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[edit]

Alina Maria de Roumanie[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Royalty and nobility, and Romania. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she does WP:NOTINHERIT her husband's notability, and does not meet WP:GNG in her own right. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrizia Sanvitale[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Italy. LibStar (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blanche Finlay[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSINGER, WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Mumford[edit]

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

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

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

Hannah Ryder[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kenya. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Head of a UN Agency might be notable, but sourcing is about the initiatives of this agency, not about this person. I don't find much else we'd use for RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the subject worked at a UN Agency as head policy and partnerships. She was pivotal to the Initiative which is why I used as source Gold Junior (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete present version, which definitely does not comply with NPOV policy. "As the chief executive of Development Reimagined, Ryders's Afro-centric posturing is implicit in her reports" - for goodness' sake (and since when is her surname "Ryders"?) Deb (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hannah is very adamant on Africans developing Africa with win-win partnerships with other blocs. I should have put it this way to underscore this fact Gold Junior (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that it was you who wrote that sentence? Deb (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that sentence, but added other coverage of Ryder. And, to be clear, the typo in her last name was my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though I have edited the article a bit. She is cited in multiple reliable sources in conversations about Africa-China relations, and I have added some of this information to the article. The best coverage of her is here [1], [2],[3]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those. The main problem, as far as I'm concerned, is the undeclared conflict of interest and the original promotional intent. If we keep it, we'll need to ensure it complies with NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though to be clear I have no COI on this article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I must state that for me I have no COI regarding this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold Junior (talk • contribs) 15:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Troy[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, Television, and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source used (imdb) isn't useful for notability, all I can find are wikis, famous birthdays and various photo sites... There isn't enough coverage to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Quinn (disambiguation)[edit]

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

No need for this dab page, per WP:ONEOTHER. Users can hardly know of its existence since it is not even hatnoted atop Patricia Quinn, where the hatnote only states, "For the American scientist, see Patricia Quinn (atmospheric chemist). For similar names, see Pat Quinn (disambiguation)." If preferred, instead of deletion, Patricia Quinn (disambiguation) can simply exist as a redirect to the Pat Quinn dab page. — Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question - When I started this DAB page there were three people named Patricia Quinn (Patricia Quinn (Northern Irish actress) , Patricia Quinn (American actress), and Patricia Quinn (scientist)). It looks like this was changed about a week ago and the set of names has changed. Was there a reason for this? Or can we shift the page back to its prior state? DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was decided that the British/Irish actress was the primary topic, and the American actress would be better called "Pat Quinn". So this page might be unnecessary, but we do have the two "see also" entries. PatGallacher (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm leaning towards the view that these "see also" entries are not enough to justify having this page. PatGallacher (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't really have strong feelings either way, but I am still a little confused. What happened to Patricia Quinn (American actress)? She was lost entirely. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Oh wait - I see, the American actress is now Pat Quinn, under the see also. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no reason to exclude Patricia Quinn (American actress) from this page, merely because the subject also fits on another page. "Pat" is her common name, "Patricia" is her given name. BD2412 T 19:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pat Quinn (American actress)'s name is Patricia (and the IMDB entry is in that name [4]): there are three entries on the page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little digging at newspapers.com and discovered that Patricia Quinn the American actress wanted to be called Patricia, but the producer of her first hit movie didn't like the name and insisted she be called Pat. To me that's enough reason to keep all three names listed on a dab page.^[1] DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kleiner, Dick (1970-03-01). "'Watermelon' turns sour". The Journal Times. p. 16. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

Qudsia Ali[edit]

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

The subject doesn't meet the NACTOR. Why? Because their roles in TV shows/films listed on the BLP are minor, not major. Additionally, the GNG also does not meet due to the absence of sig/in-depth coverage about her. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meeting WP:NACTOR. Nominator is unable to understand any rationale, nominating all articles created by me despite meeting criteria of wikipidea. The roles she played have received significant coverage. Providing some coverage from reliable sources for proving my point.

The Express Tribune. [5]

Daily Times. [6]

Daily Times. [7]

BBC News. [8]

DAWN [9]

The Express Tribune [10]

Daily Jang [11]

Dawn Images [12]

The Nation [13]

Daily Pakistan [14]

Dawn Images [15] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Let's decide first whether we'll assess this BLP based on NACTOR or GNG ? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One can check by reading those sources, how much important roles she has played in her career. Her roles have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, That reply didn't quite answer my question. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @Libraa2019 has done a great job showing notability. Marleeashton (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marleeashton, But I can't see tha! May you can provide WP:THREE best coverage that would establish GNG? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t need to be proven correct, this is about consensus. @Libraa2019 just gave you many sources and has more than satisfied what you requested. Marleeashton (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just about reaching a consensus; it's also about providing reasoned arguments based on policy to justify whether a page should be kept or deleted. Merely stating WP:PERNOM doesn't suffice. Please understand that I mean no offense. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the sources provided by Libraa2019, there is nothing that can be used towards establishing notability. The references fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of the BBC piece which is an interview. I'd be willing to re-evalute should someone be able to provide some sources that do not fall under NEWSORGINIDA, are not interviews, talk about her in detail, and are otherwise considered reliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to understand how suddenly policies of wikipidea became that much strict. You are voting delete in most of the AFD's discussion initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here i presented 11 reliable and approved news sources but you call them WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is a little bias. The Express Tribune is a leading English newspaper from Pakistan, Same goes for The Nation, DAWN, Daily Times, Daily Jang and others mentioned by me. i did'nt mentioned any unreliable source and they are not WP:NEWSORGINDIA as these sources are used in most of the B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles. Please again review these sources.

