Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

[edit]

Anne Ross (Australian sculptor)

[edit]
Anne Ross (Australian sculptor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Talented but by in-house wiki standards sadly NN. sources are passing mention only. Have done a BEFORE but see only gallery listings. Don't suspect WP:BIO. Her work is very very impressive, but not sure a wiki bio is warranted just yet. Would be trilled to be proven wrong. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Kalayar Aung

[edit]
Nang Kalayar Aung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer, as she has not even released a solo album or achieved any significant milestones in her music career. I could not find any reliable sources to support her notability, so she clearly fails WP:NSINGER. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nang Kalayar Aung is notable within Myanmar, particularly in the entertainment and music industry. She has gained recognition for her contributions as a singer and model, especially for her work in Burmese cover songs, which are popular among local audiences. Her popularity stems from her performances at live events and her presence on platforms like YouTube, where she connects with her audience through her music​
Myanmar Models DB
.
However, her international recognition might be limited, as most of her activities are centered within Myanmar. Her notability is significant in the context of Burmese music and modeling but may not extend broadly outside these circles without additional global exposure. For someone interested in Myanmar's contemporary music scene, she is a recognized figure worth exploring further. Waiyantunoo (talk) 08:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nang Kalayar Aung appears to be a notable figure due to her participation in high-profile events alongside well-known celebrities. In the context you provided, she is associated with prominent actors and celebrities such as Htoo Aung, Alinn Yaung, Kaung Myat San, Banyar Phyo Pyae, and Tayzar Linn Yaung at the grand opening of the 10th branch of the Thawara Win Sein Jewelry Store.
Being part of such an event suggests her influence or standing within the entertainment or public sphere. Her involvement with such notable figures and occasions indicates her recognition in social or professional circles.
check here Waiyantunoo (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Our guidelines on notability - especially for musicians - are Western-centric, without a doubt. But this singer fails those guidelines and so, at this time, is not notable per enwiki standards. I do have to add that Apple Music rendering the title of her song, "Bawa A Twat Nin" as "Bawa A T**t Nin" really, really made my day. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The subject doesn't meet WP:NSINGER at the moment– not even GNG either. Passing through the creater's talk page, I think they may have some sort of COI relations to the subject. Htanaungg (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vonabell Sherman

[edit]
Vonabell Sherman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. The claim here is that she's been an "on-air guest" on a shopping channel, which is not "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage and analysis about her work -- but the article is completely unreferenced, and has been tagged as unreferenced since 2011 without ever having any sources added in the 13 years since. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BEFORE search found someone else with the same name (who also isn't notable anyway), and her blog. That's it. Procyon117 (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy

[edit]
Parker Molloy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Currently used in article https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/ no presumably presumably no X Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr no no presumably no X Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382 no no presumably no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy no no no X its just a link to their author page
https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/ no no no X ditto
https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/ yes no ? no X article about herself
https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/ no no ? no X blog post by her
Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605. ? no ? no X dead link to ebook she wrote
https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php yes no presumably no X interview of her
https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../ no yes debatable yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html no yes ? no X she's not mentioned
https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/ no yes ? no X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113 no no no no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender no debatable X its just the topic page for all trans articles
https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/ yes no debatable no X article about herself
https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32 no yes yes yes X leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and no no ? no X just lists her a particpating in a talk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/ no yes yes yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110 no no ? no X quotes her amongst other trans people
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html no no presumably no X her commenting on something, not about her
https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/ no yes ? yes X briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
http://www.thetrans100.com/about/ no presumably no X just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees no presumably ? no X list of people who received an honor from an org
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf no presumably ? no X ditto
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word no no presumably no X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur no no presumably no X ditto
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html no no no no X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814 yes no ? no X interview of her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322 not really yes no yes X not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time no yes ? no X doesn't mention parker
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137 no yes ? no X ditto
https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html maybe yes probably not yes X perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html no yes debatable yes X doesn't mention parker
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles ? yes no ? X ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131 no yes no yes X short blog post it looks like
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur no no presumably yes X an article she wrote, not about her
https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race no yes presumably yes X doesn't mention her
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/ not really ? no no X a petition defending her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415 not really ? no no X ditto
https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903 not really yes ? yes X mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827 probably yes ? yes ? unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video not really no ? no X reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag not really no ? no X article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for no no X these aren't sources
https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency not really yes yes yes ? short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/ yes ? ? no? X its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)

Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris

[edit]
Shamayim "Mama Shu" Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails general notability guidelines Nxcrypto Message 00:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikita Hand

[edit]
Nikita Hand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, simply because she was recently mentioned in the news Nswix (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of Hand is already done and adequate in the McGregor article. Spideog (talk) 09:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is in blatant violation of WP:VICTIM. The subsection already created on the article for Conor McGregor is sufficient. Whynotlolol (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Sharkey

