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

Lauren Lam

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

Fails NBAD and BLP. Stvbastian (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Badminton. Stvbastian (talk) 06:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is coverage but it is just generic reporting on tournaments and not in-depth secondary coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayelle

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

Non-notable musician. Nothing to indicate she meets any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO. Few WP:RSs-- most sources don't meet WP:RS as they are either not reliable (eg Medium) or not substantively about the subject (eg are about a telethon). Cabrils (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry- would love to move this to a draft space to remedy this! Sovenfire3982 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Christman

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

Article is sourced to the subject's website and to her employer's website. No independent secondary sources are in the article. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bands and musicians, Women, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find sources yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Fagan

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

Article makes no claim to encyclopedic importance. It should have been speedy deleted per WP:A7 but it was oddly declined. Being a student and in a program that trains opera singers does not make one encyclopedic. 4meter4 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lesotho Women's League

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

No evidence this Lesotho football league meets WP:NORG or WP:NSPORT. There's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent, secondary sources. (In contesting the PROD, the page creator said "I want to recall that this article is a stub and not an article with a high coverage so I don't think it should be deleted," which is not a particularly strong rationale for keeping an article about a non-notable subject.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi

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

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Romania. Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gheorghe_Hagi#Personal_life -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Hategan

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

This is a self-promoting vanity page for a marginal figure, who is obviously continually editing it. There is a very long history of edit wars on the article, including their attempts to prevent coverage of their legal issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs)

This nomination for deletion is part of ongoing vandalism of this page, which resulted it being locked down for a year. The nomination comes from one particular editor whose history shows he has targeted this particular page to delete large swaths of sourced content. His edit history also shows that he has targeted this page multiple times, contributing nothing but deleting large sections due to personal opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belladonna2024 (talk • contribs)

The account that has been repeatedly undoing revisions to this page is now deleting the nomination for deletion without adequate discussion among editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrashPandaMan (talk • contribs) 16:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The account that keeps sabotaging this page (TrashPandaMan) and deleting huge segments without adding anything to it, is now aggressively vandalizing the page and repeatedly nominating it for deletion. His history of edits shows he has targeted two specific pages, this one and another page, and repeatedly vandalizing and nominating them for deletion, citing only his personal opinion that it should be deleted. Belladonna2024 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no sabotage. This is a highly problematic article with irrelevant information of questionable notability. The edit history shows a clear record of other users attempting to clean up the writing and eliminate unnecessary and self-promoting information, followed by constant attempts to revert the explained edits. Th subject of this article is clearly watching it very closely, and has been for some time, as can be seen in the controversy over the inclusion of their failed lawsuit. Individuals should not be curating their own Wikipedia pages. TrashPandaMan (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, it appears clear that TrashPandaMan's account was created with the specific purpose of deleting sourced content of two specific pages, and nominating them for deletion. This user has repeatedly deleted large amounts of information without providing any sources to substantiate his opinion that this is a vanity page. It also appears evident, by the hostility of his comments, combined with deletion of large segments and frequent vandalism of the page, that user TrashPandaMan might be associated with the other parties involved in Hategan's lawsuit.

I am not responsible for creating this page, but I do not believe it is a "vanity" page considering that Hategan has made significant contributions to Canada's anti-racist history and has been directly credited to contributing to the shutting down of the Heritage Front. However, I agree that in light of recurring sabotage and vandalism by people seemingly intent on removing sourced content, that perhaps it would be for the best if the page was deleted altogether. Belladonna2024 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Journalism, Romania, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Context. This discussion and this discussion are relevant here, and the page's history also tells a good story. These users have been fighting for over a week, and since they can't agree on anything, they keep edit warring and trying to bar one another from editing the page, as seen at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2024/09#Elisa_Hategan and this deletion discussion. Badbluebus (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Lewis

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

Based largely on WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources such as blogs and social media. Fails WP:SIGCOV. A suitable WP:ATD would be a redirect to Therion (band). 4meter4 (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Iowa. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristína Košíková

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability for this Slovak women's footballer. The only secondary source I found is an interview, but nothing else to pass WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Arnold (footballer)

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

No evidence or claim of notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, and Football. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 20:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and Julia Arnold played in the 2022–23 DFB-Pokal Frauen final. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - She is also an artist 1 (page 8 and 9) 2 (page 4 and 5). Dougal18 (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources in article which show notability. Giant Snowman 18:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Donaldson

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2018. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Only the first Google news hit seems decent, but otherwise seems coverage mainly for namesakes. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR with her stage roles [1], specifically: 1. touring with The Pirates of Penzance as Mabel [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] (multiple reviews at each of these stops). A recording of one of the shows was also released [7], the soundtrack of it won a 1995 ARIA Award. 2. touring with The Mikado as Yum Yum [8] [9]. 3. touring with H.M.S. Pinafore as Josephine [10] (not just the highlighted section) [11] [12] (recording also released). 4. touring with A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum as Philia [13] [14] "Forum Is Light Musical Theatre At Its Very Best", The Canberra Times, 2 April 1999 - Vincent, Jeremy (4 January 1999), "Revival revels in farce, not class", The Australian. She is the prime focus of articles Brown, Phil (23 July 2008), "Back to the start", Brisbane News and Kelly, Patricia (26 June 2004), "Family puts a song in Helen's well-travelled heart", Courier Mail. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Macliver

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2020. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG I don't believe the nominator checked all sources. I have found a lot of coverage about them using Google and other search engines Monophile 💬 10:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monophile Which of the sources are both independent and have significant coverage? What am I missing here? I am not seeing even one source that is both independent and has in-depth coverage.4meter4 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [https://www.billboard.com/music/music-news/aria-celebrates-fine-arts-1404980/amp/ Billboard charts 8 9 Monophile (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Monophile Here is a source analysis of every source and external link in the article currently. Not one meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
"Directory Search Results". directory.uwa.edu.au.	N	Y	Y	?	N	Broken url, but its a directory listing with no attributed author. Unclear if it is a secondary source of information. Lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ryan, Gavin (2011). Australia's Music Charts 1988–2010 (PDF ed.). Mt Martha, Victoria, Australia: Moonlight Publishing. p. 173.	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Brief mention in a table. No in-depth coverage or discussion. Fails WP:SIGCOV
"ARIA Awards – Winners by Award". Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA). Retrieved 12 November 2018.	Y	Y	Y	N	N	A primary source, so can not be used to prove notability as it is not secondary. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Sara Macliver website	Y	?	N	?	N	Not actually a website of the subject. Bach cantatas is a website anyone can edit, including the subject, just like wikipedia. Not reliable.
*Naxos website	Y	N	Y	N	N	Lacks independence from the subject as it is her record label. Fails WP:SIGCOV
Post Newspapers interview	Y	N	?	Y	N	Interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources because they typically don't involve fact checking and lack independence from the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Keep. Verifiably Satisfies three criteria of WP:NMUSIC by being nominated for ARIA Awards and charting on Australia's main album chart and releasing multiple albums on ABC Classics. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very quick search found [15] and [16] in addition to the two album reviews I've added to the page. A simple BEFORE found stuff. Try it. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has significant coverage in reliable sources such as the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper linked above by Duffbeerforme. Also has charted on Australia's national album chart for a pass of WP:NMUSIC in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karine Babajanyan

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

Lacks inline citations. Sources listed mostly lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verkine Karakashian

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Armenia, Greece, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs. If any coverage of this person ever surfaces, it would take exactly 10 minutes to write a better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There is a book reference in the article. I would suggest to keep the article, unless someone actually provided an assessment of its coverage. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That is not a valid policy based keep vote. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources with independent significant coverage, which we generally interpret at AFD is a minimum of three sources. One book source, no matter how in-depth does not meet our notability guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I kindly disagree, a single book may indicate existence of more sources. Even without references, deletion nominators are expected to do a good faith WP:BEFORE: to check Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and Wikipedia Library if possible. AfD is not a place to urge people to fix unreferenced articles. Nomination must come only after there are good indicators that the subject is not notable, regardless of the state of the article; as stated in WP:NEXIST. Sorry for repeating these in multiple nominations of yours, but there are not enough people watching these nominations about niche topics like this one, and I honestly believe it will be a loss for the encyclopedia if these are prematurely deleted. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CeeGee I think you created the article, pinging just in case you were not notified. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need other sources, suggesting that they exist isn't helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker You seem to be misinterpreting policy language. WP:SIGCOV requires multiple sources as a non-negotiable criteria for all wikipedia articles. It's a must and its policy. Period. WP:NEXIST requires people voting to keep articles to produce multiple sources at the time of making a keep argument at an AFD. Asserting there are sources through guesswork is not following NEXIST; nor is arguing for keep based on a book you personally have not seen. Providing sources with url links or the names, publication dates, and pages of specific sources that you personally have looked at is following NEXIST. As for me, I looked at several standard opera reference works, including a Russian language music encyclopedia and found nothing on this person. My attempt at BEFORE may not be perfect but please WP:AGF. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you re-read WP:SIGCOV because it doesn't say what you think it does. The immediate subsection doesn't mention the number of sources but a bit further it says "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources are not a "must" and the requirement is not "policy" (our notability documents relate to guidance rather than policy). Thincat (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, this source mentions this person [17], but that's all I can find. I don't think we have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b Just a note: during the period she was active, The Ottoman Empire used the Arabic writing system. So search is not trivial. Even modern sources include various different spellings of her name. Trying the modern Turkish spelling Verkine Karakaşyan, I can easily find at least one journal paper. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can only see a short segment from the Google Books preview, but the book you linked might have a significant coverage (there are three search hits in separate places of the book). Here is the the second one, page 67: "... Verkine Karakashian read his poem “Freedom” and moved the audience so deeply that the ceremony was repeated for several nights in a row. After this incident, gradually more young girls showed the courage to go onstage and break the ...". Seems there is more before and after this passage, and this itself probably has a citation in the book; so if anyone has access to this book it would be really helpful if you could check. Separately, I added two more sources to the article and found the ISBN number of the book, referenced by CeeGee, who created the article. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Armenian wiki has some links, but I'm not in a position to say if they're RS or not. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ottawa Charge draft picks