The Express Tribune mentioned her most of the work in this source [16]
Daily Times states XXL features big names from the Pakistani media industry with Qudsia Ali in the main role [17]
BBC News states It has been three years since Pakistani actress Qudsia Ali stepped into the industry but she has been successful in her every project [18]
DAWN states Another dissonant note is the casting of Qudsia Ali as the “fat character” Tania who is constantly scolded for being overweight, despite being barely 10 pounds above a normal frame [19]

And the list goes on. One can self check on google. Libraa2019 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, No policy or even GNG has become stricter overnight; it's just that the community at large were overlooking Pakistani articles citing unreliable sources or dubious coverage. Despite numerous explanations across various pages, it seems you're still struggling to grasp that we're not deeming these Pakistani publications unreliable; rather, we're questioning the coverage provided by these sources, which falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It's as simple as that. It's regrettable to say that COMPETENCE is definitely missing here. Please take a moment to review WP:GNG and WP:SIRS and try to comprehend it. Merely being in the news or receiving some ROTM coverage or paid placement is, while OK for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, you are assuming things yourself, The Express Tribune is a reliable daily newspaper and so as others mentioned above. If you are claiming they are paid or dubious coverage then where is the evidence?? And if they are covered under WP:NEWSORGINDIA then where is the consensus?? I dont see any such thing on that page. You can start a seperate discussion about reliability of these sources if you consider them paid or dubious but currently just because you are against these reliable and approved sources does'nt make them unreliable or paid. You can include admins here as i am sure if these sources are dubious then wikipidea seniors would not permit these sources in B, C and Good rated Pakistani articles but that is not the case. Thank You. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it seems you're not getting my point OR perhaps you're choosing not to hear it. I'm not labeling these sources unreliable. Please give another look at my comments. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking it to somerwhere else, i got your point and also mentioned, please share an evidence that these are dubious or unreliable coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess sometimes we just need to rely on WP:COMMONSENSE to understand what sort of coverage amounts to paid placements. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are rejecting more than 12 reliable sources on the basis of common sense. That page does'nt even mention such things. As i earlier said, you are assuming things yourself and accusing these authentic newspapers of dubious and unreliable coverage without any evidence. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources presented seem to show she had significant roles in notable productions and that is the requirement to meet WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, @Libraa2019 provided four references above [date stamped 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)] to claim that the subject played a major role in Kuch Ankahi. However, upon reviewing all references, I couldn't find a single mention of her playing a major role in Kuch Ankahi. Therefore, how does she meet NACTOR here? The same applies to other dramas; she didn't have major roles, and if she did, the Short film XXL, themselves aren't noteworthy enough. I hope this clarifies the issue. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is presenting sources, then you are calling them unreliable. If someone is counting roles of her then you are calling them minor roles despite her roles received significant coverage. Sorry to say but i dont understand. And i never claim she played a major role in Kahi Ankahi. Its your assumptions by reading those sources may be as all the sources mentioned her role as significant/impactful whether negatively like this [20] or positively like these [21] [22] but the thing is that her roles are receiving coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Purwati (internist)[edit]

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

Written with a promotional tune and does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, as the published research output is relatively modest, as is her academic career (Scopus H-index of 7; very few citations for 1st-author papers, total of 142). In terms of general notability, the coverage of her patent is not high by international standards, nor is there evidence of impact of the work (other than patent filing). FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FuzzyMagma: Hello, I agree that the subject of this article has not yet gained international recognition. However, in Indonesia, he is regarded as a prominent stem cell expert who frequently garners attention from major, reputable Indonesian mass media.

He holds the distinction of being a MURI record holder for receiving the most Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the Stem Cell Field in 2022, a testament to his significant contributions. Despite the challenge of finding additional sources regarding the impact of his research, these achievements underscore his expertise and standing in the field.

He was partner of the COVID-19 Response Acceleration Task Force during Covid-19 pandemic to advancing research, particularly in investigating Drug and Stem Cell Combination Regimens in 2020. Furthermore, his expertise is actively leveraged by Universitas Airlangga and hospitals to enhance stem cell services.

In 2019, as stated in the article, she received national recognition, being listed as an 'Indonesian Young Scientist' by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.

I remain guided by the notability criteria (Wikipedia:Notability). He is quite well-known in Indonesia despite not being internationally renowned. His notability has also been explained in the article through his career and achievements. Rahmatdenas (talk) 14:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

none of the sources looks reliable, with some being self-published, and the burden is on you to show that these sources are reliable, see WP:BURDEN. As far as resources goes, this might all be a hoax as work around stem cells and COVID is highly cited, and I cannot see anything that suggests that.

PS: you mean "she" not "he" FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Kadammanja[edit]

