insider (again), I see notability for Grandstaff. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:25, 1 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!} 22:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - significant coverage of someone with a fairly notable voice role Claire 26 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is decently sourced and meets the WP:NACTOR criteria. Absolutely no point in redirecting anywhere else. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:36, 11 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. Owen× ☎ 23:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vilma Abrahamsson

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet GNG or SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Any coverage I find looking in the local paper is just match reports or very short statements on her injuries. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SPORTCRIT. AlexandraAVX (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG, SPORTCRIT, NBIO, etc. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:46, 2 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. Owen× ☎ 23:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Coney

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

Subject is a case of WP:BIO1E as a beauty pageant contestant, with a lack of WP:GNG level coverage. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and California. Let'srun (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BEFORE found name mentions and promo, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. // Timothy :: talk 04:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Goes nowhere near to satisfying WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Contributor892z (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG Waqar💬 15:48, 3 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. I think the NACTOR debate has been reasonably addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:THREE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. Dream Focus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. Dream Focus 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though 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 Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 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. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indrė Venskevičiūtė

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lithuania. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:55, 27 April 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. Daniel (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Dahl

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
As I don't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Swedish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think that ISBN to my books can meet the case, but pl let me know if you need additional information:

1 Seven Russian poets in Stockholm: ISBN 91-7906-004-8

2 Collection of poems "Summer time and Winter Clocks": ISBN 9189424069 (1999), ISBN 91-89424360 (2000)

3 Novel "Always returning to you", ISBN 978-91-7327-089-2

My translations of Swedish poets are published in four literary magazines. Shall I provide publication years/numbers?

My membership in Swedish Writers' Union can be confirmed by the Union. My Ph D about Boris Pasternak is from 1978, it can be confirmed by Göteborg University, the only number I can find is 9 9901417317. If you search my name (Dahl, Elena) in Libris, the database of all books in Swedish libraries, you will find a complete list of my published work.

Sincerely

Elena Dahl 178.174.247.84 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A writer's notability is not established by citing the article to the publication details of her own work as proof that it exists — a writer's notability is established by third party coverage about her and her books in media, as proof that they've been externally validated as culturally significant by somebody other than the writer's own employers. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched in 2 major Swedish newspapers (Aftonbladet and Dagens Nyheter) for her name and got nothing. I don't speak Swedish so I can't go further than that, but we would need 3rd party sources to keep this. (I think WP is being confused with LinkedIn, which is designed for self-promotion.) Lamona (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:38, 2 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.

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]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evangeline Wiles

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

8-year orphaned permastub on a "technology entrepreneur" with a single middling reference. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 20:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find press releases saying she's running this panel or other. BrigadierG (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speaker at xyz event, is about all there is for coverage about this person. One line stub that we can delete. Vaguely PROMO, not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are just press releases, not enough to establish notability. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a single source violates both WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV, thus violates WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 30 April 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Lambert

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

Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Australia, and New York. – Teratix ₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
- Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
- Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
- Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
- Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
- Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
- The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
– Teratix ₵ 07:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix ₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.

On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix ₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 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!} 07:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PigeonChickenFish: Any further comment? – Teratix ₵ 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still meets WP:NBIO PigeonChickenFish (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which specific sources? – Teratix ₵ 00:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are not in-depth and not WP:SIGCOV like routine company coverage. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on source review. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:38, 8 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 List of Moldova women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liuba Dragomir

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

Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers as I am unable to find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect Traumnovelle (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Moldova women's international footballers due to subject's lack of WP:GNG. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:49, 25 April 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 List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunzala Suleymanova

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

Redirect to List of Azerbaijan women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found was this interview, where she claims to have retired at age 23 or 24. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Azerbaijan. JTtheOG (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As nominated by JTtheOG. Chekidalum (talk) 11:24, 27 April 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Astbury

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 26 April 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. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trés Hanley

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

Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 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, England, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The production was 1993 at London's Canazzaro Park. Miss Hanley did TV interviews in which it was stated several times that she was the first american to play the role. The Director was Peter Benedict. Many of the parks productions are not listed in IBDB even to this day. Yet they are listed with the West End summer limited run productions. PleeUK (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several parks productions - Holland Park, Regents and Cannazaro London summer theatre associated with the West End in the 90s. Which roles were bit parts? Care to be specific? If you watch any of the shows that she has been in they are all featured roles or principle roles. Is this a legit or personal attempt on her work? PleeUK (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) do you have reliable secondary sources to back up these statements? (2) Do you have a WP:COI with Hanley? I ask because most of your edits are to this article, and you seem to have a knowledge of her career that sources do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all her works are also verifiable on IMDB. There are various article that were online that may be dead links now. I have met her in the past twice. But cannot say I am a friend. I do find Wiki confusing and so If I did not do something correct I apologize. PleeUK (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "cannot say I am a friend" - but in this edit, you say "You are looking to delete my friends page." Let's continue this tangent on your talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have said, I do not know her personally but I consider her a friend. I have followed her on social media and she is my friend there. You people here are very technical. Not all as familiar with the technical workings here.