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

I am not persuaded that this qualifies under WP:NLIST. There are also only two years here so far. In a few years this will be unmanageable, and doubtless better handled by a category, and conceivably a navigation template for each year, with a link to the next and previous years. Here for discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ice hockey, and Canada. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of New York Rangers draft picks. It's a new league; there have only been two years worth of drafts so far. Let the maintainers of the page determine what's manageable or not. --Mike Vitale 11:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Draft picks are typically very well covered for professional sports leagues and are often considered a defining aspect of a player's career. Additionally, organization draft picks are typically discussed in a fashion that would meet WP:NLIST. I recognize the list isn't very large right now, but I believe it still meets NLIST and it will continue to grow so long as the league doesn't fold. As for manageability, that's certainly not a concern, as we actually have quite a few list of players drafted that make it to featured list status, 7 of which are for NHL team draft histories. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only other place for this would be on the Ottawa Charge article itself, and I can see this list as getting long and unwieldy over time. If the league doesn't last long, then I'd support merging the content, but in the meantime I don't think it's necessary. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Tubb

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2010. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Shellwood (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found a short staff-written bio at AllMusic here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Eichhorn Young

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

Tagged for notability since 2013. Time to decide one way or another as a community if this meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little significant coverage. Seems to be a WP:MILL voice teacher with an unremarkable performing career. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've found a couple of interviews in minor publications, one of which is already referenced. Beyond that, I've searched on the key phrases in the article and I'm not coming up with anything. Per 4meter4, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Knitsey (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Baramova

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability tag and BLP sourcing issues have been tagged for the last eleven years. No sources have been added in that time. Despite two previous AFDs, the article is still not referenced. Given the change in attitude towards needing sources on BLPs since the last AFD in 2009, it is time to look at this again. 4meter4 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Veleva

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2007. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Bulgaria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Clarke

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

Tagged for notability since 2018. Not clear whether the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Austria, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Burt

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

Fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY. Have expanded article and added more sources. There is enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage over time, including her 2006 performance after winning an anthem idol competition at age 13 and her long track record as a child singer in Lindsay, Ontario, prior to her big break on the national stage in 2017 as the first Indigenous singer in Canada to be cast by the Canadian Opera Company, which was covered in Maclean's, Toronto Star , University of Toronto Quarterly, and others. Added a mention of her 2018 performance of an original work about the Mississaugas' creation story as well as review mentions in Opera Today on her portrayal of Sarah Riel in the Louis Riel opera, and opera critic John Gelks on her performance of an aria from La Cecchina at the Glenn Gould vocal showcase. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved using multiple reliable sources since nomination as detailed above. Therefore deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to Cielquiparle for improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Nurmimaa

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2016. Not clear if the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Comics and animation, and Finland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She appeared on a Finnish soap opera for ten years but, apparently, never won any awards. No coverage whatsoever regarding her stage roles or animated film dubbing. WP:TOOSOON, if ever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arete Kerge

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

Most of the article is cited to the subject's own website. Not clear if the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Veretenina

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

The sources used are from organization websites that have a direct connection to the subject. No independent sources are used. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment @4meter4: isn't it excessive to add such amount of maintenance tags, especially just before nominating for deletion? Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of experience, I find it useful to tag problems relevant to an AFD to help guide talking points in an AFD discussion. It may aid article improvements during an AFD if a rescue is attempted, or it helps others identify sourcing problems that may confirm a lack of notability. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources I managed to find: appearances on national TV and radio [18] (not original but appearance in ETV+), [19] [20] (Raadio 4) and reviews on Sirp [21] [22] and marriage. I made the search with "Maria Veretenina", but the search should be done in Russian, I think "Марии Веретениной". long interview another interview on Postimees but needs a paid subscription. There are more, but this should be enough to confirm it passes GNG. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Mok

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2006. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Poetry, Ireland, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Finding sources was really easy for this person, they have multiple books with multiple reviews, and numerous interviews. I removed a lot of the material that I couldn't find sources for other than her website and CV. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading that I wanted to clarify that I'm not being snippy with @4meter4 I'm just so used to having to do deep dives into archives at AfD that this was a welcome change of pace. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Sober

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

Been tagged for sourcing issues since 2011. Not clear if subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Gallardo-Domâs

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

Unreferenced BLP. Not clear that subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Spain, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some references for the artist. I've NO idea I they are suitable. I will have a look again tomorrow.Knitsey (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anything is better than what we had, which was nothing. Thank you for your effort.4meter4 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. There might be some more refs I can find. Knitsey (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more refs. There might be more to come. I would really like for someone to take a look to see if they're suitable? Knitsey (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should say, I haven't really editied the article much, just provided refs for what was already there. I will re-work it a bit if this AfD results in keep. I need to check on the date order for all the operas listed. Knitsey (talk) 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boma Obi

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only source she was mentioned was this. Aside that nothing else. The rest are just school profile while some of the source like the 4th one has nothing to show about than a home page of the site. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Education, and Nigeria. Gabriel (……?) 01:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article calls her "a Fellow of the International Federation of Library Association (IFLA)". I cannot verify this and do not know what it means; maybe the IFLA/OCLC Early Career Development Fellowship? Honorary Fellows of IFLA [23] would be notable through WP:PROF#C3 but she is not listed there, so it must mean something different. The early career one would definitely not pass that criterion; it is a different meaning of fellowship. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biography has a lot of statements with no source to back them up. Which fails to meet WP:PROOF and could end up be a WP:NOR. Just checked the reference on ref 2 and it says 404 page not found. Gabriel (……?) 05:28, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, I can't even verify that she's a fellow of the claimed organisations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NPROF#3 and #6. Sources available cannot be used to satisfy GNG. Best, Reading of Beans 08:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about a professor that doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Being a so-called Fellow of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions doesn't justify notability. The publications are very very poor, and can't be used to justify WP:NAUTHOR regardless. This list will tell you the lack of notability (former fellows). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Sorina Munteanu

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Romania. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Mitrosz

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2008. Not clear the the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politicians, and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Blofeld This seems to be your creation. Could you please have a look? Authority control databases kicked up some links, but I'm having trouble reading the results. Thanks for whatever input you can give. — Maile (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nadezhda Petrenko

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

Tagged for unclear sourcing since 2014, but in reality there never heave been any sources as the external links are all You Tube videos of subject singing. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Ukraine. – The Grid (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selva Erdener

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

The article uses zero independent sources with significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Turkey. – The Grid (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural~~ keep: I'll try to find sources if I can, but for now I suggest a ~~procedural~~ keep since this is a very low-effort nomination for an opera singer whose name I can recognize. See: WP:NEXIST, WP:BEFORE TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one source, from Hıncal Uluc's column. Many more search hits exist, but one needs to sift through them to identify SIGCOV. In addition, the SNG about musicians is likely to be satisfied here, due to concerts and records from notable firms.TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoyfulTentmaker That's not a valid argument for a procedural close per WP:PCLOSE. If you think that there is WP:SIGCOV, then by all means provide evidence of it here. That is what an WP:AFD discussion is for. Better yet, take time to improve the article. You may vote a straight keep based on policy but is there is no procedural argument to be made here.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maika Ceres

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

Article is written from unreliable, non-independent, or self-published sources like blogs, social media, press releases, etc. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uruguay. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Mataeva

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

Article is written like a resume and based on sources connected to the subject. Not clear the article passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Pankratova

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

Article is largely built from the website's of the subjects employers and therefore they lack independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Russia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Dadvar

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

Tagged for notability since 2019. Relies largely on self published sources. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blagica Pop Tomova

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

Article is based entirely on the website of the subject's employer. Not clear that the topic passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and North Macedonia. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Police women's volleyball team

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

What little coverage there is in reliable sources is WP:ROUTINE. TarnishedPath^talk 13:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Volleyball, and Nepal. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May i know to concrete reason why this page is nominated for the deletion?. Nepal Police Club currently competing in Central Asian Club Volleyball Championship and many people are searching about the club. I think it's more than enough to have page for the club. NiseEdits (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A popular subject ("many people are searching about the club") doesn't establish notability - independent, reliable sources do. LR.127 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Police. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club-level volleyball in any nation (outside Argentina, Brazil, Europe or former Eastern Bloc nations) generally doesn't meet notability. Nate • (chatter) 23:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Peak