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

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

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

Magdalena Hinterdobler[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. She has received positive critical comment in at least two recognized sources. Further searching in the German press would no doubt reveal more.--Ipigott (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (not familiar with opera, hence not a "solid" keep). Appears to meet the music SNG (which itself should be sufficient, otherwise such criteria are useless) and the nom admits there is already significant coverage. Not to mention the article looks pretty decent – and NBASIC also states that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I added a magazine review to the article. I think we have enough to show that the person is notable and I agree with BeanieFan11 regarding NBASIC. I came here from following the article at DYK. I was the editor who promoted the nomination DYK Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am the first author, and I don't care if this article is deleted or not.
- I was pleasantly busy over the weekend, - sorry for being late to this, and thank you all who added to the article!! (That sort of collaboration is Wikipedia as I like it.)
- My first indicator of whether a singer is notable often is - as you will guess - my own first-hand personal opinion, for this one as for many others. I hope that everybody who has commented will have listened to her speaking and singing, Der Traumgörge. I saw her (only) in that opera, which was sort of a premiere because the conductor says it was the first unabridged rendering of Zemlinsky's music which had been due for performance (and rehearsed) in 1907, but was not given then for anti-semitic reasons, so had a late premiere in 1980. The only other of "my" singer articles suggested to be deleted was Johannes Hill (so I guess my opinion was right so far).
- I didn't know WP:SINGER but thank Michael Bednarek for pointing that out. It supports my thought that our view on notability should perhaps rely more on what a person factually does (primary), than what others think about what she does (secondary). - For comparison: just imagine we'd require a contemporary review for Bach's cantatas, we'd have an article about one of the around 200 extant. They remained mostly unpublished and unnoticed for a century after he died. - What she does - two leading roles at a leading house - is objective, what others write about it is subjective, and whether we regard what they write as in-depth or not adds another layer of subjectivity.
- In this particular case, I looked if sources supported my opinion that she is notable, and found enough to nominate for DYK, and obviously enough for the reviewer and for most of the readers that day. I simply had no time to look further for more facts and other sources, sorry about that but it happens with my focus on recent death articles and Bach's cantatas that turn 300 week after week (and real life, Bach cantatas in concert and the pleasant company that comes with it), so I again thank those who did that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ps: I went to church yesterday to one that was also up for deletion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
  - @Yngvadottir, thank you for retrieving sources. You asked for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: sorry, it was hidden under FAZ (Brachmann, Jan (27 February 2024). "Ein Lichtgedicht". FAZ (in German). Retrieved 5 March 2024.) Sorry, I thought FAZ is easier than all that German, and would say BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. The reviewer wrote about her singing in a half-sentence at the beginning "frisch, schön und so vorbildlich textverständlich" (fresh, beautiful and with such exemplary diction). I can add that to the article. As for the Mozart reviews, I never saw them, and Mozart seems to be past for her vocal development; her voice was possibly never ideally suited for singing Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) - I added that review, and also the Chrysothemis review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @4meter4, I added the Clements review of Die Loreley. I am not surprised that the reviewer of a first recording of an opera by a famous composer deals more with the opera than the singers. The review proves, however, that the recording was noticed internationally. - I have no idea why you'd mark what opera houses say about her - typically just a factual list of roles - as "promotional". The Chemnitz bio had a quote from a review. I added the complete review now. But why would you believe the same quote in the Chemnitz bio was promotional? Again, this review (Spinola) of a world premiere deals more with the piece than the singers. It describes her lead role at length. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I already wrote this to you in another discussion. I will copy paste it here: "All work products/publications by a performing arts organization are intended as a tool of promotion as well as a tool for information. Opera companies/theatres are businesses and they have an invested interest in promoting their company/theatre and its performers in order to sell tickets. There is a commercial aspect to the performing arts, and the materials that an opera company/theatre produces for public consumption are directly connected to its commercial interests. This is why we should avoid using sources produced by theatres/opera companies as much as possible. Artist bios are written by paid talent management and PR companies. Most professional singers have a paid agent who specializes in marketing opera singers, and those agents often write the bios hosted on theatre/opera company websites. Or the opera company/theatre itself will have an in house PR/marketing staff member responsible for writing those materials. There is therefore, a direct COI with these kinds of sources because they are written as a marketing tool for commercial gain. When possible, its best not to use PR materials of this type for ethical reasons." If an artist is notable, we shouldn't need to use these materials because the independent significant coverage should be there to source the article.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already responded in that other discussion and also copy paste here: "I don't know what you normally read, but I see that Oper Frankfurt and Hessisches Staatstheater write their own bios, and their own high-class program books. - German opera houses in general are public institutions, financed mostly by tax money."
    
    Adding: what in the following Frankfurt bio is promotional and not ethical to be used?
    
    "Magdalena Hinterdobler, who sang her first Evas in a new Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg at Oper Frankfurt last winter, joined the Ensemble in the 2023/24 season, during which she sang Grete in a new production of Zemlinsky’s Der Traumgörge / George the Dreamer and Elisabeth in Don Carlo, which is followed by Chrysothemis in the first revival of last season's new Elektra. Other highlights in 2022/23 included Agathe in Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis (role debut) in Elektra at Tirol’s Landestheater in Innsbruck. She trained at the University for Music and Theatre in Munich and Bavaria’s August Everding Theatre Academy with Andreas Schmidt, and in Helmut Deutsch’s Lieder classes. She was a member of the Ensemble at Oper Leipzig from 2014 - 2022, where her many roles included Rusalka, Micaëla in Carmen and Marie in The Bartered Bride. Word of her interpretation of Anna in the world premiere of Gerd Kühr’s Paradiese spread far and wide. While working in Leipzig with the Gewandhaus Orchester she also sang many Mozart and Italian roles, including Liù in Puccini’s Turandot and, most recently, Mimì in La Bohème. Her concert repertoire ranges from the baroque to contemporary music. She has appeared with many well known conductors and orchestras including Stuttgart’s Bach Collegium, the Munich Radio Orchestra, the Hamburg and Bamberg symphony orchestras, Dresden Philharmonic and the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchester. She also enjoys singing Lieder with the pianist Gerold Huber. A CD of early Wagner Lieder was released by CPO in 2013, the year she appeared with the Munich Radio Orchestra for the first time as Dorella in Wagner’s Das Liebesverbot / The Ban on Love, which was followed by roles in Wagner operas in Leipzig including Ortlinde and Gutrune in the Ring des Nibelungen under GMD Ulf Schirmer. She continues her journey into young dramatic roles this season with Agathe in Weber’s Der Freischütz at Theater Chemnitz and Chrysothemis in Elektra at the Landestheater in Tirol."
    
    Not all of this is even used, because I don't like lists of famous orchestras and conductors. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda I'm not going to get in a back and forth. Wikipedia's policies on COI, non-independent sources are well articulated on multiple policy pages. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour isn't helpful.4meter4 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am just trying to understand. Simple question: that Ring in Leipzig - the review says she sang "a minor valkyrie" and "Gutrune". The Leipzig Opera has the full list of the cast, and is - to my knowledge - the only source for the fact that she was "Ortlinde". The source is used only for that detail but you tagged it as promotional. Should we therefore omit that detail, loosing precision? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Michael Bednarek, thank you for the reference for year and place of birth, dated 2008. I used it for more detail but it was marked promotional. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - 4meter4's objections, in this case, to material in a program booklet by a public broadcaster are in contradiction to WP:RS. If reliable sources collate an artist's performance data, Wikipedia editors are free, and indeed encouraged, to use that secondary source. That's a widely followed and uncontroversial principle. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Information published by one's employer (the theatres at which she has performed) is most certainly not independent coverage. The theatre's website or publicatons can be cited to show that she actually performed a role there, but they should not be cited for the theatre's opinion of her performance, as they have a conflict of interest in that they want to promote themselves by promoting their performers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, but no opinion or assessment was cited from those sites in this case. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleeze Nasser[edit]