You also make many false statements here saying her roles were bit parts when her name is on poster for movie mouth to mouth. And she has been lead or featured. Maybe you are experts on how to use wikipedia and I am not. I did apologize for it, but you do not have your facts on the actress correct. I was making an intervention on keep her page that's all. You do what you need to do. Thank you. PleeUK (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide citations to the articles in your scrapbook, as described below and on your own Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PleeUK, Wikipedia does not accept IMDB as a WP:reliable source, because it is user-generated, so you need to cite reviews or articles from reputable publishers, like newspapers, about each production, show and film in which she appeared. You can't just say "she got press coverage" for something, you need to cite the exact article, author name, page number or URL, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scrap book with information but i cannot track it to the periodicals online today. This is from over 20 yrs ago not now all online. PleeUK (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be online. Here is how you can succeed: We need the name of the publication, the title and date of the article or book, the name of the author and the page number on which the information appeared. Post those things on the article's Talk page, and also type out the exact text from the article that verifies a statement made in Henley's article, so that I and other editors can see it, and if it does verify WP:NOTEWORTHY facts about her from a WP:RS, then I can add an appropriate cite to her Wikipedia entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say IMDB is user generated but not all most of it is supplied from the tv or film compamies. You can watch the shows and see these actors in the roles. So how is this not legit? PleeUK (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, Fred Zepelin has posted the answer to your question. But be assured that it is not an acceptable source, and you will not succeed by arguing about that. Instead, follow the procedure that I outlined for you above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mika1h (talk) 06:59, 7 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 Speedy Keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen O'Donnell

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

I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page. That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability. ChocoElephant (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 23 April 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!} 12:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette

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

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 4 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!} 20:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zivit Inbar

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

Unreliable information. No RS. Fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Israel, and Australia. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphan article that looks like a CV. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Israel. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I searched for reliable sources and found no evidence of notability. Marokwitz (talk) 15:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per norm Robertjamal12 ~🔔 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Looks just like a CV, clearly intended as promotional. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable. TarnishedPath^talk 08:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about the topic. Chekidalum (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: promotional material without any evidence of WP:GNG. Contributor892z (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't appear to be promotional - I don't see an obvious connection to the creator. I am, however, confused why anyone would create an article about a small business owner who has no substantial legacy and has not garnered any coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 29 April 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!} 06:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Epple

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

The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, Politics, and California. Classicwiki (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92^Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. The article cites coverage in the Long Beach Press-Telegram and the Cerritos College newspaper Talon Marks. There is also coverage in Insurance Journal, the periodical of record of the American Agents Alliance. Another periodical, the Downey Patriot, reports that she is the namesake of a memorial scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Even assuming that everything is true, the depth and reliability of the sourcing in questionable. Two local sources do not constitute significant coverage. A board member can be notable; for example, Lewis Powell, Jr. made national headlines as an education board member well before he was appointed to SCOTUS. This is not the situation for this subject. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage here - the college newspaper is obviously not independent, and other mentions seem trivial. SportingFlyer T·C 04:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 23:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Kiernan

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

Does not meet WP:AUTHOR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb45424 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added multiple reviews of multiple books. There is additional information about Kiernan in interviews, while this does not contribute to notability the added information would provide context in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, as the new citations show notability and there are more sources that can be added to expand the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in profiles from multiple newspapers and with reviews of her books in multiple periodicals, I think sufficient coverage is demonstrated to show notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:03, 29 April 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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Bonacorsi