[edit]
Lisa Sharkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable businessperson fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO; contested draftification returned to mainspace with no improvements. The sources are all WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; routine news in WP:TRADES publications ([7]); non-independent affiliated sources/official bios ([8], [9], [10], [11]); and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs ([12], [13], [14]). A non-bylined piece in WP:FORBES is not considered reliable. There is also a WP:FOXNEWS profile that reads like churnalism (it is almost entirely based on comments she posted on Facebook). Both Forbes and Fox are of questionable reliability per WP:RSP. Meanwhile, in my WP:BEFORE search I looked for evidence that her book Dreaming Green had been reviewed, but I only found one independent reliable source review and thus she does not qualify under WP:NAUTHOR. Finally, the article claims she is an Emmy and Peabody winner, but the sources for this claim are all affiliated with her (usually her official bio provided with speaking engagements and press releases). The Emmy site does not list her in its list of winners and nominees. (It appears that she may have won a NY Regional Emmy as part of a larger news team, which is generally not considered the kind of "major award" to qualify one under WP:ANYBIO.) She also does not appear in the search results for Peabody award winners or on the Dupont Award's website. Overall, no sources that are both reliable and independent validate her claims to major awards. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I at least found some more for the book.
Unsure currently about awards and things. SilverserenC 23:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Le Fave

[edit]
Kelly Le Fave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is not notable; fails WP:GNG. I did a WP:BEFORE search, as well as searched through the Internet Archive book search and ProQuest, and found nothing but trivial mentions of her name, and her own works. The only thing I've found that could be considered "significant" coverage is the short bio page from Image (journal) that is already in the External links section [15] (And the same page live on the web [16]) However, according to that page, she published her poems in that publication, making that source not independent of the subject. GranCavallo (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can find absolutely nothing aside from the links you've put, and Amazon. Procyon117 (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Rowland

[edit]
Victoria Rowland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - my WP:BEFORE didn't turn up any decent sources with significant coverage - listings and fan sites only. Even if there was something for her role on Prisoner, I suggest that that alone would not be sufficient for WP:NACTOR and in particular significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - Prisoner seems to be the highlight. As an alternative, could Redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Montenegrin Women's League

[edit]
2024–25 Montenegrin Women's League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Entirely unsourced, and a WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zulmarys Sánchez

[edit]
Zulmarys Sánchez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article mentions Sanchez was a semi-finalist in the Olympics, but there's nothing that mentions winning a medal there. According to the categories, she did win a silver medal in the Pan American Games, but the ultimate issue is sourcing; I only found database results in the WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That guideline says Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Where exactly is the significant coverage in any of those sources that you've linked? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, the article was not ready at all shape. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article lacks citations, contains insufficient information, and has numerous flaws. It is not adequately developed or reliable enough for the mainspace in its current state, and it does not conform to what Wikipedia stands for. Furthermore, it fails to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for creating an article. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 1,2 to 3 sources is not enough to cover the one sentence article and as you visit the publisher its not notable and reputable enough and Wikipedia doesn't support any of those. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Indeed its not notable enough to pass Wikipedia standards. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify I'm pretty certain I will be able to expand this bio to WP standards - editors who know my work will know that Olympian stubs and Venezuelan stubs are an area of expertise and this is both - but don't have the time right now. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People with English-language browsers will as a rule be shown fewer foreign-language results, so if people are wanting to look for potential sources it would be useful to include some Spanish. The general Spanish word for canoe as a sport is piragüismo, though in Venezuela it is more common to use canotaje, and adding either or both of those to a browser search for her name will probably deliver more than just her name. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Calaway

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Sara Calaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

before search doesn't bring up much. Most searches mention her in articles only as the ex-wife of The Undertaker. Should probably be either deleted or merged to The Undertaker's page. Was also merged in 2007 after a discussion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 17:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season

[edit]
2025 Aryna Sabalenka tennis season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her season is still at least a few weeks away, and as of now, the article is very barebones with no real information or sources. LiamKorda 13:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kurowski

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Eva Kurowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:SINGER. No indication of significance.Single ref is a profile. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never been updated. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lot to base notability on. It all seems to local news. The book may be notable. I see its published by Rowohlt which is an old established publisher, potentially indication of pass as WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think these add upto much. There is a couple of event listings and promo for the book. There could me here though. scope_creepTalk 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina F. Acosta

[edit]
Gina F. Acosta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. A staff member at the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines does not count toward WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Multiple secondary sources such as The Philippine Star, Daily Tribune and GMA News Online have covered this government official from the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The OVP's questionable use of confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte has been among the top issues discussed in Philippine politics this year, if not the topmost (alongside tensions in the South China Sea and the POGO menace), and much of the Philippine media has been extensively covering the hearings conducted on this matter by the House Committee on Good Government in the past few months ([26][27][28][29][30]).
On November 5, Acosta was among the seven OVP officials who issued a position letter asking that the house congressional inquiry into their budget use be terminated ([31]), and by November 11 was among the four OVP officials ordered arrested based on a contempt citation issued by the committee for their non-attendance at the hearings ([32]). During the November 20 hearing, OVP chief of staff Zuleika T. Lopez and a branch manager of Land Bank of the Philippines gave testimonies that pinpointed Acosta as the OVP official who directly handled the confidential funds of the vice president ([33][34]). The varied independent coverage cited in this paragraph alone, in my view, merits notability for the article; further coverage in the media is also anticipated in the aftermath of the testimonies given in the Nov. 20 hearing. LionFosset (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LionFosset All the sources you mentioned are good but they do not count toward WP:GNG sources. The subject fails Wikipedia criteria for politician and non WP:GNG sources cannot be used for WP: SIGCOV. Please read more about WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etty Lau Farrell