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

Non-notable 9/11 victim's memorial page. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fails WP:BLP1E. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Indiana, Kentucky, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (as article creator) per WP:REDIRECT. While the article probably fails BLP1E, which I take full responsibility for, a redirect to List of victims of the September 11 attacks (O–Z) is better than nothing, where information on the subject still does exist. Sir MemeGod  12:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a non-notable individual, routine office work. Wiki is not a memorial and this person isn't more or less notable than the hundreds of others that passed away that day. There is no coverage about this person to be found. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - I have no problem keeping this. As for the oft-quoted policy of Wikipedia not being a memorial ... we sure seem to bend the other direction at times: List of Texian survivors of the Battle of the Alamo and List of Alamo defenders, etc. etc. Most of the people on those lists are only notable for that one battle. Wikipedia is often a memorial of one subject matter or another. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument. Is your argument that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here? We can point to lots of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it doesn't override policy. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*::It wasn't an argument - I'm OK keeping this as is, per Sir MemeGod above. No opinion of whether or not to redirect it. The rest of my comment was just a general passing comment that Wikipedia sometimes varies in how things are applied, etc. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused here. SirMemeGod wants to redirect the article and admits it fails BLP1E. There is no "Keep per Sir Memegod" because the argument is one that argues for redirecting. Could you clarify your position a bit? Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sir MemeGod @Acebulf@Muboshgu Do you guys mean WP:BIO1E? She died in 2001, so I've having a really hard time seeing how WP:BLP1E applies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm assuming they meant BIO1E, at least that's what I meant. ~~Why do we need so many abbreviations?~~ Sir MemeGod  22:16, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, derp. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 01:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C. K. Durga

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

Promotion with "sources" like X or Facebook; I doubt the page meets GNG and BIO requirements. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Medicine, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Carper

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

No significant independent coverage, failure to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for musicians. Also, the use of IMDb website tells us a lot. Old-AgedKid (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Getting a song into one episode of a TV show was a nice break, but building an article around that one achievement violates WP:BLP1E. Otherwise she gets occasional softball interviews in specialist magazines (e.g. [24]) but she seems to be a local/regional musician with little reliable media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Poulenard

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Jonášová

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2012. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Czech Republic. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to pass the notability criteria. AntEgo (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her mother Jana Jonášová per WP:NOTINHERITED if sources can't be found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaëlle Méchaly

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this now - I have located some reliable sources which I will continue to add as I expand the page.Chaiten1 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated with references. Selected recordings listed, rather than a comprehensive catalogue.Chaiten1 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. @ Chaiten1 Thank you for the much improved article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Chaiten1 (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiziana Scandaletti

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

Completely unreferenced BLP. Not clear it passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only bring up streaming sites and operating database listings. All we have are primary sources now in the article, nothing found for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melony Munro

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

There is no available WP:SIGCOV of this beauty pageant contestant. Munro's name appears in WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the winner of the competitions, but without SIGCOV there's a failure on WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. (Miss International Queen USA itself appears non-notable and as such winning it does not constitute a WP:ANYBIO #3 pass.) I don't see a plausible redirect since Munro has been a third-place contestant in different contests, but open to a suggestion should anyone have one. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Beauty pageants, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NBASIC. ANYBIO is not applicable. C F A 💬 02:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per in-depth nomination, my BEFORE does not add any sources to make a suitable claim of notability. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not finding anything here which would lead to this subject meeting the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article is also failed per Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Notability (beauty pageant participants), which is still not notable enough for that article. Apipattana (talk) 09:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks notability. The only significantly notable thing associated with JUNIPER is "goblin mode", which already has its own Wikipedia page (WP:BLP1E). Most information about JUNIPER could be added to that page. JUNIPER herself is not very notable. Many of the sources used as references mention her only in passing (usually because she responded to a more prominent person's post online) or are primarily about goblin mode. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Macxcxz (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I have become more experienced here, I am more open to a deletion. I knew this would come eventually, because it was never properly addressed in the other two AfD's. The article hinges on goblin mode for notability a bit, but it should be kept in mind that she created/popularized other memes, and had added notability after her suspension. That's not just one event. Still, this article could easily be deleted and separate memes and events go to their own parent articles, simply referencing her. Junlper herself does only have a few articles about her, so I'm open to any outcome.
Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to note, I do not think JUNIPER's other publicised things (her suspension and the Snickers dick vein meme/hoax) represent anything notable, certainly not to the extent of goblin mode. The Snickers dick vein hoax had a Wikipedia page which was subsequently merged with several other articles before eventually redirecting back to JUNIPER's, which makes its lack of notability for Wikipedia standards apparent. Its just an internet meme, not every internet meme is notable just for being popular or having an internet-culture website write an article on it. If that were true, Chris-Chan would have had a Wikipedia page long ago. Same goes for her suspension, not very notable and lacked sustained coverage, and most coverage it got was not focused on her specifically. Macxcxz (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a person is not notable. I agree with the reasoning of nomination. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this person is not notable. Has not accomplished anything substantial. Looks more like a personal blog than a serious article 47.184.171.15 (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I usually hate deleting articles but I feel that it should be done here. A good portion of the sources (Business Insider, The Focus, tweets, Forbes contributors) are unreliable; Outlook India and News 18 have been known to publish misleading articles in the past. Some others (Vox, Buzzfeed News) are interviews and therefore can't be used to establish notability. From what I've read in previous deletion discussions, Ms Junlper, has expressed wishes that this article be deleted. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasiljka Jezovšek

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Only source is to bachcantatas which is a website anyone can edit and is unreliable. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Kurka

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2021. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, sourcing used in the article is database listings, which don't help. I can't find much else, she seems to be a podcast host [25] and [26], bu they don't talk about her. I don't see enough sourcing for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Grimes2 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: she has not sung with any notable choral groups. She has not toured extensively. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Bearian (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) Also, no major recordings. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amarilli Nizza

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2015. Sources are all self published blogs or dead links to self published theatre websites. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Gonzalez

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2008. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siue Moffat

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

WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any book reviews, or much of anything in sources otherwise. Nothing in news or a general Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see three reviews for "Lickin' the Beaters 2: Vegan Chocolate and Candy" via Proquest, but not much else. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Macrì

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2017. Uses unreliable sources like instagram. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Daolio

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

Tagged for BLP sources since 2011. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. 4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nipun Roy Chowdhury

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

No inherent notability. Subject fails WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. BEFORE wasn't helpful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of coverage, so WP:GNG should be fine. See for example [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Oh, there are TV clips as well: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], etc etc. --Soman (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Battistelli

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

Cited exclusively to either unreliable sources like sound cloud, or to websites of companies which have employed the subject and are self published in addition to lacking independence. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All I get hits on are review of this performance [47], which aren't enough for notability here. What's now used for sourcing in the article is primary or simple confirmation of performances given. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ethiopia. – The Grid (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benedikte Pryneid Hansen

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

No inherent notability, fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Nothing useful came from WP:BEFORE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Norway. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Internal party apparatchiks are rarely notable enough to meet WP:NPOL. From a brief perusal of the Red Party (Norway) article, the Secretary General of the party is not the front-facing leader, nor does it look like an internally elected position (though I may be wrong on the latter point). Bkissin (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyrika Holkar

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:ADMASQ, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda Whitney Nakayima

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:BIO or General Notability Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails all notability guidelines. Ednabrenze (talk) 11:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Agbogu