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

I don't see her meeting WP:ACTOR criteria, as I am unable to verify major roles in films which require as required per WP:ACTOR. I tried evaluating it based on WP:GNG, but there's not enough coverage to pass that either. AUTOBIO by Aleeze nasser (talk · contribs) —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Arab Emirates. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear case of an unsourced bio. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a WP:NACTOR. Plus not much available on Google search as well.Sameeerrr (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Namirimo Tamale[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search turns up only the interview in the ACCA house magazine cited here, the rest is only passing mentions. Her honorary doctorate is from the "Swiss School of Business and Management", which appears to be a degree mill, since it's not listed in the Swiss Accreditation Council's website. Article was moved to draft, submitted without improvement today, then copypasted to main space four minutes later. Wikishovel (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Wikishovel (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything either. (and of course, the being a resume doesn't help the case for retention either) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Rogers[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past few days) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: You're the one who de-prodded all of my nominations, so you don't get to complain now that they're at AFD, which is where nominations go when the PROD has been removed. Add to that your bad faith aspersions. A disagreement as to what qualifies as "significant coverage" is not evidence of bypassing anything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Rybalko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Devora Radeva[edit]

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

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

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

Candice Towler-Green[edit]

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

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

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

Dominika Polakowska[edit]

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

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

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

Charissa Tansomboon[edit]

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

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

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

Jacqueline Voll[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wang Qingyun[edit]

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

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

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

Hayley Anne Sacks[edit]

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

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

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

Marta Paoletti[edit]

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

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

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

Isabella Pajardi[edit]

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

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

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

Emily Naphtal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Mexico, and Illinois. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Mitsuoka[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with the SkateToday article already in the article in addition to [[23]]. Let'srun (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siobhan McColl[edit]

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

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

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

Olivia Nicole Martins[edit]

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

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

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

Alexandra Maksimova[edit]

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

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

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

Akiko Kitamura[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Japan. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This user has nominated 49 different figure skaters for deletion within approximately 30 mins which leaves me doubting that a WP:BEFORE search has been conducted, let alone one that includes native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: As stated in the nomination, these were all PRODs that were deprodded in rapid succession. My work on these nominations took place before the PROD, not last night when I sent them to AFD. Bgsu98 (Talk) 20:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep -- Nominator regularly bypasses WP:BEFORE searches (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc. within the past week) and fails to address WP:GNG in his nominations. Regardless, 50 AfDs in 30 minutes is wholly inappropriate. JTtheOG (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Chu-hong[edit]

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

Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sun-bin (figure skater)[edit]

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

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

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

Magdalena Leska[edit]

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

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

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

Johanna Purdy[edit]

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

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

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

Kristine Y. Lee[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Hong Kong. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unimprovable sub-stub on an obscure figure skater. Utter failure of the GNG. Ravenswing 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find more than some passing mentions, and as such, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Please ping me if any significant coverage can be found or if the SkateToday article can be archived as I currently can't access it. Let'srun (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Kropotina[edit]

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

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

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

Sarah-Marine Rouffanche[edit]

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

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

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

Lauren Senft[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with [[24]] and [[25]]. Let'srun (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayleigh Bell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanshi Arya[edit]

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

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

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

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

Where’s the SIGCOV here? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added a reference from mainstream Indian media which is reliable, secondary source and independent media outlet. It passes WP:GNG as it has WP:SIGCOV, an exclusive full length article and at least one other article with about five paras written about her from mainstream media. I request Editors to look at all the cited references and take a call. May be, if some feel it does not pass, request that it may be draftified. thanks and regards! Davidindia (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meet Priyanshi Arya, The Newly-Elected JNU General Secretary Who Was Raised In Middle-Class Family The article from Zee News. There is another full-length article, in The SportsGrail, which I am not taking here as SIGCOV, as its main domain is sports. Davidindia (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alicia Pineault[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG due to multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV such as [[26]] and [[27]]. Let'srun (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Hogwash as usual. Meets GNG with SIGCOV from multiple reliable sources. JTtheOG (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Gosselin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a misreading of WP:NSKATE. Subjects can still be notable if they separately meet WP:GNG as is potentially the case here. ~Kvng (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Grenier[edit]

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

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

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

Kate Charbonneau[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The latest in a series of careless nominations. Multiple examples of WP:SIGCOV in the article and through a quick search. It is clear the nominator either does not understand WP:GNG or does not care. JTtheOG (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through PROD, we've deleted dozens and dozens of similar articles, especially skating competitors at the junior level. This article looks very similar to others that have been PROD'd. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate indeed, but that would be in line with other bad nominations like Terra Findlay, Selena Zhao, Sarah Tamura, Curran Oi, John Bevan (figure skater), Charles Sinek, and Beata Handra. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Is there any way to know which ones were deleted via PROD? I have a feeling that a good number of them might have been notable, considering the rate at which these were nominated (and that there's no way an appropriate search could have been conducted in such time). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in Skate Today, Golden Skate, Winnipeg Free Press. WP:NSKATE is guidance to help identify when Significant coverage is likely to exist; it's not a minimum standard that must be met a person who skates. The general notability guideline holds that notability is established by coverage in secondary sources—not by the perceived eminence of an accomplishment. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources by Hydrangeans show that this subject has the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyeth Bustami[edit]