[edit]
Etty Lau Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG, article is a biography of a person whose biggest claim to fame is being married to a notable musician. Sources presented are articles on Perry Farrell and Jane's Addiction (more than a few of which don't even mention Etty at all), primary interviews, passing mentions, etc. The sources with the most dedicated coverage to her here are a Forbes contributor article and a Wordpress blog (neither of which are in any way acceptable for BLP articles, see WP:FORBESCON and WP:WORDPRESS), virtually none of the others establish notability. Given the WP:BLP problems at play here, including numerous sections of unsourced content about the living subject, as well as the aforementioned WP:SIGCOV issues (which WP:BEFORE could not help alleviate, since most of the standalone coverage that a search could turn up is about her commentary on a single controversy from around the same period), this person is unworthy of an article. JeffSpaceman (talk) 00:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

[edit]
Melissa Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Palmowski

[edit]
Alisha Palmowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has only competed in entry level series (Ginetta Junior Championship and FIA Formula 4). Article is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Palmowski, is a F1 Academy wildcard driver, and since all F1 Academy drivers have pages, why not her? She is also the runner-up of the 2024 GB4 Championship and can be considered as a future prospect for female racing drivers. At least draft the page BurningBlaze05 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Academy is an entry-level series, therefore its' competitors don't meet notability guidelines – WP:WHATABOUTISM is not an excuse. I have no issue with drafting, however "can be considered as a future prospect" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know nothing about this content area, but here are the sources I could locate: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. I don't know how to evaluate content in this area which seems hyper specific to motor sports so I will leave it to others to determine whether this meets WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diahnne Abbott

[edit]
Diahnne Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Mainly famous for being the first wife of Robert De Niro, but notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. She has an encyclopedia entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, see page 4, and there are many other sources in this Internet Archive search; including another biographical entry in Halliwell's who's who in the movies which is a film encyclopedia. Under WP:5P1 we cover the same topics found in specialized encyclopedias, and since two published specialized encyclopedia cover this person we should too. Additionally, she had more significant roles in The King of Comedy and Love Streams, and she has a featured on screen song number in the film New York, New York, performing "Honeysuckle Rose (song)" (also appearing on the soundtrack album). She arguably passes WP:NACTRESS for multiple notable roles.4meter4 (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:SIGCOV. I have noting more to add to above comment. Gharouni Talk 02:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable actress. Moondragon21 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:SIGCOV with the entry in Encyclopedia of African American Actresses in Film and Television, and other significant movie roles. --Shiv989 (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agata Rosłońska

[edit]
Agata Rosłońska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Winning

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Lisa Winning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Newly recreated promotional bio of an Australian businesswoman; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I can't see the version deleted last year so don't know if it's sufficiently identical to warrant a speedy deletion, but the sources in this one do not support notability. They are WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews ([51], [52], [53], [54]), WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of Winning that do not constitute WP:SIGCOV of her ([55], [56], [57], [58], [59]), or WP:USERGENERATED sources ([60], [61]). I checked to see whether her book He Texted would qualify her under WP:NCREATIVE, but the only reviews I found were on user-generated sites and thus there's no pass there. The one source that might fit the bill is in a vaguely promotional platform and written by a non-staff contributor who is not a journalist. Nothing found in WP:BEFORE search that works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fausta Shakiwa Mosha