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

Disputed AfC submission. This subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO by all means. The milestone "Tony Elumelu Entrepreneur" does not inherently confer notability as over a hundred could be in a year. The source analysis below will give you further insight. I also suspect WP:UPE and WP:COI going on.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vanderwaalforces
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2024/04/25/lagos-partners-naija-brand-chick-for-hospitality-trade-fair/	We can't be sure of WP:INDEPENDENT when there's no byline in the first place.	While publication is reliable per WP:NGRS, the piece is unreliable because we can't rely on a piece without a byline.	Utterly no, this is more or less a routine coverage.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/guardian-woman/metrowoman-entrepreneur-of-the-week-nelly-agbogu/	This is an interview.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq89nLdKp4U	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	Whether some will say TED, the publisher of this video, is reliable or YouTube is an unreliable source, this is unreliable still because it involves the appearance of the subject.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/05/africa/nelly-agbogu-naijbrandchick-intl-cmd/index.html	Reading this piece makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject. The phrase "Courtesy Nelly Agbogu" at the end suggests that she is the source of this information, implying that either she provided it directly or the information is being shared with her permission or acknowledgment.	While the publication is reliable, we can't rely on a piece that fails WP:INDEPENDENCE.	Does not provide the WP:SIGCOV on the subject that we need on Wikipedia.	✘ No
https://thesun.ng/naijabrandchick-offers-game-changing-program-to-help-online-business-owners-dominate-sales-and-influence/	Reading this makes it clear that it fails WP:INDEPENDENT. The piece lacks a byline.	Reliable publication per WP:NGRS but the piece lacks a byline and we can't rely on such, especially when it fails WP:INDEPENDENT.	This isn't about the subject.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/over-200-exhibitors-expected-at-tourism-fair/	Unassessed because it does not even apply to the subject at all.	Ditto, and lacks a proper byline while looking like a WP:ROTM.	Ditto, and there is no WP:SIGCOV on the subject either.	✘ No
https://www.tonyelumelufoundation.org/marketing-materials/meet-the-selected-1000-tony-elumelu-entrepreneurs-for-2017	This is not a source or piece used to establish notability in the first place.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
https://twmagazine.net/tw-tv/tw-everyday/women-love-nelly-agbogu/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.globalbrandsmagazine.com/how-nelly-agbogu-is-transforming-nigerian-entrepreneurship/	Piece lacks a byline and reading it makes it clear that it is not entirely independent of the subject.	We can't rely on a piece that lacks a byline, plus the publication itself is not reliable because it looks like a part of a news PR system.	Piece does not provide the WP:SIGCOV we need.	✘ No
https://archive.businessday.ng/enterpreneur/article/nelly-agbogus-biggest-challenge-birthed-business-journey/	Piece is an interview, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT.	Ditto.		✘ No
https://www.cnbcafrica.com/2017/business-of-healthy-living-in-nigeria/	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT as an interview.	Ditto, even though the publication is a reliable one.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/lagos-govt-naija-brand-chick-continue-to-build-economy-through-tourism/amp/	If this is entirely legitimate, I wonder why it would lack a byline.	No byline, marginally reliable per WP:NGRS.	WP:ROTM or routine coverage.	✘ No
Citation 13: https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2024/06/07/naijabrandchicks-dsi-programme-empowering-women-to-transform-industries/ , Citation 15: https://dailytimesng.com/four-reasons-to-attend-lagos-tourism-nbc-tradefair-nelly/ , Citation 16: https://lagosstate.gov.ng/lasg-reiterates-continuous-support-for-smes-as-lagos-tourism-nbc-3-day-trade-fair-ends/ , Citation 18: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/07/wema-bank-nbc-smedan-to-hold-inter-continental-trade-empower-women/amp/ , Citation 20: https://msmeafricaonline.com/wema-bank-and-smedan-collaborate-to-empower-women-led-msmes-through-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/ , Citations 21 all through 24.	All these sources are unassessed because they cannot be used to establish a proton of notability on the subject.	Ditto.	Ditto.	? Unknown
Citation 14: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/naijabrandchicks-dsi-program-transforms-women-entrepreneurs-into-industry-leaders/ , Citation 19: https://businessday.ng/sponsored/article/fez-delivery-is-the-official-delivery-partner-at-nbc-african-fair-london-2024/	Sponsored pieces.	Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/06/participants-laud-6th-naija-brand-chick-trade-fair/amp/	Lacks byline as usual, ditto.	Ditto.	Fails WP:SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assessment table created by the nom seems to disregard every source. My use of sources is based onWP:NGRS ensuring that the subject passes WP:GNG. I am even more surprised to see the assessment of CNN and TedX. Marking all the notable newspapers Vanguard, Punch, The Sun etc as unreliable makes me wonder what Nigerian Editors can then use for referencing. Also, kindly look at his talk page to see how our conversations based on his accusation prior to this went (I can’t seem to link to it). I will not vote a keep but would prefer other neutral editors to look into this objectively and vote accordingly. Mevoelo (talk) Mevoelo
Delete: I have confirmed the source analysis table independently and before reading it. I suggest the be a soft delete - without prejudice to future re-creation - because I sense that Nelly Agbogu approaches WP:BIO despite not quite being there, certainly as referenced. A major rewrite and re-referencing at this stage will change my mind, provided the WP:HEY is done sufficiently well. This means that unreferenced so called facts must be removed, and faux references must go, along with the facts they purport to verify. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks for the thorough source analysis, which I concur with, and according to which notability is indeed not established. I get the impression of someone who is 'famous for being famous', which probably at least in part explains the WP:REFBOMBING with flaky sources. Fails WP:GNG. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The referencing is also rather lacking: I checked out a few of the sources, and the first one (#1) did not verify the DOB against which it is cited; the second (#7) is cited at the end of the 'Biography' and verifies only the very last, and arguably the least significant, statement in that section, with the educational history completely unsupported; and the third (#8) does verify that she worked for Schlumberger, but not what role she held. Which begs the question, if all those details didn't come from the sources cited against them, where did they come from? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source from which got the DOB is here, although it appears I ended up not adding it to the reference list. For the role she held, I cannot specifically state which of the sources but it was part of the info I got while researching. If I’m not mistaken, it was stated on her TedEx Talk. Mevoelo (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails to meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources.Mysecretgarden (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Fails GNG with a tone of promotional. I wonder why the creator had to move it to mainspace after being warned--Gabriel (……?) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Serfaty

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

Not notable as an actress or a living person. The editing spirit (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arkansas. Shellwood (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a lot (I do mean a lot) of coverage mostly on her private life in more or less reliable sources (from Globo and People to, say, Page Six and Pure People or US Weekly) but not on a short period of time (2014-now, at least). Some people receive significant coverage because they create a vaccine, some for their private life. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The South China Morning Post article is fine, this is also coverage [48]. Source 7 is also a RS per source highlighter. Not super extensive, but it's enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b and Mushy Yank. SCMP, Elle, Vanity Fair articles are directly about her. Further we can expand using German Wikipedia article. Freriks (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Smith (entrepreneur)

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

Aside from interviews, sources are about Scribe (company), not the subject of the article herself. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Computing. Brandon (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Iwu

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Acting non notable films isn't part of the guideline and statements of words including interviews, aren't part of WP:SIGCOV, hence my retainable for deletion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : All I just see here are interviews mhen.--Gabriel (……?) 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources present does not meet the general notability criteria. The sources are laughable to say the least. Best, Reading of Beans 08:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elina Hsiung

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT. No appearance in multiple reliable sources. Aside from h above, there are many unsourced, promotional contents. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Women, Entertainment, and China. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single interview in Vogue and citations to three blogs doesn’t make significant coverage. If you find something more useful, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Here is the only good source I found:
1. Mankani, Sneha (2020-08-18). "6 dancers on how their craft empowers them to find strength during crisis". Vogue. Archived from the original on 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "The first routine Elina Hsiung choreographed was at age nine, to the chart-topping Backstreet Boys song ‘Larger Than Life’. ... Hsiung teaches at a dance studio in Manhattan whenever she’s not working on workshops and collaborations in Mumbai. Trained in ballet, contemporary, jazz, hip-hop and modern, her style is versatile and natural. Her recently launched e-book In My Shoes is almost an instructional manual on how to make it as a dancer in New York. Hsiung attributes her toughness to dance. It gives her the fortitude to train for 10 or more hours a day (she tops this up with cardio and body conditioning at the gym) and the mental capacity to learn routines and adapt techniques in minutes, as well as tackle auditions and rejections. [quote]"
There is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elina Hsiung to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Grand Princess of Hum

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

An article ostensibly about a princess but in reality entirely about her husband and brother. The dates and places of birth and death are pure poppycock: literally nothing is known about her. No historian ever has put together two sentences about her. WP:GNG failed. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but on grounds different from the nominated ones. Before the 18th Century, rarely was a woman ever named in sources without naming her male relatives. There’s only one source, and that is tantamount to original research, which is my biggest problem. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is not that her male relatives should not be mentioned. It is that the article should not be entirely about them. There is nothing to say about her. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Bosnia, Baness of Slavonia

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

A non-notable individual: the topic does not even approach WP:GNG. Not every spawn of a medieval ruler's loins is encyclopedically notable. The only thing said in RS about this woman is that she existed. To my knowledge, no historian has ever put together two sentences about her. The references cited do not mention her. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Royalty and nobility. Surtsicna (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bosnia and Herzegovina ~~and Yugoslavia~~. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing insufficient. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:SIGCOV - one source, a family tree, is in passing and the other is unreadable. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Hensen

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this ice skater to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found this interview and this blog post, hardly significant coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Briefly mentioned here [49], that's about all. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any significant coverage here to meet the WP:GNG, either through multiple internet searches or newspapers.com. Let'srun (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and comments. This one is an easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSKATE. Sir MemeGod  19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah F. Russell

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

Delete per WP:GNG. As per new policy, unless otherwise notable, new Article III Judge articles are incubated in draft space until the individual is actually confirmed by the Senate. Additionally, a draft article already exists for this individual. So this article should not be moved, but should simple be deleted outright. Safiel (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 22:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom has noted, federal judicial nominees aren't inherently notable, and the WP:GNG is not met here due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and comments. Easy call. Go4thProsper (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I agree with nominator's comments, did this editor not see that there was already a draft in waiting? Snickers2686 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maddi Wilde

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. A few transactional announcements (2023, 2024), but nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I originally reviewed this article and passed it because a brief search for sources I did found 1 2 plus the articles listed in the nomination, all of which are secondary sourced articles about her, and include more than trivial content. Some of them are based around transfer announcements, but they all contain more than a passing mention with content such as quotes and information about her as a player. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The routine transactional announcements have two sentences of coverage each, with the rest being quotes. Every mention of Wilde in the OneFootball article is a re-hashing of something she said while the WSLFullTime article is another routine transactional announcement. JTtheOG (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm missing a WP:NSPORTS policy here but what is the policy that says articles about transactions don't count towards coverage? I would also dispute the characterization of the OneFootball article. It's an article focusing on coverage of things she said and her performance on the field as well as her relation to the team, she is the primary subject of the article; I can't really see anything that wouldn't make it WP:SIGCOV. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from the subject are not significant coverage. We want to see what other people say about Wilde, not what she says about herself and her team. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sourcing is nowhere close to the IRS SIGCOV required by NSPORT. The OneFootball article has zero secondary independent coverage of Wilde: every single sentence is either reporting what she said or is about something other than her. And on top of that it's also a reprint of a FAWSL piece, so it and the routine transactional announcement count as ONE source of non-GNG coverage. Not to mention that FAWSL appears to be SPS -- it's essentially a blog written and edited by one person, and such sources can NEVER be cited in BLPs. So in effect we have no RS coverage at all. JoelleJay (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JoelleJay, not much else to add. Note that Wilde is young and may become notable in the future so no prejudice against creating again should she gain some significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:49, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Tang Williams

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Winning a U.S. House primary does not entitle someone to a Wikipedia page, and I don't see how she passes GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, Women, China, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Asilvering Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire#District 2. Candidates rarely, if ever, meet the notability conditions of WP:NPOL, see WP:POLOUTCOMES. If she wins in November, we can reassess. But for now, her bio should be merged into the article about the election. Bkissin (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator here, I would support a redirect to that page. This will be be her most high-profile run for office, clearly trumping her 2022 run for this district where she lost in the primary and her 2016 Colorado Senate bid where she took 3% of the vote. The 2024 page is the best redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, I forgot that she has lost multiple elections. I don't know where the best redirect target would be, but if you think it's best for 2024, I'll defer to you. Bkissin (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and Bkissin, eight of the 10 references are for her winning the Republican nomination for the district, and not really about her specifically. reppop^talk 21:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

