Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Lucia Starovičová

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Good

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

Non-notable figure skater. She won a gold medal at the 2010 Danish Championships, but there were only two teams competing, and other that that, <crickets>. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Denmark, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Twete

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Denmark. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhu Lan Qing

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

Because the source is not independent and significant enough. Also, the person who created this article is closely related to this person or wrote it himself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimike yep (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Photography, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She seems to be a notable artist. A GScholar search for "Zhu Lanqing" (which appears to be a more common romanization of her name) finds several academic reviews of her work, especially her photobook, A Journey in Reverse Direction (负向的旅程), including Figlio (International Journal of Asian Studies), Tung (Trans Asia Photography), and Frank (ArtAsiaPacific). She also won the Three Shadows Award in 2014, which appears to be quite prestigious. I'm quite sure that someone fluent in Chinese could find even more sigcov. pburka (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martina Ferrari

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Chilean rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Chile. JTtheOG (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Arrascaeta

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentinian rhythmic gymnast. Article was previously draftified in June. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Vetricean

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Canadian rhythmic gymnast. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in even Canadian media, appears to be a non-notable athlete. Sourcing in the article is for gymnastic federations or competition results. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima Kome

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

Contested draftify but with no apparent improvement. WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC both require multiple sources showing significant coverage. The only decent source that I can find is Allez Les Lions, which is a fairly standard transfer announcement regarding her move to the second French tier. I am not sure if Allez Les Lions is WP:RS as I couldn't find evidence of fact checking or professional journalism. Aside from that, I found Feca Foot, Chretiens and La Depeche, all of which are clearly trivial mentions. Since all we have is one borderline source, I can't see how this meets the notability criteria. Turkish Wikipedia had no decent coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Forte

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an interesting one. Forte received a couple paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times when she was 11 in an article discussing junior skaters [[1]] (although it does not pass WP:YOUNGATH, it still provides additional context to the subject). The subject also enough coverage at [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] and [[5]] to meet the WP:GNG Let'srun (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Let's run there is much more coverage on this one than the majority of AfD skating articles.Canary757 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Henderson

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

Almost no information is provided on this actress. For a list of credits, readers can go to IMDb. Henderson had minor roles in a few movies. In one B movie, The Gorbals Story, she received third billing. She might have been the female lead alongside someone not mentioned in the top three, or perhaps the other two billed actors were the true leads. In either case, this article, in its current state, provides data and virtually no context, making it fail NOTDIR #1. Henderson seems to fail NACTOR as well. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles (not lead) in notable productions (The Gorbals Story and The 39 Steps, for example). It is a stub in its current state but stubs are meant to be improved rather than deleted. -Mushy Yank. 09:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet is her role in The 39 Steps really significant? IMDb and we have her billed 13th, this database has her listed 12th. All towards the end. It appears that her only significant role was in a B movie. PER NACTOR: Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Also, how is the GNG satisfied? The caps in the quote are mine. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Phillips

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

BLP of an OnlyFans model whose claim to fame is having sex with 100 men. Coverage is all from within the past week or so and largely consists of deprecated sources and low-quality tabloids. Fails WP:N, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:BLP, WP:NOT, etc. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Spicy (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would move it to draft space then and see if she gets more coverage.

I only made this page since I read about her and saw that there was a German article about her but not an English one. Laura240406 (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A draft already exists at Draft:Lily Phillips. Spicy (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ah okay then I'm also for a deletion

(btw the German Wikipedia's quality standards seem to be a lot worse than the English one's) Laura240406 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BLP1E violation, utterly non-notable other than this event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: see my comment Laura240406 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON.--Laun chba ller 19:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a draft that covers the main points and uses more reliable sources. Laura240406 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All five of the sources currently used in the draft are in yellow and red at WP:UPSD. I removed the three it highlighted in the article.--Laun chba ller 20:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shipra Dawar

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

This Topic is not meeting WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. This article don't have any mention about the subject. This is paid/sponsored article. This is self published. Looks like WP:COVERT. B-Factor (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and India. B-Factor (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - meets all standard of WP:GNG. Let's take this step by step-

This article don't have any mention about the subject- The link has been updated in the original article to reference IWill GiTA as described by Microsoft.
This is paid/sponsored article.- The article was used to establish Shira's role as the founder of Bharat Bhagya Vidhata Forum. Have added reference where this has been established- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFaTi2CB4Vg. This video is by Indian School of Business's Bharti School of Public Policy.
This is self published- This was used to communicate her higher education. Additional information has been published by Zee Media.

I hope this clarifies all the doubts. Jai Mata Di 2024 (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Punjab, Australia, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete as per the nomination. Does not meet WP:GNG based on adequate coverage from independent sources. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep as it meets WP:GNG and has adequate independent sources. Listing them below- ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] this seems like an attack to demerit women founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishdwivedi76 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC) She is the most popular sanskrit singer . Sanskrit one of the oldest langauge in the world . There are more then 15 google, Bing , Baidu Auto suggest about madhvi madhukar and her song which suggest people are very curious to know about this unique singer . Keyword planner also suggest thousands of people searching about her . She has resurrected and re invented sanskrit songs . Third party app like social blade suggest 13 to 15 crore people listening her on youtube. Her wikipedia page is coming on top which suggest people are visiting her page .please don't be personal about her . Sanskrit is the mother of all langauge and she is harbinger . I earnest request the person that please don't be personal on the basis of religion and geography ans let the truth prevail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Namanvanshthakur (talk • contribs) 06:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhvi Madhukar

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

Fails WP:SINGER. While she has received some media coverage, it appears to be largely sensationalistic. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and India. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the nomination for the deletion of Madhvi Madhukar’s Wikipedia article under WP:SINGER has raised concerns about her notability. However, I respectfully request a reconsideration of this nomination, as Madhvi Madhukar clearly meets the notability criteria outlined under WP:SINGER. Her article should remain on Wikipedia, and here's why:

1. Extensive Media Coverage from Credible Outlets

Madhvi Madhukar has received significant, verifiable media coverage in respected, national-level outlets, highlighting her importance as both an artist and a public figure. While it’s important to scrutinize the nature of media coverage, it’s equally important to recognize the credibility of the sources involved.