[edit]
Fausta Shakiwa Mosha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PROF. As far as I can tell, this person is a reasonably accomplished academic with some publications under her belt, and has held some medium-high level positions at the WHO, but that's it. She does not have any of the achievements laid out in the academic notability guideline and is the subject of almost no independent, significant coverage. Based on the article's promotional tone and the fact that the creator has made no edits to Wikipedia other than the creation of this article, I believe it was made by someone with a COI. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello everyone,
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. I want to address the concerns regarding notability and the perceived promotional tone of the article.
1. Notability and Independent Coverage: Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha, while indeed an academic and professional within the public health sector, has contributions that extend significantly beyond ordinary academic achievements. Her role as a Senior Laboratory Advisor at WHO, along with her previous positions at WHO AFRO and WHO EMRO, position her as a key player in international public health. Her work has directly impacted policies and practices in over a dozen countries across Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East.
a. Sources and Coverage: Dr. Mosha has been instrumental in significant projects such as the East Africa Public Health Laboratory Networking Project funded by the World Bank and has played a pivotal role in the implementation of cooperative agreements with the US CDC, which have had substantial public health implications globally. I will add citations from these projects and her 49 scholarly articles and a book chapter that contribute to her standing in the field.
2. Academic and Professional Achievements: Regarding WP, Dr. Mosha's career includes high-level advisory roles and directorial positions that have shaped laboratory practices and epidemiology training programs across continents. This involvement goes beyond medium-level academic positions and includes leadership that has effected measurable change in international public health strategies.
3. Promotional Tone: I acknowledge the concerns about the promotional tone. Changes have been made to ensure the language is neutral and factual, focusing on her contributions and roles without subjective embellishments. I urge the community to review the revised content, which adheres more closely to Wikipedia's standards for neutrality.
In conclusion, Dr. Mosha's contributions are not only notable but have a lasting impact on global public health infrastructures, making her a subject of encyclopedic interest and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Her extensive body of work and leadership roles provide significant independent coverage and recognition within her field, fulfilling the notability criteria.
Thank you for considering this response, and I look forward to further constructive discussion. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your input. Would you mind clarifying if you have any off-Wiki relationship to the subject of the article? --AntiDionysius (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your follow-up question. I would like to clarify that I do not have any personal, professional, or financial relationship with Dr. Fausta Shakiwa Mosha. My interest in contributing to this article is purely based on my recognition of her significant contributions to public health, particularly within the realms of global health security and epidemiology, which I believe warrant an encyclopedic entry due to their impact and scope.
    I am committed to ensuring that the content on Wikipedia is accurate, neutral, and verifiable and have endeavored to present Dr. Mosha's career and achievements based on reliable sources and factual information. 154.118.225.194 (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If there were a case for notability, it would be great to keep this article about a woman scientist. But the referencing in both the version at the time this AfD discussion was started and the current version is poor. The article doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. I've searched and cannot find references to add. Tacyarg (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Linendoll

[edit]
Katie Linendoll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable speaker-for-hire. Only claim to notability is an Emmy win; but the basis for that claim is not stated (is the Emmy actually hers, or is it for some show she was part of?), nor the nature of the Emmy (local or national), assuming there is one. The Emmy claim is also unsourced; searches all lead back to the subject's own website and social media pages, or pages populated with information she has provided (e.g. her blurbs on various speaker vendors, [62], [63]). Most significantly, a search for her surname name on the Emmy search tool turns up nothing; so the claim itself is somewhat dubious.

The article was created by Brookette1, almost all of whose edits have been to this article, and who has stated that she "work[s] at the PR agency that represents" the subject. TJRC (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Nilsson

[edit]
Jessica Nilsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article only has one (unreliable) source. No indication of importance besides directing one feature film, as all the rest of the credits are small projects. CutlassCiera 16:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Jeglic

[edit]
Elizabeth Jeglic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed for NPP. Entirely cited to passing mentions and things written by the topic of the article. She is the co-author of two books which may or may not be notable, but I don't think that's a large enough body of work to pass WP:NAUTHOR. NACADEMIC is hard for me to understand all the subtleties of, as I don't know what a good or bad h-index is in psychology, so she might pass there but I am not sure. If she does pass NACADEMIC it needs to be far less promotional. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chantal Fernandez

[edit]
Chantal Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The book she was the co-author of appears to be close to being notable, but given it's only one she does not quite pass NAUTHOR as there aren't any independent sources on her. If someone wants to flip the article around to being on the book (provided there are more sources for that) then that might be an option but I'm not sure there are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reema Debnath

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reema Debnath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. She has not played a leading role in any film either. There's no significant coverage about her in the sources and in WP:BRFORE search. Google news also shows 0 coverage about this individual. Nxcrypto Message 12:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. One supporting role in major(ish) film isn't enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR.
P.S. What is WP:BRFORE? I'm new in AfD, I mostly took part in counterpart project in Polish Wikipedia. OK, I think you meant WP:BEFORE :) Tupungato (talk) 12:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chin Gouk

[edit]
Chin Gouk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for notability concerns since 2014. Most of the sources are articles by her rather than third party coverage to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Low citation count as well. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Tychmini

[edit]
Natalie Tychmini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG Knowledgegatherer23 (Say Hello) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan

[edit]
Leya Kırşan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudamini Mishra

[edit]
Saudamini Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacking WP:GNG and WP:BIO . Nxcrypto Message 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/beauty-and-brains-as-never-seen-before-in-the-genius-of-the-bestselling-autho r-and-artist-saudamini-mishra-aka-dhi-who-has-mastered-her-art-and-the-selling-of-it-to-change-lives-121030901304_1.html and https://www.business-standard.com/content/specials/saudamini-mishra-changing-lives-with-the-most-intellectual-stories-1201118011 79_1.html and https://www.indiatoday.in/impact-feature/story/author-saudamini-mishra-releases-her-fifth-bestselling-book-dhi-s-law-of-nine-archety pes-of-dhi-s-transformation-series-1985264-2022-08-08 and https://thedailyguardian.com/i-wanted-lives-to-be-changed-saudamini/ . 3 sourcs is enough for notability.Stromeee (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your sources don't work (linking errors). You might need to fix them. Procyon117 (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan

[edit]
List of NJPW female wrestlers born outside Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this meets WP:LISTN, a trivial grouping of characteristics Fram (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Since this is a list of 48 female wrestlers, I think it would be best to change the alphabetical format of the list to a table, and also add additional sources. Maybe when there are 90 or 100, the alphabetical format would make sense. Nikotaku (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a very arbitrary set of criteria. Not sure why this exists. — Czello (music) 09:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joline Godfrey

[edit]
Joline Godfrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Meager

[edit]
Rachael Meager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find indepth coverage in google news or books to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF, not a full professor and citations count is relatively low. Also an orphan article, which is unusual for an acadenic. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare McCann

[edit]
Clare McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as a PR piece with lack of proper sourcing. References used mention very little about the subject neither are they the focus of the person. May not meet WP:GNG. AnonUser1 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Blacktown Advocate is now defunct and it’s difficult to access those newspaper archives. Part of WP:AGF is that we accept off-line sources, and based on the citations it looks like that newspaper had the most in-depth coverage. I don’t think I would be comfortable supporting a deletion vote when the best materials have not been viewed.4meter4 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Blacktown Advocate articles. New break for young star - "AT JUST 22, Clare McCann has made a name for herself on the entertainment circuit, and now she's returning to where it all started. The Blacktown girl has landed the leading role as Mimi in the musical stage production Rent, due to open at the Blacktown City Community Theatre this week." Promotion for local Community Theatre event. Girls leap into squad - "THERE'S more than one way to impress girls. School mates Vlado Kurtuma and Hasim Sindel, both 16, were sitting around one afternoon after P.E. class when Parramatta Eels Cheerleader Clare McCann showed up.McCann, 20, from Doonside, runs dance classes after hours in Doonside Technology High's school hall." A call for boys to come and join cheerleading classes. Add a good voice - " ``There's a lot of girls who do dancing and are looking for something new,`` said instructor Clare McCann, who has been a Parramatta Eels Cheerleaders member for the past two years." Promotion for pen day to promote cheerleading class. Flashdancer win - "SWITCHING from hard trance to R`n'B to salsa, all in one two-minute routine, Clare McCann shuffled and spun her way to victory at the Miss Flashdancer 2006 grand final last month." Report on local winning a nightclub dance contest. Short cut to fame - "BLACKTOWN City Community Theatre's 2004 season is kicking off next week with its annual Four Short Plays Plus." "Clare McCann, of Doonside, has written and directed her second play, Fairyland, proving, at age 17 that youth is no barrier to success on the stage." One sentence in article about local Community Theatre event. Nothing significnt here. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Part of WP:AGF is that we accept off-line sources. Where does it say that? AGF applies to behaviour not the assumed existence of sources. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepanshi Yadav

[edit]
Deepanshi Yadav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SINGER. Bbb23 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshata Krishnamurthy

[edit]
Akshata Krishnamurthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page does not seem to meet WP:NACADEMIC, reads more like a self-promotional page, and focuses more on what the subject's projects have achieved rather than the subject themselves. Tammy0507 (talk) 13:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: And the article was created by a new editor as well. Your point being...? Tammy0507 (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare for new editors to find the deletion processes early in their career here. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some of us are looking for a WP:CLEANSTART :) Tammy0507 (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the Economic Times article (which is, if you read it, admits to being basically a reproduction of the subject's Instagram page), and to a certain extent the News18 report, I would cast serious doubts on whether the cited sources are actually reliable sources. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I would like to remind editors what constitutes a reliable source and refer to WP:Reliable sources/News Organizations:

Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see Junk food news)

I do not see any source in this article and discussion that does not qualify as Human interest reporting. Tammy0507 (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject meets WP:GNG and has notable coverage. I agree that the article needs cleanup. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria above are sometimes summed up as an "Average Professor Test": When judged against the average impact of a researcher in a given field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished?

The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.

Other academic profiles for precedence: Anita Sengupta, Mark Adler, Farah Alibay, Bibhusita Das, Katherine Aaslestad --Shiv989 (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Hassan

[edit]
Priya Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created Draft:Priya Hassan and despite it being well sourced, it was rejected at AfC. Now a different user, recreated the draft topic but as an article albeit with barely any sources and only 1 reliable source. The draft was deleted but I requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. All of the sources on the draft were interviews mostly.

Unneccesary AfD, I put a PROD on the draft but creator removed it. Likely not notable as a director due to lack of wide spread non interview (primary) sources. If this article needs to be kept, it needs to be merged with the draft. The draft had many sources from here [75], many of which relate to the production of the films themselves, not her. DareshMohan (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only reasons I can think of was that the film Bindaas Hudugi wasn't linked in the draft, the film Jambada Hudugi itself is in dire need of more sources (and given its lowkey release, the 100 days claim seems doubtful [76]) and the lack of article for Smuggler despite having five sources. Bindaas Hudugi also running for hundred days is doubtful (in which and how many theaters? [77]). Main reason is all sources are about films and not about her itself, but to be fair she didn't do that many films. DareshMohan (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Sartre

[edit]
Charlotte Sartre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV from secondary sources that shows notability. Demt1298 (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nileena Abraham

[edit]
Nileena Abraham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite winning an award - which many translators appear to win and that does not inherently make them eligible for a Wikipedia article – I am concerned that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The citations are all primary or unreliable and I can't find any other reliable sources that cover the subject in a significant way.