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

Contested G5. The article was created by N. Alicia J, who is a sockpuppet of Asphonixm, a banned editor known for creating sockpuppets to gaming the system. WP:BMB specifies that bans apply to all editing, good or bad, implying that even constructive edits by banned editors are subject to be reverted. According to WP policies WP:G5 and WP:BRV, articles created by banned editors and where the banned editor is the primary contributor are eligible for speedy deletion, which can be applied to this article. Once deleted, the article may be recreated by other editor (except for sockpuppets), as there are no issues with the article content itself. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting an article that could then be re-created immediately seems pointless. The individual is an elected politician and would meet notability. I don't see any reason for this to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to roll back edits, only to redo them... "subject to reversion" doesn't mean "shall be reverted". Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, primary deletion reason is Wikipedia:Banning policy. By keeping edits and article created by banned editor, then it'll defeat the purpose of ban in the first place. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. And I think banning policy is also quite straightforward on this issue, as it also mentioned A number of site-banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Unlike most AfD cases, this isn't about questioning the notability of an article, the real question is whether we'll enforce the banning policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I care about the content of Wikipedia foremost. The politics that go behind it are secondary. Such users should be banned, absolutely. However, we do not need to revert every good addition in the pursuit of some form of justice. That seems counterintuitive to the actual purpose of the project: building an encyclopedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Refer to Arbitration discussion a ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I am not disputing their ban. Whatever they did, they probably deserved it; not my purview. My purview is keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. Why? I Ask (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that you are not disputing the ban, but I think you still missed the point of ban itself, banning policy explicitly states The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. WP:BANREVERT also states Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I am advocating to follow the policy, while you're suggesting to ignore policy and the your reason is to keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. However, if we delete and recreate the article, there'll be no changes on Wikipedia as that article would still be informational, and we are also take away the reward for sockpuppet for violating policy, which is aligned with WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, delete it, let me copy the exact same article with the exact same citations and re-upload it. What does this accomplish? Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first instance. The sockpuppet has created multiple articles, and all articles created after he was blocked were deleted under G5. And few "good" articles were re-created by other editor. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SOCKSTRIKE, the goal for deleting article created by sock isn't to punish the sockpuppet, but to take away the reward for violating policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we really punishing, though? The sockpuppets or the readers of the article. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not punishing anyone, we are preventing banned editor to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content (WP:BMB). Ckfasdf (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, recreating the article as it is without crediting the original, banned user breaks copyright. This means that whatever is written on the new version has to be something new. That's a larger hurdle to overcome than simply recreating it exactly under a different account. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually that's to remove any connection to banned editor. Afterall banned editor is not allowed to make any edit in the first place. Please see Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To properly contest deletion under G5, supporters must either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, they don't: If an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith, it should be taken as a sign that the deletion is controversial and another deletion process should be used. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why now we have this AfD. And those who support (or vote for "keep") should either present evidence of why it doesn't meet G5 criteria or offer compelling reasons to ignore the ban policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my arguments above. Why? I Ask (talk) 12:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From our discussion above, it seems you're not disputing the G5 criteria, so you understand that the article was made while the editor was banned, breaking the banning policy. But you're still suggesting to keep the article because it is "informatiional", and we should keeping Wikipedia articles up that are informational. You also mentioned that The politics that go behind it are secondary, which indicate suggestion to ignore Wikipedia:Banning policy. Ckfasdf (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BATHWATER. The subject clearly passes WP:GNG. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy. -- Mike 🗩 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is not questioning about WP:GNG, but it's about enforcement of Wikipedia:Banning policy. Furthermore WP:RUSH also states if this page was created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines, it must be deleted in a hurry, which it is since it's qualify for G5. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the next bit which states this: This includes abusive practices like attack pages, autobiographies, spam and advertising pages, blatant copyright violations, and intentional inaccuracies. For all others, there is really no hurry to have the issues addressed.-- Mike 🗩 17:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the next sentence, as it mentioned example actions that disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines and IMO, the last sentence which starts by For all others.... refer to other deletion request for pages that is NOT created with a clear disregard for some of Wikipedia's guidelines. banning policy is quite straightforward on this case Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. So, are you also suggesting to ignore WP:Banning Policy? Ckfasdf (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signe Ronka[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the senior-level national championships explicitly do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Latvia, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Seems like another poor nomination. WP:SIGCOV in GoldenSkate, Star-Phoenix, Globe and Mail, etc. JTtheOG (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NSKATE isn't a minimum standard that every biographical Wikipedia article of a skater must meet; it's guidance to help identify when Significant coverage is likely to exist. Furthermore, I'm not seeing where, as OP claims, junior-level medal placement or bronze/silver placement at the senior level explicitly do not meet (italics added) WP:NSKATE. NSKATE doesn't say anything about such placements, certainly not anything like 'a skater who places in bronze or silver at a national championship is not notable'. The general notability guideline holds that notability is established by coverage in secondary sources, not by the perceived eminence of accomplishments. The significant coverage JTtheOG identifies establishes the topic's notability. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Lucia Degruttola[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Fails NACTOR and GNG - Her role in Grantchester is only recurring and unfortunately I've not found anything substantial online (all are one-bit mentions), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipi Singh[edit]

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

nothing notable, regular SP level rank officer, regular coverage that all SPs have Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, India, and Bihar. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 05:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is highly notable and covered by large number of news sources for various reasons. This is not the case of WP:1E and many articles about bureaucrats exist on Wikipedia with less number of sources than this. Also, sources have done in-depth coverage of the subject.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources like this and this fulfills WP: THREE. Many such sources are there on web.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those with the knowledge of India will know that such coverage is widely available for almost of the SPs/DMs. MILL. 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue and whats the meaning of notability then.? Admantine123 (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As per Admantine123, also subject clearly passes WP:THREE, Thanks! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is very notable who is also known as Lady Singham by major media sources. Simple search on her brings up many major media news sites with enough coverage on her and her significant achievements as IPS officer. Page has many reliable sources with enough coverage. Passes WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick[edit]

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

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

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

Uzma Beg[edit]

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

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

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

Sinéad Ní Neachtain[edit]