For example, Madhvi’s interview on DD News, a government-run news outlet, demonstrates her contributions to the music industry and her relevance in the broader cultural landscape. You can view the interview here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtR381zOHOc]. DD News is a well-regarded broadcaster, and her presence on this platform is a strong indicator of her notability.

Additionally, leading publications like ANI (Asian News International) and Hindustan Times have published articles featuring Madhvi’s achievements, which go beyond sensationalism. These are not fleeting mentions, but meaningful coverage in reliable media outlets with a strong reputation for reporting on notable figures.

2. Alignment with WP:SINGER Notability Guidelines

The WP:SINGER notability guideline is focused on artists who have received substantial, independent coverage from reliable sources. Madhvi Madhukar’s sustained presence in respected media outlets, including major national platforms, shows that she fits this criterion.

Her media coverage is not just superficial; it reflects ongoing recognition for her contributions to the music industry. Articles from outlets like ANI and Hindustan Times go beyond basic mentions, providing in-depth looks at her work and impact. This kind of sustained attention demonstrates her significance in the field, qualifying her for inclusion under WP:SINGER.

3. Conclusion

While it’s understandable to have questions about notability, it’s clear that Madhvi’s media presence surpasses the threshold set by WP:SINGER. Deleting her article would overlook the credible sources that validate her standing in the public eye and dismiss her genuine impact in the music world.

I would be happy to assist in further improving the article by adding additional citations or expanding the content to provide a more comprehensive overview of her career. Retaining the article would acknowledge her achievements and help document her contributions to the cultural and music landscape.

Thank you for considering this request. I believe that preserving her article is a reflection of Wikipedia’s commitment to documenting notable individuals and their contributions. Redphoenix123 (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Regalado Deatrick

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

I do not think this woman is notable. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Poetry, Environment, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming that members of county boards of commissioners are not considered inherently notable. Regardless, article is massively promotional and refbombed with all manner of fluff pieces and non-independent sources (e.g. her organization's social media pages). If kept, should be reduced to a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Selepen

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest placement is a silver medal at the Lithuanian national championships Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and significant coverage criterias.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

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

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:

So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. Silver seren^C 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. Silver seren^C 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. Silver seren^C 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto

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

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [6] [7] [8] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte McKane

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

Everything is about a project she did in high school 🄻 🄰 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. 🄻 🄰 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards received are pretty routine for state and city offices to award. Not a notable subject. Marleeashton (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Siobhan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, only mention in a to me seemingly reliable publication is a mention of three sentences. Red Bull source seems to be an interview, probably not intellectually independent. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prisca Abah

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

Unremarkable model. This [9] appears purchased (similarly to WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA but in Ghana), this [10] [11] does not seem like a reliable site, these [12] [13] [14] links are dead (but appear promotional originally), this [15] barely mentions her, and this [16] is a blog. 🄻 🄰 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Ghana. 🄻 🄰 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Subject is an ordinary model and advisor to a Model United Nations type of organization. It's so filled with weasel words and promotional material that a total re-write is necessary. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoria Vasilieva

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has participated in many high-level regional competitions, and has earned metals. Article needs more sources which can be easily done. Marleeashton (talk) 02:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All medals were junior-level, none of which qualify as notable per WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that the intention of these guidelines were to be overly prescriptive. I see you have nominated many gymnast articles, while they don't meet the 'more likely to receive coverage' point they should be judged individually on their merits, not mass removed because they're less likely to receive coverage. Marleeashton (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stéphanie Alenda

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

Delete or Modify Wikipedia is not a Scholar Profile website, It denotes an advertising campaign scheme that the same user has three articles around the same author in different wikipedias, and at least it must be revised with critical focus. Fitmoos (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitmoos: It is illogical to say that there is a publicity campaign scheme, since various reliable sources are used to prove the relevance of the biographee, that is, her sociological analysis of one of the main political spectrums in Chile, which has even caught the attention of progressive media that have consulted her.