There's quite a few sources about her immigration/escape from China, if that matters, such as:

Interview with John Stossel 6 years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxMWs8RyLLI:

https://thepoliticswatcher.com/pages/articles/congress/2024/9/10/lily-tang-williams-republican-candidate-unique-perspective

https://bunewsservice.com/lily-tang-williams-living-the-american-dream/

https://www.heritage.org/asia/heritage-explains/lily-tang-williams-growing-communist-china

From UK (though the Daily Mail is marginal):

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13146007/lily-tang-williams-congressional-candidate-republican-biden-border.html

From Japan:

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2024/01/5f210f5b6a3e-focus-asian-americans-voice-reasons-they-back-republicans-in-new-hampshire.html

And actually being in a debate with a sitting Senator as a Libertarian, which pretty much has never happened ("In a first, Libertarian candidate in Colorado’s U.S. Senate race qualifies for major debate"):

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/lily-tang-williams-libertarian-candidate-colorados-us-senate-debate/

https://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/what-lily-tang-williams-said-colorado-libertarian-u-s-senate/

https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/10/15/lily-tang-williams-us-senate/

Colorado Public Radio:

https://www.cpr.org/show-segment/childhood-in-china-shapes-libertarian-senate-candidates-vision-for-colorado-country/

I'm not sure if Fox News is considered a credible source, but there's more about her & China:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/survivor-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-scary-history-repeat-college-campuses

https://www.foxnews.com/media/chinese-immigrant-running-congress-fears-marxism-followed-us-witnessing-youth-indoctrination

https://nypost.com/2024/05/15/us-news/survivor-of-maos-political-purge-getting-ptsd-watching-history-repeat-on-college-campuses/

More about China and the gun control debate with David Hogg:

https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-gun-control-activist-david-hogg-torched-ccp-survivor-go-china-see-gun-control-works/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.147.125.13 (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"thepoliticswatcher.com" is a random site that does not help to establish notability. Same for bunewsservice which is a college newspaper. The Heritage Foundation is not a news outlet and I shouldn't have to explain why that one doesn't count. Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source, while Fox News, Western Journal, and the New York Post are considered "generally unreliable." Getting invited to a debate is interesting but certainly not proof that she deserves a Wikipedia page. Sometimes third-party candidates get invited to a debate, it's not that rare. The Kyodo News and Reason sources are decent, but I stand by my judgment that she's not notable. Rising somewhat above the level of a random congressional candidate is not enough for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are college newspapers not considered valid supporting sources? Heritage Foundation may not be a news outlet but its not deprecated and a highly influential conservative think tank. "Generally" unreliable sources need to be analyzed in totality not in part, so if there are 3 "generally" unreliable sources, a rational determination needs to be made as to whether the small part of them that is reliable is strong enough to create notability. Wickster12345 (talk) 04:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an academic journal reference where she appears: "Academic Marxism in the Crosshairs: What is at Stake in the U.S.?" in Class, Race and Corporate Power, Vol. 12, No. 1 (2024). https://www.jstor.org/stable/48771892 216.147.125.142 (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the exact same reasoning as SineBot above. Plenty of independent coverage Wickster12345 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject looks notable and has enough news coverage as indicated above.Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean when you say she "looks notable" BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

means it is notable. Mysecretgarden (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm asking you *why* you think she's notable BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume they meant for the same reasons as noted by SineBot, as they also said: “…has enough news coverage as indicated above”.

Do you, BottleOfChocolateMilk, have any response to what SineBot had to say, as they are the one whose argument seems to inspiring the majority of “Keep” votes Wickster12345 (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...yes? I directly replied to their message right after they posted it. Also, that message was not posted by SineBot, it was posted by an IP user. SineBot is the bot that automatically adds a signature to people who don't sign their comments. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes the most sense to me. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is probably the best option, as she has recieved significant media coverage over numerous years and as a more minor side note, she is a major contender for a swing seat in 2024. NathanBru (talk)

Being an unelected candidate for office does not automatically make someone notable; see WP:NPOL. Also, calling NH-02 a "swing district" is a stretch. Every major election forecaster has it rated as Likely or Safe D. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But like a previously stated, that was a minor detail. She has recieved significant media coverage and does represent a district that very well could swing her way in 2024. Also, I know we’re not supposed to compare certain cases to each other, but there have been numerous other instances of less notable people in 2024 with Wikipedia articles. NathanBru (talk)

Keep because she has recieved substantial media coverage from major news outlets for both her 2022 and 2024 runs and has appeared in a documentary (The Great Awakening). 1980RWR (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed above. She has received substantial media coverage for her 2022 and 2024 congressional campaigns and for her 2016 U.S. Senate campaign as a Libertarian, has appeared in documentaries, and has been interviewed by national media organizations like Fox News and Newsmax. There's also precedent for people equally and even less significant than Lily Tang Williams having a Wikipedia article. George Hansel is a former small town mayor who unsuccessfully ran for Congress once and now hosts a regional talk show (the station that hosts Hansel's show is so small that it doesn't even broadcast to me, and I live in New Hampshire only an hour away from Keene); Hansel is arguably no more significant than any other local politician, yet considering his article has existed for nearly 3 years without issue, there seems to be no question that he is worthy of a Wikipedia article. Lily Tang Williams is much more significant than Hansel and I would argue that she just as deserving of a Wikipedia article, if not more so, than him. Eureka640 (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then ignore the Hansel argument. The fact still remains that she has been the subject of much media coverage over the past decade for her Libertarian activism and congressional candidacies, including interviews on major national news stations. Eureka640 (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:GNG is met through the sheer number of sources (per above). Microplastic Consumer (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reminder that deletion discussions are WP:NOTAVOTE and are also dependent on the quality and reliability of sources, not just the sheer number of sources. Bkissin (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that she's been covered in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, WMUR-TV (ABC), The Denver Post, the Concord Monitor, the Union Leader, New Hampshire Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and an academic journal (noted above). All of those are considered "quality" and "reliable" per Wikipedia's criteria. 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that those are WP:ROUTINE election coverage. reppop^talk 23:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_and_is_not_routine_coverage

"Editors should be careful in defining what is referred to as "routine" coverage, especially when determining notability."

...

""routine coverage" is not a disqualification for notability."

""routine coverage" may indeed be significant enough to surpass Wikipedia's general notability guideline."

Politics

"Once every four years, the United States holds an election for President. These elections are "routinely" covered by every news outlet and the event is a "pre-planned event" as a part of the United States Constitution. However, that does not mean that this coverage would be excluded from notability discussions because of the WP:ROUTINE guideline." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

"Additionally, bear in mind that WP:ROUTINE is a subsection of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events) and therefore only applies to establishing notability about events. The primary guideline discussing notability of people is Wikipedia:Notability (people)." 216.147.125.142 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYi, it was missed that she has been in Fox News on multiple occasions, another extremely notable source. NathanBru (talk)

Keep as WP:GNG is satisfied with the significant media coverage over the years of the subject's political/electoral history. - Amigao (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source evaluation table would be really helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Raney

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

Fails WP:BIO. Her husband established a library in her honor after she died suddenly. That's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and North Carolina. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, Merge to Wake County, North Carolina#Libraries (or to an article about the town where the library is located?), because Wikipedia ought to answer the question "Who was this Olivia Raney that the library is named after?" PamD 07:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There could possibly be an article on the library, with a paragraph on who it was named after, but Ms. Raney simply does not have enough accomplishments or reliable historical coverage to justify her own article. Meanwhile, the merge suggestion above is valid but I think it would be awkward because none of the other libraries in the county have any precise background info at the target article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of newspaper coverage of the "Olivia Raney Library". I added a reference from 1899 with extensive coverage in the The News & Observer of its opening. Perhaps the page should be renamed Olivia Raney Library.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I tend to agree that this article fails WP:BIO but I do think the library itself is notable. In addition, most of the content in this article concerns the library rather than the woman. Perhaps the article could be draftified and rewritten as the Olivia Raney Library. Jtwhetten (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Olivia Raney Library & edit to suit.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creep^Talk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Archaeology. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, not yet notable under WP:NAUTHOR (only one book) or WP:NPROF (too early career, doesn't meet any of the criteria). -- asilvering (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Asilvering: I don't think WP:NAUTHOR says anything about more than one book being required? – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  When an author only has one book, and all the coverage is about the book and not biographical coverage of the author, it's the book that's notable, not the author. If you want to argue that she's a notable author for having written the "significant or well-known work", Sins of the Shovel... well, I can't stop you, but I don't think that's a good argument. -- asilvering (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not exactly my argument. It's an explicit SNG (WP:NAUTHOR, emphasis added: [...] a significant or well-known work or collective body of work). Whether you frame it an article on the author or an article on the book, the content is the same, making it rather inconsequential which one is the 'notable' entity. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, England, United States of America, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, which is at Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a stub on the notable book, as alternative to deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Woodroofe: There is no article on the book. Are you proposing that we move this article to being about it? – Joe (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, essentially. Per WP:BLP1E, it would be better in this circumstance to cover the notable material in an article on the book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't object to his outcome; I think the content would be basically the same. My preference is still for keeping this title, though, since it doesn't really matter either way and a) that it is what the original author of this article chose and b) it's quite likely the subject will write more books. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe, there is one, not sure how I missed it the first time either: Sins of the Shovel. -- asilvering (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, thanks. It was created from the content of this article, which the creator of the article on the book then blanked and redirected there. Which was... unorthodox. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is notable (amply demonstrated by the sources cited in the article), then so is the author per WP:NAUTHOR#3. Whether we cover them separately, together under the author's name, or together under the book's title is inconsequential. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not consensus. The author must be standalone notable as well. I've never seen that statement at Afd in more than 10 years. They are many many famous books where the author is virtually unknown, even in the modern period. They don't like the limelight, don't give interviews or readings or go to conferences or conventions. They are unknown and by any defintion they would fail WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAUTHOR has wide consensus and has been stable for years. It reads:

This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if [... t]he person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series).