Please assume good faith in this nomination. It's nothing personal! Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Abiouness

[edit]
Nicole Abiouness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating an article I wrote for deletion. I wrote it in 2012. I do not believe that this subject qualifies for inclusion in Wikipedia due to WP:Notability. Missvain (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amie Jo Bishop

[edit]
Amie Jo Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Came across this because of its use of paid/vanity coverage in the Bru Times News. Apart from that source, the article has two reviews in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Although I take these reviews somewhat seriously, I think that reviews in one publication falls short of WP:NCREATIVE and/or WP:NMUSIC. There is also an interview in a source of uncertain reliability, and several citations to the discography of the subject. It looks WP:TOOSOON to me at best. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not meeting GNG... Her instagram has a whole of 120 something followers and the lack of any kind of sourcing outside Arkansas shows that this individual isn't notable. I don't find anything about her music. Oaktree b (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kai Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [80] [81] [82] [83], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. Only Matt Gaetz is interested. Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[84]] and [[85]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

[edit]
Susan Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has roles in notable films/TV series, but they are usually minor roles. I was not able to find much beyond simple mentions of her in reliable sources. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually", maybe but that means not always, not all, and indeed she is in the main cast of Snowpiercer and has recurring/signficant roles in other productions (see NY Times and other sources mentioning them) and the guideline requires significant roles in notable productions, not that none of her roles (or even only a small part of them) should be minor. Mushy Yank (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you looking at? I do not believe Cinema Daily US is an RS (seems like a film blog), and the Deadline articles that I have found are simple casting announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:44, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above discussion. Almost everyone agrees that the New York Times is a reliable source for arts and entertainment (not the political coverage); there’s a consensus that Deadline and The Wrap are also. Reasonable people can disagree with what’s significant. (I recall there’s an essay that 50 words in a 500-word article is a good rule.) I’m willing to split the difference on the other sources. All in all, I think there’s a consensus that’s she’s covered by at least three different reliable sources in a significant way. That’s just enough to make her pass. Bearian (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Jones (architect)

[edit]
Annette Jones (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, LibStar, please post an AFD notification to User:MurielMary as you should have when you listed this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniqah Choudhri

[edit]
Aniqah Choudhri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline as significant coverage by reliable, independent sources is limited. While Aniqah Choudhri won a notable poetry prize and has some publication credits, the article lacks substantial third-party sources that provide in-depth coverage of her life and career. Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, poetry prizes are a dime a dozen, as surely you are aware. Winning ten prizes in poetry mean next to nothing if the awards are not important/notable enough. In my neck of the woods, they have monthly competitions in short stories and poetry, but I assure you none of the winners merits a Wikipedia article. End game: Without sources supporting independent notability, we do not have an article. -The Gnome (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

[edit]
Archana Patnaik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being appointed as the Chief Electoral Officer of an Indian state's Election Commission, whose role is to oversee local elections, does not make her inherently notable. I tried to search for SIGCOV but found only reports about the appointment, and even these don't provide in-depth coverage. The subject fails to meet GNG. GrabUp - Talk 09:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there additional support for Draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Electoral officer does not pass WP:NPOL, subject in any case does not pass WP:GNG. I can't buy draftification as there's no evidence there's anything more to justify notability, certainly nothing inherent in this role as a local official in a non-political role. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two weeks later, the only articles are still about her appointment. Therefore I don't think a draftify would be appropriate. Procyon117 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

[edit]
Aruba Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
  2. ^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.
  • Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep: Again, deletion is not cleanup; subject passes C1 WP:Anybio per the award and WP:Nactor. Kaizenify (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, per the relist comments, and per CNMall41, the sourcing is just not there. ANYBIO C1 does not apply - this is not a significant award. NACTOR criterion 1 looks stronger, but meeting NACTOR criterion 1 does not guarantee the subject should be included, per the SNG guidelines themselves. As no one has been able to provide suitable sourcing from which a page could be written, there is no reason to keep this page. I would be happy with a redirect if anyone can suggest something suitable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom and CNMall41. Fails to clear notability and GNG too. Keep !votes aren't convincing enough and the sources provided do not make it past SIGCOV and GNG threshold. — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