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Missouri. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (Inquirer, Golden Skate, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NSKATE is not as important as BASIC. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in Australia). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please familiarise yourself with WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Your argumentation seems to fall fully within that realm. Geschichte (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That the subject of the article meets WP:BASIC is a valid policy-based reason for keeping the article. Hameltion had already given examples of significant coverage in two different reliable sources, so there was no point in my repeating them. Nothing in the essay you mentioned contradicts that.
Explaining how articles like this one support other articles is not a policy-based reason for retention. But it is nevertheless true.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said that BASIC is important, which looks like a general statement. What we should do is discuss the actual sources and whether they are good enough to base a Wikipedia biography about a living person upon. The rest of it more or less clutter and should therefore be toned down. Geschichte (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough WP:SIGCOV in the sources already present in the article to meet WP:GNG. Yet another poor nomination. @Toddy1: You can see an archived version of the Inquirer article here. JTtheOG (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
Mittan, Barry (January 17, 2010). "Junior Dancers Off to Good Start". Skate Today. Archived from the original on 13 March 2012.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Rutherford, Lynn (January 20, 2009). "New partners Bonacorsi, Mager dance to win". Icenetwork. Archived from the original on September 26, 2012. Retrieved September 9, 2011.	~ Source discusses the subject briefly	~ Partial
Walker, Elvin (October 16, 2011). "Bonacorsi and Mager hope to turn silver into gold". Golden Skate. Retrieved October 16, 2011.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Boccella, Kathy (February 27, 2011). "Radnor High skater's odyssey takes her to world championships". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Retrieved October 16, 2011. Boccella, Kathy (February 27, 2011). "Radnor High skater's odyssey takes her to world championships". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 31 January 2013.	The first one is a gallery of four photographs. The captions discusses the subject very briefly. The second one is the article that goes with the gallery, which discusses the subject directly and in detail. Amended after JTtheOG provided an archive link	✔ Yes
"Lauri Bonacorsi and Travis Mager lead novice ice dance at 2009 U.S. Figure Skating Championships". LifeSkate. January 19, 2009. Archived from the original on October 4, 2011. Retrieved August 29, 2011.	Mentions the subject in passing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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. See comment below - However, sources have been located and nobody has argued against them in 11 days. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmin Siraj

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (WBUR, Wicked Local, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The two sources presented by Hameltion alone are enough to meet GNG / WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agreed that there's more than enough to meet both GNG and NSKATE --TJS808 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification, the nominator is correct that the subject does not meet NSKATE. JTtheOG (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NSKATE is not as important as GNG. This is a useful short article on a skater who was reasonably successful in junior skating tournaments. Articles on those tournaments work in their current format because there are articles on most of the medalists; there is therefore no need to say anything about the medalists in such articles (for example: ISU Junior Grand Prix in France). Deleting articles such as this one, has a detrimental effect on other articles.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does not fail Wikipedia:Notability and that's more important Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Several users argue in a way that doesn't concern Wikipedia policy. Please consider replacing such comments with evaluations of sources in the future. Geschichte (talk) 07:13, 6 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.

Mackenzie Bent

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 23:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, Soft deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Found [[7]] but I'm not finding any other WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the source table. WP:GNG is met. Let'srun (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG is met - see source assess table.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Multiple examples of SIGCOV from reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Toddy1
Holder, Gord (16 January 2014). "Junior titles handed out on final day of competition". The Ottawa Citizen. p. 13.	~ Significant coverage, but very limited scope	~ Partial
McNair, Brian (February 11, 2016). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent and Ajax's Dmitre Razgulajevs off to junior worlds in Hungary". Uxbridge Times Journal. Durham Region. Cayley, Shawn (5 January 2012). "Durham duo impresses in ice dance. Big things in store for Mackenzie Bent and Garrett MacKeen". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com. Kelly, Brad (1 February 2013). "Uxbridge's Mackenzie Bent, Oshawa's Garrett MacKeen earn silver at nationals". Oshawa This Week – via DurhamRegion.com.	All three articles discuss the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Slater, Paula (August 26, 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Golden Skate.	Source discusses the subject directly and in detail	✔ Yes
Smith, Beverley (15 January 2014). "Double duty for Canada's Bent and MacKeen". Skate Canada.	~ Limited scope	~ Partial
"Canadian ice dancers Bent, MacKeen drop to 5th at world juniors". CBC. 17 March 2015.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Yasutake

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

Reviewed during NPP. Combination of wp Notability events and wp:not news. Story of a lady who died and the family kept the body in the house. Two of the three sources were the news reports on it the third says that is is providing the Wikipedia data on the topic. Tagged by others for sources and notability since December. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should really be an article about the "death of Rina Yasutake". As a person, she isn't notable, the circumstances surrounding her demise seem to be, there are at least 4 BBC stories that pop up in Gnews and some in other news outlets... But I'm not really sure that is enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if you changed it to an article about her death, one could argue that all the family members are living persons and are thus entitled to WP:BLP protections. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability for the person, the events surrounding her demise could perhaps be written NPOV, but I don't see enough sourcing to do so. A story could be told I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable death, not heard of it until this AfD.

SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 26 April 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 00:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angeline Gustave

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

Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I found a couple of pieces covering her move to France (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but nothing in-depth. #3 is probably the best source. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Haiti. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:00, 23 April 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 List of Bulgaria women's international footballers. ✗plicit 05:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvetana Mancheva

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

Redirect to List of Bulgaria women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Bulgaria. JTtheOG (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:29, 22 April 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 List of Iran women's international footballers. Owen× ☎ 21:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bayan Mahmoudi

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

Redirect to List of Iran women's international footballers as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Iran. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Persian version also does not have more than 1 citation. Yolandagonzales (talk) 09:21, 27 April 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 00:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Mellor

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

Unref BLP; I couldn't find sources to establish she can meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 21 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!} 05:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find any WP:SIGCOV. Orange sticker (talk) 11:09, 29 April 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!} 06:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:55, 9 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 one keep !vote was a statement that has been, to my opinion, adequately rebutted referencing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Daniel (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adeseha Wuraola Becky

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the previous deletion. My mind is why there seems always to be a minimal participation for consensus reach. However, an article created barely two /four days after deletion. What am I suspecting? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Versace1608, isn't this G4 you could have tagged. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safari Scribe, I wasn't aware that the article was previously deleted. I only learned this info after nominating it. Sometimes if an article is different from the one that was previously deleted, the admin handling the speedy deletion will decline the G4 request. I have experienced this in the past. Anyways, thanks for the message. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions to this site. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't G4 on a prod/soft delete. Desertarun (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs check out. She doesn't pass Nactor, nor does she need to because she passes both Basic and GNG. Desertarun (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact there is that there isn't much verifiable source(s) to verify whether she acted those films or not, that's part of WP:NBASIC. For the refs, there are WP:ROUTINE like made from interviews, etc and points towards WP:MILL—not notable for now! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:37, 2 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!} 23:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Same as last AfD, nothing has changed, nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Sources in article are promo or mentions, nothing meeting WP:SIRS. Article looks like a promo bio to me. // Timothy :: talk 09:53, 4 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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

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

Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, Politics, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per the nominator, the article is more like a compilation of the acts of some individuals rather than discussing the role of women. The article 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is already very large hence I would oppose a merge. I think relevant information not appearing in the stand-alone articles should be copied across, for example the section on Wang Chaohua.

Golem08 (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely fascinating! Please do not merge with anything else. People can only read so much before they get bored and look for something else. Per the "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" navbox, there are numerous related articles. Won't hurt to leave this as is. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article isn't in the best condition with its over-focus on four particular women's participation rather rather than on summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event in general, I find the essay Deletion is not cleanup persuasive in this case. Deleting an article about a valid topic makes it more difficult to improve later, and even in this non-ideal state the article remains educational and of interest. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the challenge once cleanup is completed (deemphasizing the sections on the four women), you are left with the one paragraph opening, containing only one reference. And much of that prose is unreferenced - (e.g. "many women contributed their opinions and leadership skills to the movement" and "Although women had substantial roles, they had different standpoints regarding the hunger strike movement"). While I agree this is the case, the expectation is that there would be general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event. But those sources do not seem to be there, even with a Google Scholar search. - Enos733 (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a legitimate subject. Summarizing more general academic synthesis of the women's history of the event would be fine and possible, but we should also include all specific women/examples as they are right now. No significant removals of text would be needed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 1 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.

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]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaan Zainab Mazari

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

She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. samee converse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

off topic discussion

@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 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!} 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of the reasons (be it her detentions and her activities, or her parents-as it's not a case of coverage limited only to family relations) she has received lasting media coverage (not every coverage has to be sig/in-depth), and the sources present in the article, some of them are mostly fine and can be considered sig cov - with everyone here acknowledging she meets GNG/WP:BASIC. X (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reviewing the sources and content of this article, I believe it does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's general notability guideline (WP:GNG). The available coverage is limited in depth, often focusing on her arrest for hate speech or her association with notable figures, rather than any significant achievements or unique contributions. The focus on these incidents and connections does not provide the sustained, in-depth, and independent coverage required to establish lasting notability. War Wounded (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth & WP:N doesn't demand individuals to have significant achievements or unique contributions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - it took me more than 2 hours to review the sourcing and verifying. After this prolong review before I !vote, I am not convinced in favour of this subject to be keeped. My statement stands with War Wounded. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:45, 1 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.