The subject of this article has written a significant work, Sins of the Shovel: Looting, Murder, and the Evolution of American Archaeology, which has been the subject of at least six independent reviews in periodicals (cited in the article). Hence, they meet WP:NAUTHOR.

I alluded to the logic behind this above: if we can write an article on a book, we can write an article on its author – even if the content is just John Smith is the author of Notable Book, a [remainder based on significant coverage of the book]. Whether to call this article "John Smith" or "Notable Book" barely affects the content and is a question of article titling and framing rather than notability or deletion. – Joe (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what it reads and what it means. I've done 100's of book and author Afd's, over the years. I'm acutely aware of the policy. They are one of the most common article types that gets sent to Afd. The author must be notable on their own to have the article. Notability is not inherited. That is long-establised consensus. I could point to 1000's Afd's where the statement has been made, following established policy. The book is certainly notable, but the author isn't yet. You just have to look at how the industry is structured. If you followed They must be standalone notable. List of books review. By your logic every self-published author would have have an article on here. scope_creep^Talk 11:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep, I think you're right about the outcome of AfDs, but I don't think that's an accurate conclusion about Joe's logic. Those self-published authors rarely get book reviews in reliable sources that would count for notability. Frankly, I think Joe's logic is perfectly correct (what does it matter if the article on a book is at the author's name or the book's title?), but it would be a really eccentric outcome for an AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be strange outcome. I don't know what has changed in the 6 months-odd interim where I wasn't doing Afd. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite a common outcome for academics, at least. A common objection to WP:NPROF is that it lets us have articles on people for whom there could be little or no biographical sources available. Which is true, but following the logic above it just means that the notable entity is John Smith's work not John Smith. But actually calling the article that would be dumb, so we don't do it. – Joe (talk) 12:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that this long-established consensus followed in hundred of AfDs isn't written down anywhere, then, and that the notability guideline for authors explicitly contradicts it. – Joe (talk) 12:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a handful of AfDs (or even one, honestly) for authors that have been kept on the grounds that an author has a single book with multiple reviews, I'd be very interested to see them. -- (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, no specific AFD comes to mind right now but after closing hundreds (thousands?) of these discussions over the past 4 1/2 years, I'm sure that this has happened. There are authors, like Harper Lee, who, throughout most of her life, was notable for writing only onw book but it was a highly notable one. Also, many AFDs are sparsely attended and if there is a strong consensus that the book is notable and the reviews are prestigious, then it's likely that the article will be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Harper Lee is a good index case. I've used that exact example before when explaining to AfC submitters what kind of coverage one might need to be notable on a single book. (Though, obviously, she's rather extremely notable, so it's not exactly fair. Someone half as famous as Harper Lee is still going to pass any kind of AfD with flying colours.) This is an early career archaeologist with a well-reviewed book. They're very much not in the same league. -- asilvering (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E are the relevant standards. For example, Harper Lee has been covered enough to not be a low-profile individual, and her relationship with the book is well-documented and substantial, even though she was for a long time covered only in the context of the one book. Also, the To Kill A Mockingbird is such a significant book that it is worthwhile covering both author and book. None of the reasons to cover Harper Lee apply here, at least so far as I can see. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the point of disagreement comes down to the interpretation of significant or well-known work in WP:NAUTHOR. Some seem to (reasonably) interpret that as meaning a work of literary significance, as with Harper Lee. For me, it is closer to the "significant" of WP:SIGCOV – just something that has been the subject of detailed coverage in independent reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to do so, but I think if you looked back through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators/archive 2 you would find many. – Joe (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to watch that delsort list pretty closely (as does David Eppstein, who below calls the redirect to book "our standard outcome") and I can't recall any, which is why I'm asking. -- asilvering (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the book, our standard outcome for authors of only one book but one that is arguably notable. And while we're at it refocus the article on the book to say something about the book based on its published reviews instead of merely being a rehash of the author's back cover blurb, sourced only to that blurb. As for the argument above over whether authoring one book should be enough for the author to also be notable: see WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @David Eppstein: I knew the secret sauce was there somewhere. This settles it. scope_creep^Talk 14:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is a book an 'event'? – Joe (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find the suggestion that a book is notable but not the author bizarre outside of the exceptional cases that scope creep describes (e.g., ghostwriting cases), but I can't see that here; Morgan is happy to appear on scholarly podcasts, blog about careers, write for popular magazines, etc. She's also listed in various places for her contribution to particular digs etc., so she's hardly unknown. And remember that this is a particularly widely reviewed book. Not many academics or first-time authors can boast a lengthy review in the New York Times. WP:AUTHOR does not say (as pointed out) that multiple books are required, and WP:1E doesn't apply, as no one is claiming that Morgan is notable for her role in some event (e.g., for an archeologist, a particular discovery); the claim is that she's notable for her creative output. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the above discussion of the 'unorthodox' creation of the book article, we literally cannot delete this article. If the consensus is to go with the (bizarre, in my view) 'book not author' approach, a history merge would be necessary. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. A book can be notable but that does not, in fact, imply its author is notabble for a page. For that we would need multiple reliable independent secondary sources, with significant coverage in each, of the author. That has not been shown to exist and I don't see it in searches, so redirect will serve the reader best. Searching on the author will then take the reader to their notable work, which includes some author biography. (Not much at present). Note that a redirect preserves page history, which should allay Josh Milburn's concerns above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keeping the article or Redirecting this page title to the article on their book.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It feels like there should be more sources about this woman. Searching on her name I find nothing about her but lots of hits on the building at Wellesley that she endowed. There is the one NY Times article about her and her husband giving $25M to the college, and a short mention in another NYT article, both already in the references. There is the fact that she was a trustee at Rockefeller University, and was on the boards of the Metropolitan Museum of Art and other major organizations - and yet, I don't find independent sources. She feels notable. I will cycle back hoping that someone else has better search results. Lamona (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Peek, Liz (2007-05-08). "Lulu Wang Throttles Back (Except on the Racetrack)". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Ms. Wang is one of the original members of the Committee of 100, a group of high-level Chinese-Americans — who include I.M. Pei, Yo-Yo Ma, and Oscar Tang — created shortly after the Tiananmen Square crackdown ... The move was accidental. Her father’s job as a senior official with the Nationalist Party took the Chow family to India during the war years of the 1940s. Ms. Wang was born in New Delhi under the crudest of circumstances. ... Following this path, Ms. Wang moved on to Bankers Trust Co., where she was soon responsible for analyzing about 20% of the Standard & Poor’s 500. ... Ms. Wang opened Tupelo Capital Management in 1998. Her husband, Anthony Wang, had made a fortune at Computer Associates, a firm founded by his brother, which ran into problems after Tony Wang retired in 1992."
2. Zernike, Kate (2000-04-16). "Couple Gives Wellesley a Record $25 Million". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "Lulu Wang is the founder of Tupelo Capital Management, a name chosen tongue-in-cheek with reference to one of Wellesley's more girlish traditions. ... Mrs. Wang has been a member of Wellesley's board of trustees since 1988, and is the first woman to head the board's investment committee, which is in charge of investing the college's endowment, valued at about $1 billion. She also heads the finance committee of the New York Community Trust and serves on a number of other boards in New York, including the Rockefeller Family Fund, WNYC and the Metropolitan Museum of Art."
3. Norton, Leslie P. (2002-12-09). "The Chinese Connection". Barron's. ProQuest 201096765. Archived from the original on 2024-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
  The article notes: "One newly prominent donor is Lulu Wang, a patrician Chinese-American who runs Tupelo Capital Management, a New York money-management firm. Wang came here with her family from Shanghai in 1948; a vacation became permanent immigration as her father, tied to the Nationalists, opted to stay in America. Her $25 million gift to Wellesley College, from which she graduated in 1966, was given to build a new student center. Construction on the Wang Campus Center will start next year, and finish in 2004. Wang has been active for years in philanthropic circles -- she's a board member of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York public radio station WNYC, and Wellesley. She's also funding Bill Moyers' coming PBS series "Becoming American: The Chinese Experience.""
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Agnew, Harriet (2022-03-03). "Ark Invest CEO Cathie Wood on everything from deflation to Elon Musk". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2023-09-17. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
    The article notes: "In 1998, as the dotcom bubble was reaching its climax, Wood and one of her colleagues, Lulu Wang, left Jennison to set up a fund in New York called Tupelo Capital Management. By the end of March 2000, the peak of the tech bubble, Tupelo’s assets under management had reached almost $1.4bn, according to a regulatory filing. Twelve months later, Tupelo’s assets had slumped to around $200mn, according to a separate regulatory filing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lulu Chow Wang to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barrons article is about her father, and gives her a single paragraph, and one that is very similar to other short paragraphs about her. I find it interesting that the NYT article (which also has 2 paragraphs about her, the rest refers to she and her husband as a unit) says that they declined to be interviewed. This may indicate that she has been reticent about publicity, and that may explain why we don't have much about her. Ditto the Financial Times article (which has only a mention of Wang) which says "Wang declined to comment." I did find one more article about her at msnbc. This has a lot of her words so it resembles an interview but isn't presented in interview form. I think it's worth digging, but I am not finding the kind of analysis that would be independent. Everything I see just reiterates the same few facts about her. It's kind of frustrating, I admit. Lamona (talk) 20:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for uncovering the MSNBC article which is a very good find. That in-depth profile solidifies her notability. I think there is enough nontrivial coverage across all the sources for Lulu Chow Wang to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria which says, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability." Cunard (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puput Novel

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

Lack of notability Sxg169 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are enough sources out three to show notability. Im working on more sources. Besides, she is on one other language, which says to me that she is notable. Jeanette Coca Cola girl Martin (salut?) 06:38, 10 September, 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public image of Mother Teresa

Previous AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Criticism of Mother Teresa

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

Started as a WP:POVFORK [50] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [51]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, India, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm COI on this because 1.) a family friend ran some of Mother Teresa's US PR stuff and 2.) Mother Teresa holds special, positive importance in a private element of my life. However, I'm of the opinion that this article, while possibly a bit OR-heavy, strikes me as generally neutral and notable. I can elaborate, but I feel my COI precludes me from seriously inserting myself any further here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me

). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.

Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or merge - clear WP:POVFORK, and the lack of criticism in the main article is now notable by its absence. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider whether it is better to Delete this article or Merge some content back into the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mother Teresa#Legacy and depictions in popular culture — Maile (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think the topic itself is notable, having found multiple academic sources attesting the notability of the subject's public image, such as in popular discourse or media culture. A selection of examples follow:
- Arvind Rajagopal, "Celebrity and the Politics of Charity: Memories of a Missionary Departed" (Routledge, 1999)
- Gëzim Alpion, Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity? (Routledge, 2006), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203087510
- Daniel T. Kline, "Digital Hagiography: Princess Diana, Mother Teresa, and Medieval Women in Cyberspace", College Literature 28, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 92–117, https://www.jstor.org/stable/25112585
- Gaston Roberge, "Mother Teresa, Abortion, and the Media" (Routledge, 2011)
- Gëzim Alpion, "Why Are Modern Spiritual Icons Absent in Celebrity Studies? The Role of Intermediaries in Enhancing Mother Teresa's Advocacy in India and Australia Prior to the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize", Celebrity Studies 11, no. 2 (2020): 221–236, https://doi.org/10.1080/19392397.2019.1567366

The difficulty, of course, is that the current version of the article is not based on this literature. Instead it's a mashup of some stuff about legacy like the sainthood plus specific criticisms. I suppose there might be a case the article warrants WP:TNT, since its content is so disconnected from the literature relevant to the article's purported topic per its title (Saint or Celebrity is cited once; the rest not at all) that it'd require substantial cleanup. I'm not presently making that case, but I'd be open to hearing it from another. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: Thank you, we could probably use those sources to write a section on the main article, and if there is really a lot of content that could get split. But the current article in its current form is not a good starting point to write such an article imo, so it seems like WP:TNT is the best option. Can we put those sources in a {{refideas}} template on the talkpage of the main article? Polygnotus (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Schad

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

Subject fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. COI history doesn't help either. Gheus (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From the article: "Brenda and Jeannine McCann co-founded the company Tribe of Two". So all those references are primary sources, too. _signed,Willondon (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, France, Italy, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage from secondary sources. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Doddodo

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

No references, seems to fail GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not nearly enough in-depth refs from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:SIGCOV.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless someone adds sources: how has a BLP article survived since 2007 with no sources except the non-RS Discogs? PamD 08:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sources have been added ... but they seem mostly to be listings showing that her albums exist, rather than anything about her beyond the brief paragraph in the Time Out ref. Have struck my "Delete", but I don't feel confident to give a "Keep". PamD 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing on it. Xegma(talk) 13:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Relist: Found source from Rolling Stone, Billboard, Time Out, NTS Radio, Resident Advisor and more I'm yet to add. Give this more time for Improvement. Pinging @User:onel5969, @User:Xegma, @User:Wcquidditch and @User:PamD. Esthersp (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of those sources are passing coverage. They show she exists, but not that she's notable.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just caught and deleted a blatant copyright violation.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that and added a source from Cyclic Defrost. At least I tried. Esthersp (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She has released multiple albums under a major label which is (Adaadat). Most of the sources I added covers that too. Passes WP:NMUSIC. That's why I'm suggesting it should be Relisted. Esthersp (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Adaadat is definitely not a major label. Passes neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:NMUSIC. Sorry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad. Thanks anyway. Esthersp (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No man, don't get me wrong, I REALLY appriciate you tring to save an article. We should keep anything possible! Don't let it discourage you.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright, it has been relisted already. I'm a female by the way. Esthersp (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, my bad. Sorry!

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that new sources can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems to have received enough coverage for a page, more exists, including https://ototoy.jp/news/74863 https://www.jame-world.com/en/artist/1454/doddodo etc.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Al Moosawi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, found these sources [52][53][54][55], perhaps there are more sources out there. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ednabrenze, and? All but one of these so-called 'sources' you just listed are essentially puffery outlets. The Gulf News mention is probably the only one that stands out, but even then its mention of Naila is brief and hardly notable. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, hardly any coverage in reliable sources or in regional news. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, for lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anikka Albrite

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Not opposed to a redirect to the AVM performer of the year but otherwise there is not enough independent reliably sourced information to build a proper article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sexuality and gender, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Tiny amount of coverage [56], basically an interview and [57]. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to AVN Award for Female Performer of the Year#2010s (seems indeed totally warranted): ATD suggested by the nominator (AVN, not AVM, btw). Absolutely opposed to deletion of this BLP. (I would also support a Keep) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) Changing to Keep in light of the mainstream sources presented.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: consistently featured in the list of the top female stars of the industry, as reported by mainstream media outlets in the following years: 2013[58], 2014[59], 2015[60], 2016[61]. Also part of the first married couple to win AVN male and female performers of the year award simultaneously in 2015 [62]. Rim sim (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is a policy basis for the article. Can you link to actual sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Links updated Rim sim (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject is the mainstay of an article[63] on the full-fledged animated Virtual reality scannings, a still nascent tech that can be used to make human avatars and keep them immortal in the virtual world. Rim sim (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New York Post is a tabloid and not a reliable source. So this is irrelevant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSPSS, NYP is reliable source for entertainment related news. Rim sim (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The fact she has won a lot of notable awards and reliable source to that shows notability.--Gabriel (……?) 18:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Arab Emirates. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack significant coverages about her works and yes maximum sources are about her death. Xegma(talk) 17:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of the article is notable per WP:ONEEVENT - the first Emarati woman to become an orthopedic surgeon.--jojo@nthony (talk) 03:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 VFL Women's season

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

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the VFL Women's competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates eight articles.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG, and this competition does not garner the level of coverage or references to justify having season-by-season articles. Existing references across all nine articles are almost exclusively non-independent sources (from the league's website, clubs' websites and scores databases), occasionally with a brief WP:ROUTINE article about the grand final result; in particular, although the recent articles have healthy-looking reference counts, it's largely padded by short non-independent, routine articles from club websites which fill out the tables of coaches, captains and best-and-fairest winners. WP:BEFORE searches for "VFL Women's" and "VFL Women's season", Google-filtered for news and excluding afl.com.au results, and the results are a very thin collection of local newspaper clippings which are closer to human interest stories than sports WP:SIGCOV.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on VFL Women's and List of VFL Women's premiers.

I am also nominating the following related pages under the bundle:

Aspirex (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 08:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Competition receives WP:SIGCOV from what is left of the News Corporation legacy media, both at the statewide and local level. ProQuest has approx 400 keyword filtered references (there was 804 on my first pass through) for "VFL women" for the 2016 season alone, with spikes around the Grand Final and VFL/W Awards; across News, Fairfax/Nine and other Australian news sources. I find this AfD to be WP:POINTY and disingenuous. Merging these forks back into VFL Women's would result in an unweildy mess of an article. If the state-level competition of a women's Australian football competition does not warrant the little amount of referenced information currently present, are we WP:BUILDWP with useful encyclopedic content for future readers? Storm machine (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment how exactly is this a Speedy Keep 2c (making nominations of the same page with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion)? Aspirex (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  the "2c" reference in my edit description was a shortening of my regular "2¢ plus GST" apologies for the confusion at your end. Storm machine (talk) 23:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Cool, thanks. Aspirex (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Storm machine's argument. I would be concerned if an article with 40+ references can be thrown away as part of a bulk AfD without any attempt from the nominator to improve it further. What is the end goal here? Gibbsy^spin 03:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the following: yes, 2023 VFL Women's season has 43 references (I assume that's the one you're referring specifically to); 37 of them are statements from club websites which serve to fill out this table of the names of captains and coaches, and this table of best and fairest winners. Every Australian rules football season from the lowest suburban/country level to the highest professional level could be written to at least this standard using a mix of club website references and WP:LOCAL newspapers, but that doesn't make them notable. What I can't find despite looking is genuine independent WP:SIGCOV of the VFL Women's which elevates this league to the point that it should have individual season articles. This is not a question of improvement – any article can be improved – it's a question of assessing the body of available references and reaching a determination of notability or lack thereof. My end goal is that this league be treated like all other low-coverage leagues in the Australian rules football Wikiproject: a main article with a history section, a list of premiers/grand finals, a list of B&Fs, and club-by-club information split out among the individual club pages. Aspirex (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions then: where are you stopping? Why do the VFL/SANFL/WAFL season articles exist in their current forms? Have any of those competitions had WP:SIGCOV to your standards since their heydays? Or has coverage retreated to the margins? If this is your baseline, then how does any sports non-top level competition fit into your ideal? Shall we inform the editors who maintain the AIHL, Hockey One, or Queensland and NSW Cup rugby league season articles of impending AfD?