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

No indication of the requisite WP:GNG coverage. Only source is a profile in a magazine she edited. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Ireland. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. No independent, secondary coverage to establish WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Tran[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for radio broadcasters.
The notability claim here, that she's been an announcer for national radio networks in Australia, would be fine if the article were demonstrating that she passes WP:GNG for it -- but notability doesn't vest in doing stuff per se, it vests in the amount of third-party journalistic coverage she did or didn't receive about the stuff she did to establish that it's been externally validated as significant, so just existing as a radio host is not "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. But this is completely unsourced, and has an overall writing tone strongly suggestive of somebody just doing a thinly veiled rewrite of her staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer (which was, predictably, the sole "source" ever previously cited here, until it got removed as a deadlink, but was never proper support for notability as it isn't independent of her).
As the content here hinges entirely on stuff that happened between 1999 and 2010, with no further updates in the past 14 years, I'm willing to withdraw this if someone with much better access than I've got to archived Australian media coverage from the naughts can find enough proper coverage to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Australia. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wedding photographer with the same name from Los Angeles is about all I can find, I don't see anything for a radio person in Australia. Delete for lack of sourcing and this article has ZERO sources. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are a number of sources out their but nothing providing SIGCOV and nothing independent. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Below is some of the coverage to be found in Newsbank. Just good enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmoth, Peter (3 December 1998), "Awestruck rookie is Triple J's evening star", The Age

Article on her getting 6pm-to-10pm slot on Triple J. Includes background eg Leaving Vietnam at 3, graduated from the Australian Film, Television and Radio School in August 98. Lots of quotes but IMO still good.

Dent, Jackie (5 December 1998), "No JOK: new name grabs a groovy shift on Triple J", The Sydney Morning Herald

Article on her getting 6pm-to-10pm slot on Triple J. Similar to above

Farouque, Farah (19 August 1999), "DJs of diversity overcome adversity - RADIO - Radio waves", The Age

Article about her and Simon Diaz (TT FM) reflecting "an emerging ethnic diversity on Melbourne's airwaves."

Jones, Kate (14 February 2001), "From refugee to ABC headliner", Stonnington Leader

Also published in other similar mastheads. Profile of Tran

Farouque, Farah (3 December 1998), "ABC spends its Summer in Sydney - Radio Waves", The Age

Four paragraphs in general roundup, is about getting above job.

Delete Promo BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article and above do not meet WP:SIRS, containing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from neutral independent reliable sources. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources not good enough and what does the notability guidelines for companies have anything to do with this person? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haripriyaa Bharggav[edit]

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

Resume BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Sources in article do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth, are mainly promo bios, interviews, and name mentions in routine mill news, BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:SIRS. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 16:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would be willing to look at references that talk "about" her but everything I see it about her film (Panch Kriti), is a brief mention, falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. I also do not think the film meets GNG as the page says it is scheduled to be released in 2023 and no update since. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject had no significant achievement to warrant a page on her. The "one" film produced by her is not notable either. Sources do not help. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishtha Desai[edit]

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

doesn't meet notability criteria Pblcpvt (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Crime, Travel and tourism, Sexuality and gender, and Goa. Skynxnex (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor proposing deletion has edited no other article. PamD 09:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the sources in the article. A multi-page chapter in a book discusses her and her work,^[1] she is widely quoted in the news thereby meeting WP:BASIC (see article for citations), she has one publication that has been reviewed (not a pass of WP:AUTHOR but contributing to notability). DaffodilOcean (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The chapter quotes her and not really a profile of her only. But possibly can be overlooked. Jgnfls (talk) 23:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user has a total of six edits, 5 are changes altering my additions to the Desai article and one is a comment here at AfD. Given this, and the limited editing history of the initial nominator, I am a little concerned about the interest in this article.

Regardless, the four-page long book chapter describes Desai's personality, her dedication to children, how the organization she runs has exposed the "seedy underbelly of Goal", how she got involved in the organization. There are certainly additional details about the organization, but this is certainly WP:SIGCOV. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sardesai, Rajdeep; Ambani, Nita; Network 18 (2011-08-01). Real Heroes: Ordinary People Extraordinary Service. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-057-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

Keep. The subject meets general notability criteria.--Ipigott (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that subject meets WP:GNG as illustrated by coverage in The Times of India, O Heraldo, Oneindia, and multiple books. CaptainAngus (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arora Akanksha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aida Vee[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Music, Africa, and Uganda. Minmarion (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to have enough sources to satisfy the WP:GNG criteria. ([28][29][30]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kristen Onsgard[edit]

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

Bridge player. Seems like a total failure of WP:GNG. Specifically, there is not a single independent source in the article, and I was not able to find any either. From WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". Within bridge, "affiliated with the subject" means bridge federations, leagues, and tournaments - and of course also the subject herself (here, I'm referring to the Amazon page for a book.) Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all; a discussion of this nature might also come up during this discussion. References to a bridge SNG might also come up, which is irrelevant as long as GNG is not met. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have already gone through this review process with this user. My account is autopatrolled, new articles I create should not have to go through the review process as I am supposed to be trusted to know what types of articles meet Wikipedia guidelines.

Kristen won a North American Bridge Championship (NABC). These Bridge events are open to players around the world and many fly in, including the world's top professional players, to compete at these 10 day tournaments. Winning an unlimited event at an NABC is very prestigious achievement. I created Kristen's page, and also included a picture.

Geschichte decided to move this new article to Draft space. There was discussion on this user's Talk page about this. I asked for more senior Wikipedia editors to review the submission. They decided that the page was notable, overruled Geschichte, and Star Mississippi moved the article to the main Wikipedia on April 7, asking Geschichte to take it to AfD if there was any issues.

One would have thought the discussion was over, but Geschichte retaliated by adding

to Kristen's page on April 11, having just been overruled on that very issue.

Since April 11 the page has been edited by others, including additional information about Kristen and more references added.

I removed the "no significant coverage" banner today. Geschichte then retaliated again by submitting this to AfD.

I have created 7 pages on Bridge players this year. All are similar in style, scope. None of them have been sent to AfD. I have probably created 300+ Wikipedia pages for Bridge players over the last few years.

I don't want to get into a flame war, but "Prolonged attempts to explain the creator what a significant and independent source is, have not bore fruit at all" is not what has happened. Another Wikipedia editor, Star Mississippi overruled Geschichte issues. This is Geschichte second retaliation to being overruled. The first retaliation was adding the banner, the second retaliation was submitting this to AfD almost a month after it was approved.