You also claimed a few days ago that the articles about the biographee and her book were definitely deleted, when this is currently being discussed due to how controversial your request for speedy deletion was. If it was to be deleted, it must at least go through a discussion phase that you obstructed (apart from that, the fact that its deletion is being discussed in one language does not automatically mean that it should be the same in a Wikipedia in another language, since they have their own rules). Carigval.97 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The biographee in question has a substantial number of reiliable sources and has been referenced in multiple academic publications and literary works (see this). The user who posted the template has not given any reasons for why he did so. --Igallards7 (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reasons for deletion are arbitraries, because Alenda meets the following reasons according to the criteria of "Wikipedia:Notability (academics)": 1) The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources –There are authors who study the right or extreme right according to their guidelines–; 3) The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Physics) –in this case, Alenda has been member of the ISA or the IPSA–; 6) The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society –Alenda is a founding member and head of the sociology program in the Andrés Bello University (UNAB)–; and 7) The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity —She has influenced in politicians, the Chilean press and other scholars—. --Carigval.97 (Carigval.97) 04:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:PROF, Professor Alenda, in addition to being an encyclopedic contribution due to her academic position, is a member of important sociological organizations and founded a school of her discipline -- 6UNK3R (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: it looks like you started the nomination for this page, but never completed it. Can you please complete the process, including adding your rationale for deletion? If this isn't done, it should be ~~speedily kept~~ as an invalid AfD. pburka (talk) 23:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fitmoos: I've moved your comment into the deletion rationale. I'm going to fix this AfD for you, but next time you must carefully follow ALL of the steps in WP:AFDHOWTO. pburka (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, France, and Chile. pburka (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nomination advances no valid deletion rationale. Wikipedia does indeed include biographies of scholars and academics, the existence of articles in other-language Wikipedias is beside the point here (each language has its own inclusion standards and one editor being involved in multiple languages does not prove WP:COI), and an unsupported assertion that the article needs "a critical focus" is not grounds for deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per XOReaster. No valid argument had been made to delete. It's irrelevant for notability here whether other Wikipedias exist, or have agreed with notability. I made a couple of copy edits; it certainly could use some more work, but it's not really that bad. An argument could be made that her citations are low, but that is a recurrent issue in both Spanish-language academia and amongst academics in political science, who boycott each other (insert sinister laugh here). Bearian (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per XOReaster. I don't object to a speedy renomination by another editor who's willing to conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE and present a legitimate deletion rationale. pburka (talk) 04:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Irina Nikolaïevna Orlova

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

The article's significance is not shown. Only genealogical information. Besides, she is not a princess, as her ancestors were aristocrats on her mother's side. RobertVikman (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, France, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and User:Bearian/Standards#Notability of Consorts of nobility. I don't see any sources, although print sources might be helpful (ping me if you find any). I also see scandalous stuff (divorce, possibly a child outside of marriage), but we need sources. There's no allegation nor evidence of charity. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rayah Kitule

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

There is no mention in any source about this person, like at all. The article was PROD'ed but it was denied FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was a BLP prod (twice) not a prod. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find any sourcing about this person; only social media shows up. Blog posts used as sourcing don't help the article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all I found were mirrors and social media that have not been updated in years. Does not meet ANYBIO or GNG. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALT. It's 2025, and everyone on the globe knows that we are not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ammu Ramachandran

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

No lead roles in any of these notable films; fails WP:NACTOR, and the sources are blogs, unreliable, and PR material. Also fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 08:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Henderson

AfDs for this article:

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

Fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT. No indication of WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elifenur Karabulut

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

Turkish female footballer. A WP:BEFORE search only reveals database entries and nothing in depth to establish notability. John B123 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Turkey. John B123 (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all I can find is this, which looks AI generated and doesn't contain any WP:SIGCOV in any case. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found no coverage, hence no sources. If sigcov is found please also ping me. CNC (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:FOOTYN) criteria. No sources provided in the article. User generated articles available online. No content to WP:V. QEnigma talk 12:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY doesn't exist anymore, and user-generated sites should never be used as sources on Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Gubanova (pair skater)

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Stomakhina

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything significant about her.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per aboveCanary757 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oliwia Rzepiel

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Three sentences of coverage at [[17]], while [[18]] is WP:SIGCOV but appears to lack independence. The corresponding Polish article also has no secondary sources, and without better sourcing the WP:GNG is not met here. Let'srun (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talisa Thomalla

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV found on search.Canary757 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junior skater with no significant coverage.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Soupian

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, Israel, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and almost entirely sourced from one website OrebroVi (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. There many fine figure skaters in Israel. Very few of these are notable by Wikipedian standards. The article can be redirected to Israeli Figure Skating Championships, but only after her medal year is added to the tables. Please read the last condition carefully and let it sink! gidonb (talk) 20:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet notability and significant coverage standards.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Huidi

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Cecilia Allen D'Mello

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

Fails WP:NPOL and sources are not SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local representative of a larger city is not considered notable per NPOL. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of 227 city councilors of a suburb, the subject fails NPOL. Bearian (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Azad

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

Being a mayor does not pass WP:NPOL, Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom on the basis of failing WP:SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : Lacks notability. Gauravs 51 (talk)
Comment: I would like clarification from the community about whether we have an arbitrary cutoff for automatic notability of mayors; in this case, of a city that is almost 900,000 people. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anaïs Coraducci

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xuantong

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yu-seong

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yu-jae

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

now she is the 2025 senior national bronze medalist Rainbowed-Sunned-Spirit (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arina Cherniavskaia

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The best I could find were brief mentions like [[19]]. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Majale

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

All the sources Fail WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. The sources are either primary sources like this and this. The rest were written by the news media she manages and they also lack WP: SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Kenya. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and could not find sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. If you find anything deeper in the Internet, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most sources are primary and are not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for bringing attention to page needing more sources. I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Kemi