[edit]
Ekaterina Ovcharenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. Tennis player who has never won a main draw title, never played in a Grand Slam tournament main draw, never been ranked in the top 250 in the world and no significant coverage of her is included in the sparse references. Shrug02 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. She is not a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame. 2. She has not won even one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments. 3. She has not won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, or any of the WTA 125 tournaments. And 4. She does not hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP, or WTA.
Hence, not Wikinotable. For a compendium of tennis players I look elsewhere because Wikipedia is not a directory of tennis players. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out earlier, her title at the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon 42 is of a high enough level to meet NTENNIS. Has anyone here looked for Russian language sources which could meet GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous link to the Open Andrézieux-Bouthéon is dead. (It's actually the 75, but it's not important.) I found a source that shows she has indeed won there, and placed it in the article, so the article qualifies. Changing my suggestion to Keep. -The Gnome (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference you added is just a scorecard. That's not significant coverage. It's like saying every soccer player you can find listed as playing in a professional match is worth having their own page. Shrug02 (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link takes us to a scorecard that testifies that she has won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $40,000–$100,000+ tournaments, as denoted in WP:NTENNIS. -The Gnome (talk) 13:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Ovcharenko won 1 W75 doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline" (so what The Gnome said about GNG still initially still stands). WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (often getting hits on other people with the same name). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a sport that's predominantly popular in singles. As of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the key point. Like so many of these tennis articles there is no SIGNIFICANT coverage so they fail to meet the overarching Wikipedia criteria. Just having a scorecard saying someone called J Bloggs won a tournament that the Tennis Project deem noteworthy but the real world and even the WTA see as minor, does not meet the required standards. Shrug02 (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failing GNG is far, far more important than passing NTENNIS by the skin of your teeth. Score summaries and database sources might well verify an NTENNIS pass but they have no value in a GNG conversation. Also note that WP:SPORTBASIC #5 clearly states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Note the word 'must' is used here not 'should' or 'could do with'. Significant coverage is not a mere suggestion or an afterthought but an actual requirement of every sports biography article. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NTENNIS per above. WP:SNGs do not replace WP:GNG but GNG also also does not replace an SNG. They are two separate and both valid pathways to proving notability. The delete votes ignoring NTENNIS are simply wrong and boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. We don't ignore WP:NTENNIS just because you don't like it.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at this article it fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it has only 3 references all of which fall into the category of trivial coverage. This is nothing to do with "I don't like it", it's to do with following the guidelines. Shrug02 (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and WP:SPORTSBASIC is only one portion of WP:NSPORT. Someone passing a specific criteria at WP:NTENNIS doesn't have to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC as well. That's not how our SNG guidelines work. At the 2022 RFC on sports we weeded out a lot of the poorly written criteria in the individual sports SNGs; what little is left is still applicable and each guidline is not dependent on the others. If one pathway is met, its met.4meter4 (talk) 18:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4, WP:NSPORT's FAQ (which WP:NTENNIS is under) that I linked to in my vote is pretty clear. NTENNIS is there "only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline." Thus, the subject must pass WP:GNG under NSPORT guidelines, which is not the case here - despite searching in-depth about Ekaterina Ovcharenko, where nothing changed weeks after this AfD started. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You are totally misinterpreting that bolded paragraph which states “they are intended to stop quick deletions” in a good faith belief that sources can be found in time. That’s exactly what I am arguing. I believe the sources exist but they are in Russian and likely behind pay walls. Why have NTENNIS at all if everything just goes back to SPORTSBASIC which is essentially a regurgitation of GNG? We should just delete NSPORT all together if that is the attitude. And truncate WP:N to a single paragraph. We have SNGs for a reason.4meter4 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a "nonsense", I'm exactly offering you what it says - and you are ignoring the "Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not they have attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline" part. NSPORT itself is a guideline that shows what is likely to have significant coverage and pass GNG. It's not supposed to be a workaround when GNG isn't met - never was. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems keeping this article is so important to the Tennis Project that they (in the form of @Adamtt9) are now seeking to have me banned from Wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia to occupy my mind and hopefully make a positive contribution, which I thought I was doing. Anyone can check my edit history and hopefully see I have improved many articles in the area of tennis and many other subjects. Frankly I'm tired of this whole business which is damaging my already poor mental health. For this reason I withdraw my nomination of this article for deletion in the hope that I will be left alone to continue my hobby in peace. Shrug02 (talk) 10:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug02 There is no need (nor you can, as per the rules it only happens if it's an obvious keep situation) to withdraw the nomination that's valid and, in my opinion, has the consensus. Don't let that sock investigation deter you from things in Wiki - not to mention it was quickly dismissed. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovanmilic97 I wasn't aware I couldn't withdraw but now you have informed me I've now crossed that out. Thanks for your encouragement to not be deterred. I appreciate it. As for having the consensus to delete, I would agree with your assessment but obviously that is not my call. I honestly just hope a decision is made and no more relisting and, most importantly, that I am not made the subject of any further negativity. Best wishes. Shrug02 (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hiding content irrelevant to this AfD
That's a perfectly legitimate action. If you are not a sock, there is nothing detrimental to your presence here from such an investigation. -The Gnome (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome I didn't even know what a sock puppet was (other than the ones you put on your hand) until I Googled it yesterday. I'm just not into all this nonsense. And no I'm not a Sock. Shrug02 (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Gnome Oh and by the way the investigation has been closed but no doubt they'll try something else next. Shrug02 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only humbly recommend that you walk away from this AfD and ignore the whole episode. An investigation about potential sockpuppetry is not "harassment". If you feel uncomfortable you might want to take a break from editing; though, there is certainly no need to abandon the project. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