Ossanda Liber

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Conservatism, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 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!} 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable

Prima.Vera.Paula (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 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!} 01:25, 2 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Zaikina

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Georgia (country), and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 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!} 04:26, 1 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed that it fails WP:NSKATE. Further, de minimis test of notability appears to be their participation in World Juniors, which doesn't seem to have any RS coverage. - Cara Wellington (talk)

Cara Wellington (talk) 06:25, 8 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!} 23:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Entertainment

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

The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Organizations. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 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!} 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep So far the references are all short announcements of events, plus some mentions in articles about other topics. I think this establishes the "newsworthy-ness" of the organization but only barely meets GNG. I looked for, but did not find, an indepth source about the organization. That is still needed. Lamona (talk) 03:37, 28 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!} 23:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable organization with a lack of sourcing, apart from the usual promotional drivel to support its existence. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NCORP/ORG. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 18:38, 7 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!} 08:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehr Hassan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.

also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Fashion, Pakistan, Punjab, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in multiple notable films. The Louisville Courier article too makes a case for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?

Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.

How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 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!} 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm familiar with a "Soft Delete" but can anyone define a "Soft Keep" for me? Do you mean "Weak Keep"?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NACTOR at this point for the roles in notable films she starred in. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:07, 3 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, Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject's claim of appearing in numerous films lacks verifiable evidence, thus failing to meet WP:ARTISTS. The available coverage appears to be routine per WP:ROTM and lacks the depth required by WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Courier-Journal article wasn't routine, and by what sources we have, Hassan was in these films, noting that the sourcing of the related film articles was light (thus my 'Weak Keep'). I suspect however that her appearance in some of them was exaggerated to make it appear she was a lead when she wasn't. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, The Courier-Journal is great however unfortunately it's no where near enough to establish notability, Not sure if her roles have been major or minor but either way I cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films" and we know she was in several notable films (i.e., films with articles). If you're saying the subject fails NACTOR, are you saying these linked films should be reviewed in AfD? Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But NACTOR states The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films which I can't see reflected here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Partial filmography" in the article links to five notable films (currently adjudged by Wikipedia) and I suppose it's our opinion as to whether her roles were significant in them. It's part of why I say "Weak Keep" as I don't want to overjudge. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say whether she fails NACTOR #1 but personally I would say she does and despite the The Courier-Journal link imho she still fails #2 too, FWIW all of her roles could've been one-bit/minor roles so article linkage doesn't mean anything here, (and leading on to your last point nicely) There's just not enough info to determine whether she meets NACTOR #1 or not but either way I would obviously say she still fails #2, Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In NACTOR, it says #1 or #2. The subject doesn't have to meet both criteria to pass it. I accept that we would need to judge whether the roles are significant but as it was difficult, source-wise, to drill down on these films, I don't want to rush to judgment, thus my "Weak Keep". I still say the key here is to look at the film articles and see if they should be kept. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the articles and their sources as well as looked online - The Gold Bracelet is just about notable with the rest not being notable so imho one notable film and one notable paper cite is still not enough irrespective of what role she played, I guess the article can be redirected to The Gold Bracelet if really desired,

You're more than welcome to search for these films for yourself and judge for yourself, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for welcoming me to do something I've already done. :) So, if only one film is notable, why do the others have articles? (can be taken as a rhetorical question) Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 17:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. If you've searched these articles before now then why the fuck are you here questioning their notability ?. Go nominate them if you think they're not notable.

Because get this Stefen - some articles go undetected and unnoticed, ever thought about that ?, I suspect not :). –Davey2010^Talk 18:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also for future reference go read WP:BLUDGEON. You've !voted keep so as such you don't need to reply to every single delete !vote regurgitating the same line again and again. –Davey2010^Talk 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion, and it is eminently reasonable to challenge a position. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for you to be cross with me here. I have been professional and I expect the same in return. The fact that the articles exist show that they are currently presented as notable subjects, whether they deserve this determination or not. I may well prod the articles in question, but for the time-being, they cannot be dismissed. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but there nothing here to indicate a pass on WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:44, 10 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 / weak keep. We have reasonable disssension on WGM v GM as well as whether the volume of sourcing is sufficient. A consensus to delete this article isn't going to emerge, but nor is a strong consensus for retention. Star Mississippi 01:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Burtasova