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

Sources are PR pieces thus not meeting the general notability requirement Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, with a feature in Harper's Bazaar. Melmann 12:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Nigeria, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Melmann. I've gone ahead and stubbified it to remove promotional content, but I agree that the subject meets WP:GNG. Note that there's an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Nigerian news media, which could be relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in Grazia is sigcov. pburka (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The feature is in Harper's Bazaar Vietnam (published by a marketing company) and Grazia is actually the Philippines version. Are they considered equally reliable to the international editions? 🄻 🄰 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, are there specific reasons why they shouldn’t be considered reliable? I’m hoping that the reason is that they’re not published in the West. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only raise the question. WP:RS requires a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. While Harper' Bazaar has that, I am not sure whether that applies to a different edition published by a separate entity (a marketing company). Do you have any reason to believe that it is reliable? 🄻 🄰 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable until you have shown evidence that it is not reliable. The burden of proof is on you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says the opposite. Burden of proof is on you. I cannot prove a negative, you have to show that a source is reliable. 🄻 🄰 16:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You’re wrong. If you say that a source is not reliable because it’s published in Vietnam and Philippines, you need to show why you think so. You can’t just come and slap unreliability on a source because of the nation where it is published. If you don’t have a prove, then, I think we’re just running round. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Harpers and Grazia are both "respected mainstream publications" (see WP:SOURCES), so it's up to LIA to show us that these editions are exceptional in some way. Neither publication is listed at WP:DEPS or WP:RSPSS. pburka (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if the local Vietnam edition of Harper, published by a marketing company, and the Philippine edition of Grazia are reliable sources, two PR articles is not enough 🄻 🄰 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक’s discarding reliable sources due to the nationality from what I’m seeing. Sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE are significant enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Drescher

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found a couple of things for her on the same website Westfalische Rundschau [20] and [21]. One of these is about her when she is very young and the other one is one long paragraph so still some way short of establishing notability but it gets the discussion started.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Gülke

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief google search turns up [[22]], which while paywalled appears to have WP:SIGCOV from what I can read. A couple of sentences here but not what I'd call SIGCOV [[23]]. The corresponding German article has no non-database sources, so that doesn't help the case for this subject. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are other articles about her in Berliner Zeitung such as [24].Canary757 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alketa Spahiu

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPROF. (NPP action) C F A 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would suggest draftification as an unsourced BLP, but that's already been done once and contested, and I can find no evidence of academic or author notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was in draft for a while. Not only is it completely unsourced (and I found no coverage on a search), but it is totally lacking in specifics that would indicate possible notability. Seems to be a WP:MILL professor, and nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this. The author of the article knows so much about this person's personal life that it is very likely COI, if not the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — agree with the above and even with the benefit of doubt to the author, there is no notability at all, no sources, no coverage at all of the subject anywhere to be found. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and apparently a total of 2 cites on GS. We normally expect 100s if not 1000s. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Peggy Batchelor

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

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([25], [26]), another WP:SPS ([27]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?

The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
- A mention of her name in a radio programme cast
- A single mention in a local newspaper's stage play review: Outstanding performer in a capable cast was Peggy Batchelor who admirably sustained her role of a fussy specimen of nice womanhood with mothering tendencies towards the male Godfrey Bond turned in a splendid piece of characterisation of tne class beloved to English comedy writers the butler who is incapable of being surprised and is always adequate to meet all emergencies
- A user-generated source on the history of a local theater club
- A single reference in a local news story
None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.

You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online [28] states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.

I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunku Irinah

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

Minor royal and non-notable business exec. Sole claim to fame seems to be a lot of awards received from her own family, though sources on the awards are pretty thin on the ground. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find only passing mentions in Malay and English. A redirect might be the best alternative to deletion, but I couldn't work out an appropriate target, so brought it to AFD for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Malaysia. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ja'afar of Negeri Sembilan#Issue (her father's page) where she is listed. It might be interesting to check whether her siblings, most of whom are blue links there, are notable? PamD 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia_Akanga

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cynthia Akanga

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

I believe Cynthia_Akanga fails the WP:GNG criteria. Person has brief bios on both linkedin and imdb but very little independent coverage. SallyRenee (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Africa, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find any reliable source to establish notability most sources are primary and IMDb FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe the relevant guideline is WP:ENTERTAINER. It says that the person may be considered notable if the person has had significant roles in multiple television shows or stage performances. Akanga has had multiple roles, two to be exact: a stage performance and a role in a television show. Wikipedia does not have a lot of articles about Togolese women. Conscious of the WP:Systemic bias, I vote keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ruud Buitelaar and per WP:ENT. She had significant roles in multiple notable productions. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 04:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Corina

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO and now a target of a promotional farm. Even this older version I reverted to might fall into the WP:PROMO category. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:MUSICBIO) category. Sources provided in the article fail WP:V with some of them being considered generally unreliable (WP:RSP). Articles available online are mostly user generated content that do not meet WP:RS and WP:IS criteria. QEnigma talk 13:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mekons per WP:BANDMEMBER. As it stands, there is insufficient to warrant individual notability. On current evidence, and in searches, most mentions of Corina in RS appears to be in context of the Mekons band, therefore this should be considered as an WP:ATD. If further coverage surfaces in due course, then the article can be easily resuscitated. ResonantDis_tortion 12:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Rodríguez Long

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level competitions, no junior-level international medals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Spain. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable, no major wins, coverage is only confirmation of participation in various events. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any secondary sources showing notability under the WP:GNG here. Let'srun (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her wins unfortunately aren't anywhere near enough to pass WP:SKATER. In addition, all of the sources mentioned on the page are routine results reporting. I was able to find two interviews with her from Hielo Español, a Spanish figure-skating news site, but there isn't enough in-depth coverage to pass the general notability guidelines. Tserton (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and no significant coverage cited or that I can find.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails basic GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 11:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Barker