A general rule of thumb in Bridge is anyone who has won a World event, won a European event, or won a North American Bridge Championship is meets the notability requirements, based on comparisons with other sports.

Kristen meets that criteria.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 03:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She more than likely does meet notability criteria, but we need sourcing about this person in order to build the article. What's used now isn't acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it", the article's subject in this case is surely Kristen Onsgard. Someone affiliated with her is surely intended to mean a family member, friend, or someone who is part of the same circle. Surely interpreting it as excluding works produced by a national bridge federation is interpreting it far more broadly than was intended? JH (talk page) 09:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from WP:SPORTCRIT: "governing sports bodies are not considered independent of their players" Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please can someone confirm which source(s) show significant coverage of Onsgard? I have checked each one and can't find any. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I was pinged. I don't view myself as having overruled Geschichte as that's not really a thing here. I believed the article deserved a chance in mainspace, and I restored it acting as an editor, not as an admin. I have not looked further and likely will not during the run of this discussion so I take no point on this deletion discussion. Geschichte disagreed with my restoration, as is within their right as an established editor, and brought it here for the community to discuss. That's exactly the process that should happen. Nicolas.hammond, being autopatrolled does not mean your articles can't be brought for deletion. I'd venture a guess that every editor who has written more than a handful has had one of the articles they started brought for deletion. It is not personal, although it may feel it. Please look for independent, reliable sources which will help determine whether Onsgard is notable, not any "rule of thumb". Star Mississippi 01:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This needs input from someone who understands who Wikipedia works. The comments above need not be characterized by me as they speak for themselves, with non-existing concepts such as "approval", "overruling", "retaliation" etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please avoid interpersonal drama, and focus on substantive arguments relating to notability as determined by our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Outside of team profiles, there is no coverage for this person. Even what's used now in the article is ranking listings from various bridge federations. We need articles in media of some kind about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. I was unable to find any SIGCOV during a search and none has been presented here. I am also not seeing anything wrong with User:Geschichte's process on the matter. When drafting and tagging the page gets rejected without any improvements then the next logical step is to take them to AfD. Alvaldi (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kristen's picture was on the front page of the International Bridge Press Association May 2024 bulletin, https://www.ibpa.com/, for the NABC win. This bulletin is not yet archived so is only accessible to IBPA members, so I can't add to her page. In other words, winning an NABC event is a big deal.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is current no SNG for Bridge. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports). I added a proposal for Bridge in the Talk section. I based the SNG proposal on other non-common sports.

For example, curling, kickboxing, orienteering, triathlon. In all of these the equivalency (winning a major event) merits a Wikipedia page.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created Kristen's page the day after she won the NABC. The issue for me is not Kristen's page per se, but the application of the criteria for SNG/GNG. Hence the reason for creating the Bridge SNG proposal. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Subject-specific_notability_guidelines

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:

It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG); and
It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

This article has its equivalence to the SNG requirements for other less well known sports. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For a sport like curling, it says: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a curler if they ...". Likely to exist being the keywords, it is then up to us to find that coverage. It might be quite difficult for earlier, non-Western participants, whereas the easiest participants to cover should be current, American or British ones. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Oasis[edit]

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

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

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

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

Enid Rivera[edit]

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

This subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG; the only hits I found were for unrelated people. Article already had a removed PROD, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find enough coverage to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lya Stern[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Mai Whelan[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [31] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahira Miyanji[edit]

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

She doesn't appears to meet WP:GNG beause the press coverage she received in WP:RS lacks significance or depth which does not satisfy WP:N. N-Peace Award alone may not confer WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Bradford[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alina Dikhtiar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chloé Dépouilly[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, South Africa, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And !votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ina Demireva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Bulgaria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. This deletion proposal was made in error. Subject has a gold medal win at the 2008 Bulgarian Championships. My apologies for this oversight. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kvng, please consider withdrawing your delete vote so I can close this as a speedy keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone found any sources indicating the subject meets WP:GNG? The victory in 2008 was unopposed. I now appreciate that WP:NSKATE is only an indication of potential notability - Significant coverage is likely to exist for figure skating figures if they. What really matters is WP:42. ~Kvng (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a WP:BEFORE search of English sources and did not find any significant coverage. Maybe a Bulgarian search is required but I'll leave my !vote as it is for now. ~Kvng (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. I will strike my request and leave the AFD to proceed as normal. Thank you for your input. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romaisa Khan[edit]

(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, etc. Merely being in a film or TV series does not make one Inherently notable. Created by a sockpuppet —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the citations to articles focused on Khan published through nation-wide Pakistani news outlets that are currently cited in the article, I also saw coverage and analysis of her influence in an article from the European Journal of Management and Business Economics (DOI:10.1108/EJMBE-08-2022-0270). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's evaluate each and every reference cited in the BLP.
- Daily Pakistan WP:PROMO/tabloid journalism, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- ARY News The "web desk" byline doesn't meet reliability criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- 24 News HD Such sensational interviews aren't sufficient for establishing WP:N.
- Al Jazeera Acceptable source, but this source alone doesn't establish WP:N, No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Urdu Point Not a WP:RS according to criteria for news organizations in Pakistan.
- Oyeyeah - Clearly unreliable and unacceptable source
- The Nation Acceptable source but it only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Mag The Weekly Questionable source but also only verifies role. No significant/in-depth coverage.
- Daily Pakistan Only verifies role, Daily Pakistan is not reliable for establishing WP:N.
- Dawn Images WP:RS but only confirms receipt of a non-notable award
—Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Boamfă[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Lilia Biktagirova[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; a silver or bronze medal at the national championships to not meet the criteria of NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NSKATE #2 requires gold in national championship. My deprod was in error. Apologies. ~Kvng (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NSKATE's clear criteria BrigadierG (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NSKATE lists some very clear criteria for inclusion, which this article does not meet. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The subject is notable if it meets WP:GNG even if it fails WP:NSKATE. See this comment for a full description. No one in this discussion (including myself) has mentioned anything about searching for coverage that may satisfy WP:GNG