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

Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Russia and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.^[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster. The requirements are slightly tougher than those for FIDE Master and slightly easier than those for International Master. Also, the WP:NCHESS criteria are strictly unofficial. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is tantamount to claiming that the title of a champion for women's title is a lesser title than for men's tennis. (Yes, I'm intentionally alluding to the ridiculous episode involving poor John McEnroe.) Wikipedia does not consider the title of WGM in women to be any less worthy than the same title in me. Having separate tournaments and championships for men and women (not a universal separation, by the way) does not mean one is "lesser" (sic) than the other. -The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the WGM title *is* inferior to the GM title. It is far easier to get than the GM title, easier even than the IM title. I don't know by what authority you proclaim what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider", but the claim that the titles are equivalent is just plain incorrect. Women are entitled to enter open tournaments, compete against men, obtain "men's" titles and compete in the "men's section" at chess Olympiads, and play in "men's" championships. Women who are strong enough (i.e. most of the world's top 20 woman players) hold the full GM title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously do not understand what I'm saying, MaxBrowne2. I am not saying that the ELO arithmetic average of Women GM is equal to Men GM. No, it's not even close. There's about a hundred ELO points difference on average. What I am saying is that Wikipedia does not assign any difference between men and women grandmasters as far as notability is concerned! And if you have a different opinion, please point out the pertinent guideline to set me straight. Which is why I'm telling you that your claim ("Woman Grandmaster is a lesser title than Grandmaster") makes no sense in this context. This is not a chess discussion; this is a discussion about deleting or not an article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ELO is a rock band, not a rating system. I do understand what you're saying, and I disagree completely. There is no such title as "Men GM", only GM, which is open to all players who meet the standard, including 41 women to date. There is no "men" anything in chess, men don't have segregated tournaments or titles. GMs are pretty much always notable. IMs don't always make the cut, and neither do WGMs. Often, but not always. WGMs are not Grandmasters, only the 41 women who have actually gained the GM title are. And again what qualifies you to make proclamations on behalf of "Wikipedia", and what "Wikipedia" does or does not "consider" or "assign a difference" to? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not understand the ELO rating system in chess, I, in turn, cannot understand how you offer opinions about elementary issues of the game such as what kind of title is a grandmaster. But, perhaps, or hopefully, you're joking ha ha. In any case, Wikipedia does not place WGMs lower in any way, shape, or form lower than GMs. You invoke WP:NCHESS without understanding it! I already challenged you and I repeat the challenge: Find me in WPedia a rule, a policy, or a guideline that prohibits using the title of Women GM as evidence of notability. Simple task. Otherwise, you're making stuff up. -The Gnome (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you understand nothing of which you write. Concerning WP:CHESS:

Even a cursory examination of this thread will show that *you* invoked WP:NCHESS, not me.
I was around when we drafted that guide and had some hand in it
It was never intended to be invoked as policy, or even a guideline, only as a rough guide to whether or not a player might be considered notable. It is not a good link to use in a deletion discussion.
In the context "Grandmaster" clearly refers to the GM title, not the WGM title, and it is absurd to insist otherwise.

And for Christ's sake stop professing to speak on behalf of "Wikipedia" and making pompous pronouncements on what "Wikipedia" thinks about any topic. "Wikipedia" is not a sentient being and has no opinions on anything.

What Wikipedia does have are policies and guidelines that have been established by consensus. There is clearly no policy or guideline that says that no distinction should be made between the GM and WGM titles when assessing notability, since one is clearly a superior title to the other.

I am going to disengage here on a "never argue with an idiot" basis. I seriously question your competence to edit chess articles or participate in chess-related deletion discussions. I did not start this unpleasantness, I was just offering clarification that the "Grandmaster" in criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not refer to WGMs, but you chose to respond with an aggressive WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, which you then doubled down on with WP:IDHT obtuseness. If you don't understand by now that criterion 1 of WP:NCHESS does not include WGMs then you never will. After all you don't even know the difference between a Hungarian surname and a seventies British rock band, yet you presume to make pronouncements on behalf of "Wikipedia"! MaxBrowne2 (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Also have this article [8] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [9], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [10]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Oaktree's references. That's two different articles in the nation's biggest national paper - plus the local foreign one in a New York city paper. Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: on the basis of WP:NCHESS.--Ipigott (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Nfitz notes, the sources Oaktree b found, from independent periodicals, provide the coverage in independent reliable sources that WP:GNG guides us to find. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing to do with WP:NCHESS which holds no status on Wikipedia, or her title (which is *not* equivalent to a full Grandmaster title), but because there are sufficient sources to establish notability. Further sources can be found in the Russian and German Wikipedia pages and could be incorporated into the article. For example the information that she graduated with a law degree from Vladimir University. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have three local sources and one brief mention. That doesn't add up to WP:BIO. The title of grandmaster (putting aside the separate WGM title) may have been an indicator of notability years ago when there were only a handful issued each year, but there are thousands now. NCHESS would never find consensus to be promoted to an actual notability guideline in part for that reason. Stopping short of !voting delete because it sure seems like the only chess player AfDs I see are of women players -- we could use a notability audit of our articles on the men, too. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned the Russian and German wikipedias can link us to other sources, such as Virtual Vladimir, Ruschess, Wissen in Wedding and the German Chess Federation. That's more than enough sources to construct an article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The value of the Chess Grandmaster title has been inflated many decades ago and not in recent times. I distinctly remember reading about this issue many decades ago. Tournaments with GMs participating are more appealing. In any case, if you, Rhododendrites, or others, believe changes are in order to WP:NCHESS, then I'm sure you're aware that AfD discussions are not the place for that. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Nchess is irrelevant as far as afd is concerned. If you believe it should be turned into a notability guideline that can serve as the basis for afd arguments, afd is not the place for that either. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