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

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK to delete (and recommend deletion rather than redirect, as there are other people with the same name who may be more notable).~~ There actually are more negative reviews of the play her father wrote for her, like "Daddy's girl could do without his help" in The Financial Times. But these are arguably not really about her (the FT review says things like "on this terrain it is hard to judge how good an actress she is"), and otherwise she is mentioned in passing in her father's obituaries and articles about her fugitive brother facing child porn charges. Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no major roles, nor even supporting roles. Very minor roles in one well-reviewed film and a few guest spots on TV. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article says "As an actress she worked mostly in theatre", but gives no details, apart from the play Mum. It's not hard to find reviews of her stage work in digitised newspapers - I will add info and references and then consider whether she meets WP:BIO or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's kinder to delete. But I will bite and expand the article and let everyone else decide. (Perhaps there are 5k pageviews in the last month for a reason.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle There is a TikTok "influencer" with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Plus everyone else with the same name, like the Director of Film Restoration at Paramount Pictures. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give Cielquiparle and RebeccaGreen a chance to dig up more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Željka Krizmanić

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Croatia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability, no sources provided and I cannot find any significant coverage of this skater. Would be interested to know why the PROD was removed as no reason given in the edit summary.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02: PROD was removed because this nom does not conduct BEFORE searches and refuses to address any actual coverage in their nominations. JTtheOG (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG Fair enough. Thanks for the answer. Shrug02 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Ievleva

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:03, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all citations are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. Shinadamina (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The corresponding Russian article has a few decent sources, such as [[29]] and [[30]]. We probably need to look a bit closer into sources from Russia here to determine if the subject is notable or not. Let'srun (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg

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

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BASIC even without the political candidacy, with coverage such as the independent review for her book Inside Congressional Committees (Columbia University Press, 2023) in the academic journal Congress & the Presidency and the 2010 article about her environmental activism in the Jerusalem Post. She is also quoted frequently in the national media in the U.S. as an expert on Congress and elections. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Colette Kaminski

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The only non-database source in the article is a student newspaper from the school the subject attended, and a search for additional sources came up empty. Please ping me if additional secondary sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some pretty good coverage here under her nickname. JTtheOG (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

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

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

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

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Echoing Angryapathy, there is a large variety of reputable sources (some not even referenced in the Wikipedia article). She even has a fair amount of International coverage; a quick google search shows her being mentioned in Newspapers from Ireland, India, the United States, The U.K., and more. This wasn't the kind of virality that's just a tiktok video of someone saying something salacious that gets big and then dies down - she went viral because of her body of work and research, which has now spun off new discussions and even more coverage of Dr. Louks outside of the initial moment, and into far more mainstream and traditional media sources than one would expect for something that is a mere viral moment. Additionally, I don't believe Dr. Louks will be otherwise low-profile because she's gained over 120,000 followers on twitter, and has already had other tweets about her research and opinions (not directly related to the original viral tweet) go viral in their own right; I think we're just at the beginning of her notability, not that it's already over. I can understand the idea that we may be bordering on 'too soon,' but I think there is enough substantial coverage talking about her as a person and a researcher, not just one moment, to justify keeping the article. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: per Special:Diff/1265752204, the article creator accidentally commented this from her boyfriend's account. Assuming good faith and noting for the record. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:14, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey @Darth Stabro, I've been staying out of this discussion because of the mistake you noted above. I don't want anything to get any more confusing, or to get in anymore accidental wikipedia trouble. Also, I know I'm reasonably new to wikipedia with really not that many edits. (I clearly may have bitten off more than I can chew signing up purely to be like 'I'm going to get more women on wikipedia!' not understanding all the work that entails, and all the nuances and details of wikipedia articles, which is why I, at least currently, don't plan to be getting in super deep or doing a ton more edits - but that's kind of irrelevant to this particular discussion, so, anyway...)

All that being said, I have been reading some of these links people have been leaving with wikipedia policies... and I'm wondering if this discussion ends up in delete (which I can't totally tell right now if it will or not), but if it does, is there a world in which - since people seem to keep discussing whether this is about an event or about Dr. Ally Louks herself - is there a world in which instead of deleting, this could become an article about this event i.e. 'the backlash of Ally Louks PhD graduation' or like, I dunno, whatever title made the most sense?

It seems everyone agrees there was tons of coverage in mainstream, reputable sources. And in Notability - events, it says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources." This was covered in numerous articles across many countries in plenty of diverse sources. As far as I can tell, those wikipedia rules also seems to argue events coverage is more notable with "thematic connection or contextual information" and I think many of these sources have themes and contextual information - whether it's positioning this within a larger conversation about sexism in academia, or whether it's bringing in elements of Dr. Louks' thesis itself with talk about olfactory ethics and what that means.