~Kvng (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a whole bunch of similarly deficient nominations. Really, such blanket nominations without evidence of WP:BEFORE and consideration of WP:ATD should be all procedurally kept as WP:SKCRIT#3 given lack of a valid deletion rationale as WP:NSKATE is indicative that sigcov is likely, and is not presumptive/determinative, so someone could meet none of the NSKATE criteria but still meet WP:SPORTCRIT for some reason. And votes relying only on NSKATE are likewise invalid. That said, it's quite possible that most of these should be delete or redirect results. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanako Maeda[edit]

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

Sources exist, but not enough significance. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hikari_Sentai_Maskman#Cast -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kehkashan Awan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another BLP on a non-notable actress created by BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) who has a dubious editing history. The subject does not meet criteria outlined in the relevant WP:NACTOR as well basic WP:GNG. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one WP:Inherent notability. Although this topic survived a previous AfD but the discussion was compromised by sock puppets and IPs. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was a well known actress and model in 1980s and before acting she was a model but she is best known for her role as Anji in drama Dhoop Kinaray which is considered now a classic cult.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
As the creator of this BLP, you've to provide references to support claims made about her significant roles. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 09:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:: Note: The creator of this BLP @BeauSuzanne is suspected UPE and a SPI is underway . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib unless something is confirmed, best not to mention it. One CU has already confirmed there is no technical evidence they are using multiple accounts. However, the CU did confirm heavy WP:LOUT activity so it might be fair to mention that. S0091 (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
S0091, I did wrote "suspected," not confirmed. Even if we can't confirm they're socks, one can say for sure they're UPEs. But your point taken. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib, you are casting aspersions here and you have been attacking this editor on many different discussions. This is verging on blockable behavior. Content creators have the right to weigh in on AFD discussion. Focus on the arguments and sources, not personalities. Or you could be facing a block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 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, ✗plicit 11:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are mostly about other people where Awan is only mentioned or are interviews. Jang is the only source that has coverage about her and all it says is people found her Twitter account and she's now married. Looking at the sources in the Dhoop Kinare article, none mention her outside of listing her as a cast member so it does not appear her role was significant. S0091 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG and NBIO. Sources found in article and BEFORE are name mentions, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 18:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiba Ali Khan[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Skynxnex (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under the general notability guideline, it's not the perceived prestige, in the eyes of us as editors, of a film, show, or or performer (which is subjective; e. g., one of the linked sources calls Khan a prolific actor) that confers notability; rather, notability comes from coverage in secondary sources. The article already cites sources that focus on Khan (e. g. [32], [33], [34]). I noticed other hits when I keyword-searched with Google, and this is just considering English language sources without getting into the probability of other language sources. By way of aside, the text of this AfD's OP is nearly identical to another AfD Saqib nominated on the same day. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we evaluating based on policy WP:GNG / WP:NACTOR or merely on some press coverage and appearances in dramas? No one is questioning her status as an actor, as she has indeed appeared in dramas. However, the crucial question is whether she has had significant roles. I don't see that. Now one might question why she receives press coverage if she doesn't have significant roles. It's important to note that national news channels such as ARY, GEO and others, are also associated with the production and promotion of these dramas, so they often invite the cast onto their TV shows, resulting in news articles in their news websites based on these TV appearances. While ARY news story may label her a prolific actor, this alone doesn't necessarily meet the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Additionally, we should be cautious about relying on the websites of Pakistani national news channels, as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and regularly publish sensational and tabloid-like content for increased traffic. As far I can see coverage in Urdu language, while available, also tends to lean towards gossip and sensationalism. And the identical text across my AfD nominations shouldn't be an issue when the problem with all of these BLPs is the same. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 07:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up WP:NEWSORGINDIA; however, that subsection of WP:RSP specifically refers to certain kinds of articles in certain publications from India like ABP Live's Brand Wire, Outlook's Business Spotlight, etc. The consensus isn't about all entertainment media in southern/southeast Asia. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to this discussion - commencing from the comment by ActivelyDisinterested at 16:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC). —Saqib (talk | contribs) 00:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ActivelyDisinterested's advice to be cautious about ProPakistan.pk is duly noted, but their comment doesn't seem to be about all news publications in Pakistan, and Sheriff contested the characterizations of even just ProPakistan.pk. Three editors who seem to have brought three different opinions doesn't seem like a ringing consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:27, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrangeans, OK - I do not want to delve into the details of what constitutes a RS or not, as this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. Let's keep it simple. so here are my final thoughts. As we can see, the actor clearly does not meet the criteria of WP:GNG because it requires sig/in-depth coverage. And if look at this from the perspective of NACTOR, the actor only had a lead role in one TV show, Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) and in the rest of the shows, she only played MINOR roles. I deleted some because they were either based on WP:OR or cited using clearly unreliable sources that can't even be used for WP:V purposes. So, as I mentioned, the actor had a lead role in " Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series) but when one does a Google search, there is no sig/ in-depth coverage about this show, indicating that it is not a significant work. Yes, it has a WP article, but so do hundreds of other TV shows created by UPEs. However, this show clearly does not meet the threshold of significance, which means the subject fails to meet NACTOR, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant. If you still like, I am happy to discuss further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Mehak Malik[edit]

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

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

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

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

Kelly Tshibaka[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P.S. Regarding [3], WP:GNG says, “A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” The references in this BLP obviously satisfy this requirement. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has she done that is objectively and clearly notable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

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): [35] [36] [37]. 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]

Erum Akhtar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

(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]

Sindhuja Rajaraman[edit]

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]

Colleen Brown (artist)[edit]

(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]

Ossanda Liber[edit]

(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]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Deletion review[edit]

[1] Kleiner, Dick (1970-03-01). "'Watermelon' turns sour". The Journal Times. p. 16. Retrieved 2024-05-13.

[:2-2] Sardesai, Rajdeep; Ambani, Nita; Network 18 (2011-08-01). Real Heroes: Ordinary People Extraordinary Service. Roli Books Private Limited. ISBN 978-93-5194-057-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

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

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

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

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]

[1]