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. While it could be argued that this discussion should be closed as No consensus I find the new accounts who popped up to argue for Deletion more than a little suspicious. AFD is not a place that new editors find on their first few days editing. Plus those editors arguing to Keep this article are AFD regulars I trust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Newton

AfDs for this article:

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [11], [12], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 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!} 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Believe it satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:39, 2 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 community has been clear that the number of caps is not a replacement for the GNG or a SNG. Because of this, I gave nearly no weight to arguments about the number of matches the subject has been in. I also did not give weight to the IP's comment that this fell into the realm of PROMO. AfD is not a replacement for cleanup. With both of those in mind, I see a weak consensus to delete. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shazza McKenzie

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Wrestling, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I have now added several reliable secondary sources to the article, some that are generally reliable (Sydney Morning Herald) and some that are considered industry-specific reliable by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources (such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter), that help confirm the notability of the subject. CeltBrowne (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.

Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [13] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [14] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [15] is still unreliable. Source 4 [16] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [17] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [18] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [30] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second source, Slam! Wrestling, is a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

Cagematch.net is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for match results, which is what it's being used for.

You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.

I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[31][32] Impact/TNA,[33] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[34] and ROH.[35] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[36] her championships and titles,[37] and PWI rankings.[38] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
  
  As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
  
  Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Per WP:SIGCOV
    - Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
      
      McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
      
      Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
      
      Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
      
      The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[39] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
      
      This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [40] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![41], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
      
      Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
      
      Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
      
      I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
        
        ~~Please show me a guideline which states this.~~ WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
        
        The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
        
        It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
        
        a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
        
        No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.

This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please weigh in on the sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has had 183 matches that were broadcast (on livestream, TV, PPV, etc). That is a significant volume of work in the public eye. McPhail (talk) 09:55, 30 April 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!} 07:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Béatrice d'Hirson

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

fails general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and France. ltb d l (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 19:02, 8 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!} 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable presence in fiction and got reasonable coverage as fictional character regardless obscurity in flesh. - Altenmann >talk 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. No sources provided by keep votes, which just boil down to ILIKEIT, not guidelines and sources, let alone sources with indepth content about subject. // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 2 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 23:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True Britt

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

Article about the Autobiography of Britt Ekland, while she herself is clearly notable - her autobiography fails BOOKCRIT. Claim of being "best selling" is not held up. Contents of the article has no commentary on the book (sales figures, reviews etc) and just has a few quotes, with subjective inferences. Current sources are the book itself and a broken link to blogspot. Only reviews I could find were on GoodReads and such (NYT review about different book - happens to mention title in headline - that took me a while to figure out). The book may or may not be a valuable source for the Britt Ekland article, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a page entirely lacking in independent and reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britt Ekland: It was verifiable that the book is on existence. I would say the best option is to redirect to the author since it's always with WP:PRESERVE and ATD. Yes! There is a problem of SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK, but that shouldn't be a "wake up call" to deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likewise the nominator, the author is a notable writer or in related field, and so, her book should be a redirect prior to what we see happens in such cases on Wikipedia. There could be in the future detailed reference to the book. So, redirecting to the main author is the 'perfect' way to justify this deletion discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 08:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The book was mentioned in the media, but mainly by conveying gossip, so the reliability and significance is questionable. For the same reason, I don't think it should be redirected. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 27 April 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. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 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!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Brunson Marks