I know that not every event that gets coverage gets a page. I also recognize I may not fully be understanding the rules and therefore perhaps unable to apply them correctly. But I'm just trying to make sense of all the points of view and see if that's a possible compromise for the group? (Unless the consensus ends up being keep, at which point, you can ignore this idea/question, because I really don't want to make anything more complicated than it need be). MoreWomenOnWiki (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear WP:BLP1E issues. Arguments that there are "a large variety of sources" or "international coverage" do not counteract the demands of WP:BLP1E. To quote from that policy:
- Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. - true, all independent sources in the article are only about her going viral.
- The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. - true, the article subject has given a few interviews to news outlets about her viral post, but otherwise remains WP:LOWPROFILE. This Washington Post article makes it clear that she does not seek media attention: Ally Louks could be considered the antithesis of “extremely online.” The low-key literature scholar is generally more focused on her research and supervising undergrads at Cambridge University than on growing her once-small social media following or posting on X more than a few times a year.
- The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. - true, going viral on social media may be a significant event in a person's life, but not significant for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Astaire (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, nor BLP1E. JoelleJay (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not as of today have the sustained coverage over a lengthy period of time to meet the WP:GNG, and as of now is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards keep and disagree with the argument that she is unlikely to continue being in the public eye. Academics typically increase their notability over the course of their career through publications etc, even if they're fairly low profile, which I'd argue the subject is not at this point given her continued vitality beyond the initial moment. At most, it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. – Starklinson 10:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Let me re-word as my point is being misunderstood – an earlier post mentioned WP:LOWPROFILE, my point was that even notable academics are often not very high profile, despite this one being unusually high profile for her position as a result of her thesis' vitality. Starklinson (talk) 09:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What "continued vitality"? All the coverage is from a <1-month period, that's nowhere near the requirement for WP:SUSTAINED. She's also explicitly stated she wishes to be low-profile, that's exactly what BLP1E covers. And we don't even have any evidence that she's staying in academia at this point—simply defending a thesis doesn't mean she will continue to do research or that that research will be impactful. JoelleJay (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:CRYSTAL reasoning and there are no sources demonstrating the subject has "continued vitality" beyond her initial viral post. While academics usually become more notable over time, most academics are not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and there is no indication she meets any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC. Astaire (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When the Washington Post, the Economist, the BBC, the Independent, and even Forbes are writing about or interviewing you about your thesis I’d say you’re a pretty notable academic at that point. Trillfendi (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, in the context of WP:BLP1E the number of sources does not matter as they are all covering her for a single event; that is mostly what is at debate here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I’m saying is, they’ve determined that she is notable in the WP:NACADEMIC realm. I didn’t say the number of sources contributed to it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the 8 criteria listed at WP:NACADEMIC does she meet? Astaire (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How have they determined she is notable as an academic....? They are interviewing her strictly because her thesis went mildly viral, which definitely does not meet the standards for NPROF C7. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:BLP1E is not applicable here anymore because she is no longer WP:LOWPROFILE given the number of high-profile interviews already given. Her case is very similar to Rachael Gunn. Contributor892z (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yeah, actually, I think this is a great point. I agree in the similarity to Rachael Gunn. I also agree with the comments about the breadth of coverage and Ally Louks' general level of notability at this point. After reading through these comments, I have been convinced with the keep side.

Additionally, while I know random tweets can't be included in an article and don't fully make an argument, I searched tweets about her and numerous people are talking about the idea of how her work has opened up a whole new framework for people, and it's added talk of smell into the discourse in a way that people seem to feel hasn't really been done before. With such strong public opinion, it's hard to imagine this is a flash in the pan type of thing that won't continue to get coverage on some level at certain points?

I also think, to the person who said Ally Louks wants to be low-profile, her actions don't seem to state wanting to shy away completely from the media, public etc. She has a lively twitter presence for over 100,000 followers and consistently comments on many things where media and smell interact. Yeah, maybe she's not going to live directly in the public eye, or give out a lot of personal information, but I think she is still engaging with the public re: her work in a way that does not detract from her (publicly) notability, especially as an academic who wouldn't really be expected to do much in the public eye except engage with the public re: their work.

Lastly, Ally Louks recently put out a tweet begging people to stop requesting her thesis from her university because she's getting hundreds of emails a day about it. Again, I know we can't rely on social media, but if someone's thesis is being requested that much... she seems like a notable academic to me. (And I know 'notable' doesn't just mean popular, and to wikipedia standards it's more about coverage in secondary sources, but I think she crosses that bar, as she does have the mainstream coverage to back up notability, as far as I can tell.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be deeply misunderstanding what "low-profile" means for BLP1E... All of those arguments are exactly why we do not evaluate notability based on "popularity" in unreliable sources and absolutely do not gauge whether someone is low-profile based on their Twitter followers. WP:SUSTAINED requires sustained coverage for all topics anyway, and this burst of activity does not qualify. JoelleJay (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high profile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator." As we've seen from the links in the Ally Louks article and the links Contributor892z's listed (and other links online), Ally Louks has actively given interviews where I think we could argue she has been a "notable commentator" because she hasn't just talked about the event. She has mentioned areas of her thesis, what it's about, and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia, sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.

Additionally, in the promotional activities section of WP:LOWPROFILE, it says a high-profile individual "and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." I would personally argue that having a twitter account where she tweets (publicly to an audience of over 100,000) a number of tweets making jokes, making valid points, or sometimes even sometimes 'dunking on people', - tweets that nearly all center on smell and her thesis topic of "olfactory ethics" - tweets that she knows keep going viral and getting quote tweeted, all in light of the fact that she's already gone viral off a tweet, so she clearly is aware that's a possibility, especially in the strong opinions she shares, I would think an argument could be made that she does do 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause', especially because she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article. So, it seems to me she is clearly actively seeking a wider audience.

Do I think either of those arguments of being high-profile are an absolute slam dunk? No. But do I think they're potentially reasonable and something a reasonable person could argue? Yes. I also don't think there are any absolutely slam-dunk arguments that she's low-profile, given the information above.

Even within the "sustained" section I see on WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." May not (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation. (And Contributor892z's point about Rachael Gunn still seems valid to me.)

Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). But point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual and I've already argued why I don't think that's true. And point 3 says the event was not significant or the individual's role in the event was not significant. Clearly, Ally Louks' role was significant in the event, as the event revolved around her and her work. And I would argue 'the event,' aka the virality around her thesis, was also significant in that there was TONS of coverage, some fairly in depth, and it has ignited international conversation. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral (from 0 to 100 on google's chart). So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.) Wikipedian339 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are not "high-profile" or "low-profile", people are. And WP:BLP1E already addresses this: Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. In other words, giving interviews about the single event for which she is notable does not count toward her status as low-profile or high-profile. Per WP:LOWPROFILE, she would be considered more high-profile if - for example - she gave interviews to media outlets about other topics unrelated to her social media post, where she weighed in as a "politics of smell" expert. Astaire (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire and that’s exactly what she is doing here and here (scroll all the way down). And both outlets are reliable sources. Refer to the note about WP:THECONVERSATION (The Conversation publishes articles from academics who are subject-matter experts). Contributor892z (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those links involve her explaining her thesis in the context of going viral, and not providing commentary on other events as a subject matter expert, as I said above. Astaire (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC has literally nothing indicating her interview was about anything other than going viral; in fact, it doesn't even have enough secondary independent content to qualify toward GNG. And her article in The Conversation has literally no relevance to notability—giving interviews and writing articles are utterly routine in academia and do not establish someone is high-profile. JoelleJay (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether BLP1E is met, the subject still must meet WP:SUSTAINED, which she emphatically does not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have a clear cut definition of sustained coverage? Jim Redmond is an extreme case (from the event in 1992 until his death in 2022, coverage for a single event continued). Do we have an example of what is the shortest acceptable coverage length for it to be deemed sustained? Contributor892z (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have noted, her notoriety has surpassed the original incident and therefore does not meet WP:BLP1E criteria. On twitter she is frequently mentioned as the de facto expert on the interaction of smell and media. Mad Mismagius (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How has her notoriety surpassed the original incident? Every single article is related to it. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned on Twitter a lot does not prove notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still on team keep [I won't bold it since I've already gotten to do that once] for the time being.

I don't mean to overpower this convo at all. I know I'm a bit loquacious and passionate (and if you feel it is a violation to say similar things more concisely in a less buried spot, feel free to delete. I want to follow the rules of civility/wikipedia, but also don't want my arguments to be lost above, or be too hard to navigate through because of me not being concise enough above (my bad).

So for anyone interested in a more concise re-cap of my current arguments for the re-listed discussion):

1) I think Ally Louks isn't a low-profile individual WP:LOWPROFILE under 2 different spots:

A) She's given interviews as a 'notable commentator' (mentioning what her thesis is about and what she hopes people take away from it. She also has talked about larger issues of sexism in academia while sharing a threat she received that she went to the police about.)

B) (even more so this one, I think): Promotional activities. She does do activities in an "attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause." Consistently daily tweeting, from the account that went viral in the first place, to over 100,000 followers, with nearly all her tweets expanding on "olfactory ethics" (her topic) in some way does seem like 'attention seeking behavior' for her 'cause' (of seeing smell in a specific framework and getting more people to think in/engage with that framework), especially as she's stated "I would like to reach a wider, non-academic audience with my work" in this article.

2) Within "sustained" in WP: N, it says "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." (emphasis mine) That phrasing leads me to believe that it may, based on the situation.

3) Lastly, WP:BLP1E says "We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:" (again, emphasis mine). And I don't think we can say that all 3 of been met. Here are 2 I question:

A) point 2 on that list says the subject remains a low-profile individual (which I argue against above).

B) Point 3 says the event was not significant. I would argue 'the event' was significant. For instance, this article (same as liked above) says she's "instigating a global conversation about the value of the PhD and the humanities – as well as a “male loneliness crisis.” (This is only one of many conversations started, as the term "olfactory ethics" had an extremely sharp increase the day her thesis went viral on google trends. So, she's getting people to talk about smell in a new way.)

Additionally, a new addition to this post that wasn't in the one I just recapped: if it matters at all, I found an article published just 2 days ago in which a paragraph about her is the jumping off point: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/premium/3272832/eric-hoffer-the-true-believer-trouble-with-academia/ So, she hasn't disappeared from the zeitgeist. (I know that mention in and of itself would not be enough to make her notable, but since people seem to be concerned she's a sort of flash in the pan... here she is being mentioned again (technically the following year after going viral ;) that's a little tongue-in-cheek since we just had New Year's, but I think hopefully the rest of my points stand :)).) Wikipedian339 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly a violation of WP:BLP1E. Going viral on Twitter and getting coverage because of it does not make a person notable. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a WP:BLP1E atm. If this coverage was like in 2014 or 2006, it would be a very obvious BLP1E. I simply think it's too soon for a standalone bio on this individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the large amount of SIGCOV, including international news reporting. However, if it is too soon, I would recommend Redirecting and merging to Sexism in academia, to not only preserve the article history but to retain the information, which is important regarding sexism in academia. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Pulver

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

I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from third-party sources for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It's well sourced, it just may be Wikipedia: Too soon. RossEvans19 23:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are enough secondary-party sources involved, from The Daily Evergreen, The Spokesman-Review, and Lewiston Morning Tribune. [31][32][33][34] Whether that's enough sigcov in combination per WP:BASIC is another story, but certainly no need for third-party sources here per GNG. There is otherwise coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, so per WP:SPORTBASIC it's likely there are enough sources for notability, even if not a guarantee. If it's a case of too soon then WP:DRAFTIFY would be a better option here. CNC (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources are a requirement for GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Daily Evergreen is not independent and so does not count. The Spokesman-Review and Lewiston Morning Tribune articles are brief, routine blurbs about her signing lightly refactored (as in, would absolutely fail our close-paraphrasing rules) from the same press release, and additionally are far from the SPORTSCRIT #5 requirement, let alone the SUSTAINED SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources required by GNG. I see zero reason to draftify considering her contract ended in 2022 and there is no evidence she continues to play professionally. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, per above I mixed up third-party with tertiary, ie party and person. Agree the student newspaper isn't independent here, and given your reasoning that the subject hasn't been playing since 2022, best to redirect instead. CNC (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players : Agree with JoelleJay that this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Draftifying or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per Evans Reader of Information (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst

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

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on Fuerst's page are terrible, and it's unclear if she meets WP:NBIO. However, her startup Circ MedTech absolutely meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times, Haaretz, Tablet, VoA, Times of Israel, NoCamels, Reuters, among others. I'll go ahead and create Circ MedTech, and propose we redirect Fuerst to Circ MedTech. Longhornsg (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) 05:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please note and check that the start up got raft of criticism, allegedly unproven scientific benefits. It is mentioned briefly in the book "Thou Shalt Innovate" by Avi Jorisch, pp. 190-191, the book dedicated to the start up 33 words, the book discuss the greatest innovations that came out of Israel. And guess what ? Tzameret Fuerst not mentioned there, but the three founders of the company mentioned there. It is not her Start-Up, she was married to one of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC7:50E:22C2:778:5634:1232:5476 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a link to the target article so that it can be reviewed to see if it is suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The circumcision device might be notable [35], but this person is only mentioned in context of the company or the device. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nande Mabala

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

Sockpuppets and likely LOUTSOCK IPs are repeatedly eliminating a redirect, so instead of edit warring I am seeking an AfD consensus to establish a redirect to Miss South Africa 2023. The subject is not a pageant winner, and any notability she has appears to be WP:BLP1E for her placing in that pageant; the coverage that exists is WP:ROUTINE and there is no WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Why redirect in the first place? Edit warring and sock are not ground for deletion. Deal with the users and IP adequately. I also don't think WP:BLP1E applies here. The subject is a model, just like how a musician can be a one hit wonder. She is clearly notable and discussed in multiple RS, meaning she pass WP:GNG. A simple Google search is enough, I'm not gonna try to reference the whole internet here. dxneo (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply the specific sources you believe constitute SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to pass GNG? I didn’t find any in my BEFORE, just mentions of her pageant career that didn’t go into substantial depth. P.S. Editor disagreements over a redirect are indeed a valid reason for an AfD discussion per WP:BLAR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I think I'll be back here on the 30th. Can't perform a full search rn, but she did headline multiple RS. Ciao! dxneo (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen a lot of secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. I'm wondering how you nominated this article for deletion because what didn't tally with I knew on Wikipedia. [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] and [41] are enough to establish notability, as such it pass GNG [[Special:Contributions 102.91.92.110 (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — 102.91.92.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nope, your first, second, and fourth sources are tabloid coverage, and per WP:SBST, tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. The third source is a Q&A interview and thus a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. The fifth source is not an journalistically independent publication; it's a local booster/hotel room magazine. The sixth source, while not a Q&A, is composed almost entirely of quotes from Mabala and appears to based solely on an interview with her and is thus also a primary source. We're not at the point of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG yet. By the way, since this is the first time this IP address has edited Wikipedia, can I ask what accounts you've previously used? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to discuss this "interview is a primary source" thing, because that's where information normally comes from. If another publication quotes that interview, no one would say it's "primary". If the interview was published by a reliable source, then it's most definitely reliable. dxneo (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my laptop so not going to type a full reply, but between this recent long discussion thread and WP:INTERVIEWS, there’s a robust consensus that merely being interviewed does not make one notable and that any content that is entirely or almost entirely dependent on an interview with the subject is not independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll comment on the notability of the subject in the next few days. dxneo (talk) 09:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the sources mentioned above, there are feature articles about her in the Sowetan, Dispatch, Worcester Standard, Star, and IOL. Plus coverage in the Sunday Times. Sure, a lot of the content is from interviews with Mabala, but these are by no means straight Q&A and are about as hard-hitting as you can expect of journalism about beauty pageants. I doubt that many models would pass WP:GNG if only investigative journalism qualified as secondary sources for the purposes of establishing notability. Jlalbion (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of not appearing to bludgeon the discussion I’ll refrain from further comments in this discussion, other than to say that I reviewed these additional sources in my BEFORE and did not find them to pass the bar of independence (as single source interviews) or of SIGCOV (as tabloid coverage). I don’t edit much on beauty pageants and perhaps there is a local consensus at AfD on sourcing for pageant participants that I’m unaware of, so I’ll let the community decide without further input. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is an apparent consensus to Keep, there are valid questions on whether or not sources provided supply SIGCOV. I think editors familiar with content creation know the limits of accepting interviews as secondary sources which depend on the content of the interview and if there is any independent content aside from the Q&A occurring.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Cannarozzo

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 09:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Deriannt (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject easily meets WP:SPORTBASIC with a couple dozen sentences of independent coverage here, not including quotes of course, as well as a half-dozen sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:26, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While it would be nice if there were more sources, the sources uncovered by JTtheOG contain the needed coverage to meet the WP:NBASIC as they provide in-depth coverage of the subject. Let'srun (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad this skater couldn't follow up that coverage with any meaningful results. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Baynews9 is mostly an interview with very little independent coverage, and a local ice show is not significant. The notability is far below that of a local principal, chief firefighter or physician. Geschichte (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Annu Patel (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Deletion review

[1] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2017/03/07/how-a-health-startup-is-tackling-indias-mental-health-problems%E2%80%A8-counselling-400-patients-a-day/

[2] ttps://www.outlookindia.com/hub4business/international-womens-day-introducing-inspiring-women-leaders-shaping-the-future

[3] ttps://www.catchnews.com/health-news/i-m-a-warrior-shipra-dawar-on-fighting-depression-founding-epsyclinic-57079.html

[4] ttps://zeenews.india.com/companies/business-success-story-shipra-dawars-inspirational-journey-from-ambition-to-achievement-2703986.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]