[edit]
Kanja Odland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allllllice is a major contributor to the article.
  • The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- The first Dagens Nyheter article "Separation är världens sjuka" is a personal interview with the subject including direct questions such as "How did you become attracted to Buddhism?" so it is significant coverage rather than name-dropping.
- The second Dagens Nyheter ”Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist:” is an interview with the subject's co-teacher Sante Poromaa which includes relevant coverage of the subject. For example (translated):This means that he (along with his wife [Kanja Odland Roshi]) is now the highest ranking Zen Buddhist teacher in Sweden.
- The Sveriges Radio interview does not stand alone as evidence of notability but should be considered alongside the other sources.
- The book 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening is a collection of essays on the history of buddhism published by the Sri Lankan government which addresses the subject in the section on Buddhism in Scandinavia.
It's true that some of the other sources you have listed are self-made or websites of related zen centers but, as I understand it, primary sources can be appropriate for non-controversial facts in an article about a person. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Primary sources should be used carefully Allllllice (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in your contribution above, Allllllice, produces some kind of clear evidence of notability. I mean, I concur with your assessment of the "sources" more than I disagree! Yes, "self-made", "related zen centers [announcements]", "primary sources" only supporting existence (I do not disagree she has existed!), one "interview [which] does not stand alone as evidence of notability", and so forth. I submit I cannot, much as I try, fathom the persistence of support here. A zen teacher among hundreds of thousands, yes. -The Gnome (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would help if I clarify that, since Zen buddhism is a lineage-based tradition based on dharma transmission, to be a "teacher" has a specific meaning. The number of sanctioned teachers is limited (many orders of magnitude less than hundreds of thousands) and even more so for those with the title Roshi. I realise that this isn't evidence for notability in itself, but I hope it is useful as context. Allllllice (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-independent sources can be used as references with some caveats, but they do not count towards notability. None of the sources except "Separation är världens sjuka" are both independent and in-depth. "Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" and " 2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening" are independent, but the first one offers no in-depth info on Odland and the second seems to suffer from the same problem (google-books won't let me see everything). We can't seem to get to three sources that satisfy the SIRS criteria. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three best sources is helpful advice for those looking to demonstrate notability but it isn't a requirement. The criteria at WP:SIGCOV state that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." We have multiple independent sources here and agree that at least one of them is in-depth. Allllllice (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The subject appears to be recognized in international publications as an important Buddhist teacher in Scandanavia. I'm not seeing a particularly convincing source analysis as to why the sources in question don't meet out criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've now added an additional source: Larsson, L. Vägledare i svensk zenbuddhism. Buddhism-nu. 1/08. Temporarily uploaded here.
This is an interview with Kanja Odland from 2008 published in the Swedish buddhism magazine Buddhism-nu that ticks the boxes of significant coverage, reliable & independent. The article itself explains her notability (my translation):
[...] summer 2006 [...] Kanja received "Inka" (Dharma transmission) which is the final confirmation that Kanja is an independent sensei – teacher – with the right to freely teach and appoint her own successors. Which in itself is a unique event in the development of Buddhism in Sweden – that we now have a Swedish, female Zen teacher as a guide and role model.
We now have this together with the Dagens Nyheter interview, which we agreed is independent and in-depth, plus the other sources ("Sante Poromaa, zenbuddist" from Dagens Nyheter , "2600 Years of Sambuddhatva: Global Journey of Awakening", Sveriges Radio interview) which we agreed were independent. Allllllice (talk) 14:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

[edit]
Julie Breathnach-Banwait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe she meets WP:AUTHOR or WP:BIO more broadly. 1 hit in google news and nothing in google books which is surprising for a writer. LibStar (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I still am seeing No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify per User:Colin Ryan with hopes that they can locate some independent sources, perhaps through the Irish press. Lamona (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Spinifex&Sand is right that when an author has only one notable work, and the coverage is of that work rather than the author, we typically have an article just on the notable work. But when there are multiple notable works, NAUTHOR#3 does actually allow notability to be inherited for an author bio, if there is coverage of their "collective body of work". After some digging I think I see two WP:NBOOK candidates:
And two books that don't meet NBOOK but do have one review (so a second would pass NBOOK):
  • Ar Thóir Gach Ní [94]
  • Cnámha Scoilte / Split Bones [95]
I also found this profile in The Irish Scene, which suggests notability, and this interview which does not but could be useful in fleshing out the article if kept. I have a hard time getting excited about only 2 NBOOKs as a "collective body of work", but I think some would consider that sufficient. I lean keep because I think the profiles in the Irish Times, Anglo&Celtic Australia Magazine, and now The Irish Scene together squeak by for GNG. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a better consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

[edit]
Kaoli Isshiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [96] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [97] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [98] recital
    4. [99] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Le Monde Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Green tickY Red XN Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de Red XN Question? Red XN Red XN Red XN Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/ Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN Red XN This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.
Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.
I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my close, and relisting for a clearer consensus, per the nom's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Deletion review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1259166507"