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

Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Kaliforniyka^Hi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. W C M_email 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 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!} 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to sharing 4meter4's sense that inclusion in biographical reference works is a reasonable heuristic for encyclopedic relevance, I find the additional sourcing discovered since the deletion discussion was first opened persuasive. To the sentiment that Marks's position wasn't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, my impression from WP:GNG is that notability is determined not by the perceived prestige of a position but by coverage in sources. Coverage from biographers/journalists/historians/etc. is what confers notability, whether on a king or club woman. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Mentions are not indepth coverage. // Timothy :: talk 17:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a mention or what is coverage in certain cases is probably a matter unlikely to achieve universal consensus; to at least explain why I see significant coverage, I'll mention that I find persuasive this essay's observation: An example is that a paragraph-long obituary of a scientist in a respected non-local national newspaper will be treated as more conducive of significant coverage than a paragraph-long obituary of an un-elected politician in a respected non-local national newspaper. A short obituary about an unelected politician in the Los Angeles Times doesn't convey as much significance as an obituary of the same length about a club woman like Jane Marks does, as such figures are less likely in general than politicians to get such obituaries at all. Also, WP:OHW guides my reading of the Women of the West entry; as a biographical dictionary, it has a compressed format that conveys more information in fewer words. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the already added/pointed out sources, many more exist. I found several in Newspaperarchive.com via the Wikipedia library after multiple revised searches, given that she was known or written about under different names, more sources are likely to exist. Not all sources need to be SIG/in-depth coverage. But along with a few in-depth sources present in the article already, these brief mentions indicate she was a known figure regardless of the significance of her work or positions. X (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article subject appears to have been a pillar in her community, but she is not notable. I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources. The LA Times is a death announcement, not a full obit, and the rest of the sources that have been uncovered since the discussion began are either brief mentions or about the subject's family, not herself. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:59, 2 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 14:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Rivero (journalist)

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: that article actually quotes an unrelated student named Claudia Rivero, and the Emmy winner is some other reporter. And I still can't find a secondary source about the reporter Claudia Rivero winning an Emmy. Wikishovel (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are able to locate a list of winners of the 2007 Rocky Mountain Emmy Awards (which should be feasible in off-line refs for sure) it should verify the win. She is on the nominees list https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5970167/2007-rocky-mountain-emmyr-nominees but unfortunately this does not list the winners.4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 4 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!} 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - if there is confusion about different people with the same/similar names then I'm thinking the sensible move is to draft until there is clarity who is who. JMWt (talk) 07:43, 9 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!} 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable journalist; we only consider Regional Emmys notable with much more sourcing than what's here. This is simply a list of where the person has worked, nothing showing why they're notable. I can only find PR or primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Devi

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

The two sources listed here (one being a Who's Who) are not enough to establish the diverse coverage WP:GNG, and a quick search finds little on her. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [42]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [43] [44]. Also there's another sources about the subject [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Allan Nonymous (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources in the article along with this and this should be enough for GNG. At the very least, it's very likely that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there appears to be SIGCOV of her in this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Devi probably passes NACTOR as well. She starred in Senyum Nona Anna (coverage here), Papa, Mistery in Hongkong, Pulau Putri, Kenapa Kau Pergi and Jurus Maut. She also starred in Mei Lan, Aku Cinta Padamu, which according to this launched the career of Hendra Cipta. It's likely that these films have SIGCOV in offline sources. It's a shame that that's unverifiable though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article about an Indonesian actress and model with unverifiable notability. On English wiki, every statement must be verifiable by at least a reliable source. Here, the films listed weren't sources and won't count to NACTOR. There has no been any recognition or I influence cited by peer for acting in Indonesia films; infact BEFORE have nothing except existence on books which still commutes non notability per SIGCOV. I won't rather vote for now since I am not used or neither speaks Indonesian language (there may be existing but I have clear doubts because the article I saw on ID Wikipedia cited no source.) This is not also a case of System bias, while I can't find maybe two successive citations to her impact in the 1990's or an interview in the 2000's on her role. On the other hand, I will say delete for now. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am of the opinion that nobody should strike comments from an AFD they initiated. Though it may seem clear-cut, the nominator should instead have a third party carry out the sockstrike. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 8 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!} 22:51, 14 April 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, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 22 April 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. Owen× ☎ 17:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saira Shah Halim

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and West Bengal. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.

In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.

But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in

India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]

Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.

Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?

There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.

Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.

It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 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] "معروف اداکارہ ارم اختر کی بیٹے کیساتھ تصاویر وائرل". Jang News.

[2] "Lollywood newbie Anumta Qureshi lights up internet with new bold photos". 24 News HD. July 29, 2022.

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

[4] Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]