The VFLW/SANFLW/WAFLW competitions easily pass WP:GNG and maintain enough coverage from what's left of the legacy media and enthusiast press to justify the level of content present to have season articles the same way that their men's equivalents do. Storm machine (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link some references? As I said in the nomination, my BEFORE searches have not yielded anything that looks like independent SIGCOV. I want to know what references you're looking at to draw your conclusion (and I'm sure the closer would want to see them as well). Aspirex (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently have nine non-AFL/club references for the 2024 season article, which given the amount of content compares rather favourably to say 2024 Carlton Football Club season to pick an article at random. Storm machine (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Half of those nine are routine match reports on the grand final. A couple are routine reports on NSW teams playing games against VFLW teams. Cherny's article is the only one which is genuine SIGCOV, but it is a general article about AFLW and VFLW pathways - it offers scant coverage of its VFLW season. Aspirex (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go nuts and add more then: [64], [65], Storm machine (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A valuable collection of encyclopedic data, that is well resourced with both secondary and, yes, some primary sources. What harm does it do to keep this stuff? And it is a fair point, VFLW gets a broadly similar amount of media attention that leagues like Hockey One and the NSW Cup. So bring on the AfDs for all those articles and more just because you're pedantic. Global-Cityzen (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cheng-De Winne

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

Nothing more than a promotional piece; fails GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Some coverage [66], [67], but it's celebrity gossip articles. Nothing really to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Many sources here, including this, this, this, this, this and this. There's also this and this already in the article. Clearly passes GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable newspaper sources identified above which together show a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are reliable even if they are in english, and TODAY is a reliable source. Alon9393 (talk) 03:47, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as Somebodyidkfkdt pointed out, subject has sufficient coverage to not warrant a WP:GNG-based deletion. Sir MemeGod  13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Warnke

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

non-notable, subject has held several local, insiginficant and largely inconsequential appointments. Article reeks of puffery and edits by interested parties Bangabandhu (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I corrected one source and did searches online, and found lots of potential sources. The facts check out, for example her alumni award, White House arts commission, Real Estate commissioner for DC, hobnobbing, etc. She’s well known in the lobbying industry in the capital of the United States, and isn’t merely a local celebrity. Oddly, I can’t find a source confirming that she’s on the DNC. Bearian (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alumni award is of no significance, neither is nomination to the real estate commission. She's got invited to some parties and was appointed to a board, all typical of white collar lawyers in DC. No in depth coverage exists in any single article and she's never done anything remarkable enough to merit a profile. She's not on the Democratic National Committee, she has a position on the DC Democratic State Committee, which is about as insignificant a position in local politics as exists. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Health and fitness, Buddhism, and Germany. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is produced that her publications have received enough attention. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I think this article is produced to create attention. --Dioskorides (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Two of the references are podcasts by notable people (Dan Harris and Sharon Salzberg), there is a book review in Spirituality & Health and some coverage in a Taos News article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnev66 (talk • contribs) Nnev66 (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (belatedly signing)[reply]

I’m with the Weak keep. She’s appeared on podcasts, was noted on the official VA website, and in other sources. I would not call this really substantial, though, more of a bare bones coverage. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelina Bertoli

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Italy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added several citations to the stub-article, and some content. There are dozens more articles at OAsport (it) over several years. I think she medalled 2nd in a 2020 championship [68], and another. On quick look, it seems she was the highest ranking rider for the Italy eventing team at Paris 2024, and you don't get to the Olympics unless you already have a good competition record. I'll take a closer look later when I have more time. ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Grorp are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dealing with Italian-only articles has been difficult, but I was able to find out some more information which I added to the article. From what I was able to find and understand, I would say that Bertoli likely meets notability standards regardless of my amateur attempts at rummaging through Italian articles. Still probably rated as a stub-level article, it is much improved over the version that was AfD'd. [69] ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 06:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review changes to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esraa Owis

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Egypt. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, many sources exist under her Arabic name "اسراء عويس". Multiple-time major international championship gold medallist so clearly meets WP:NATH. I added the first two to the article. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that it could be difficult to find sources in English language media. She may be notable as an Arab woman athlete winning medals in African championships and qualifying for the Summer Olympics. Nnev66 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has sources and the nomination does not indicate that any effort was put behind it. I.e. effort might have been put behind it, but it isn't shown. Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in Arabic on Arabic news sites only returned routine, trivial event announcements (e.g. 0–3-sentence lightly-refactored boilerplate text announcing results 1 2 3 4 5 6). Nothing approaching the in-depth secondary independent commentary required to be cited in all sportsperson articles. There is explicitly no carve-out for athletes that allows us to assume IRS SIGCOV exists when no such sources have been identified. The whole point of SPORTCRIT #5 is to ensure that athlete bios are not based on achievements or participation, as those criteria were deprecated by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for doing the research and finding those sources. I think that if we combine the paragraphs to establish notability (which is allowed per WP:NBASIC), we have a good case to be made here. The consensus you're referring to established by WP:NSPORTS2022 actually supports keeping this article, because it says to keep sports notability criteria as long as it's not participation based (i.e. simply attending a meet). But in Owis' case, she has won multiple major international medals which goes beyond simply participating. I think you are conflating achievements with participation. --Habst (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORTS2022 established global consensus that, regardless of achievements and regardless of meeting a sport-specific guideline, all athletes must cite a source with IRS SIGCOV. Trivial and routine coverage does not establish notability, and that is the extent of what can be found on this athlete. JoelleJay (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks, the NSPORTS2022 closure actually does not say anything about IRS, and it in fact says, There is a general consensus that the NSPORTS guideline still has broad community support. At the time that statement was made, this is what NSPORTS looked like: Special:Diff/1076787937.

Regardless, if we combine the found articles from multiple independent organizations (not just the Koora sources) we can certainly say the coverage is significant in this case fulfilling WP:SPORTCRIT prong #5. Coverage about a hometown athlete qualifying for the Olympics is not routine -- there are strict qualifying standards and there is no guarantee or schedule of such an event occurring. --Habst (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence is in the context of deprecating NSPORT entirely, it is obviously not stating that NSPORT as it was is supported in toto. SPORTCRIT #5 requires a source providing significant coverage, it does not say "a combination of sources adding up to SIGCOV". And I've literally never seen anyone attempt the argument that this clause doesn't require the SIGCOV to be IRS.
Coverage of people in non-routine events can absolutely still be routine. NOTNEWS does not limit this in any way. What has been found so far is not even personalized "hometown coverage", it's churnalized results announcements with no more than three boilerplate sentences apiece originating from the same news source. That is not GNG and is not even an indication of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, yes the sentence argues for the opposite of deprecating NSPORT -- it says to keep it in place, which it currently is. SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for, however it's important to note that has no bearing on whether or not WP:NATH is fulfilled (which it clearly is in this case via criterion 2, multiple gold medals at major competitions).

Using a search for "اسراء عويس", I see four different news stories on just the first page of Google results (Paris Olympics - Israa Owais finishes her competitions in the qualifiers, Who is Israa Awis? | Profile, The Pharaohs in Paris.. Israa Owais bids farewell to the Olympic Games competitions, Israa Owais, the track and field athlete, officially qualifies for the Olympics). If you consider all of these "churnalism", then surely the series of at least three in-person interview clips conducted by ONTime Sports ([70] [71] [72]) would count as sufficiently journalistic sources? One of them looks to be a 26-minute news segment all about the subject.

There are more on page 2: Egypt's champion Israa Owais, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon in athletics at the..., After 3 successful attempts, jumper Israa Awis fails in..., Israa Owais wins gold in long jump at Arab Games, “A golden heroine”... Israa Owais, the owner of historical achievements in, Israa Owais wins gold in triathlon at Arab Games, Israa Awis, Israa Owais after saying goodbye to the Olympics: Enough negative talk, it's making me nervous, Israa Owais ranks 15th in the long jump competition, Sports News: Israa Owais bids farewell to the Games in.... These are all from different sources.

There's also a 30-minute TV interview with her here from Al Ahly TV: Full interview | Israa Owais.. Al-Ahly player and Egypt national team star

This is all just in the first 2 pages of results. I really don't think there's a question that the notability guideline is met, it's just that the sources are mostly in Arabic so we'll need to translate them for inclusion in the article. Honestly, I have yet to find a recent Olympian in athletics who doesn't meet the bar with some digging; the Olympics still have significant cultural purchase and athletics is the marquee sport so typically if someone qualifies, the coverage is there. --Habst (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT prong 5 could certainly be filled by combining sources as NBASIC allows for This is absolutely not true. There is no logical reading of at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage that supports your claim that multiple non-SIGCOV sources can constitute "a source providing SIGCOV". The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence.
You are refbombing more routine trivial announcementsd. No number of functionally identical three-sentence results updates can amount to SIGCOV. 1: Israa Awis ended her competitions in the high jump qualifiers without qualifying for the final stage. Israa Owais is participating in the Olympics for the first time in her career. Israa Awis achieved a record of 6.20 metres after three successful attempts. This is on a site with no evidence of editorial control, attributed to someone with only two articles total, and identical to pieces on other sites that each also claim a byline. 2: This is a trash webscraper/UGS. 3: Israa Owais, the national team player and strongman, bid farewell to the long jump competitions, within the Olympic Games competitions hosted by Paris. Israa managed to jump to a height of 6.20 meters, coming in fifteenth place in the first group. Essentially the same announcement as 1. 4: This is the same 3-sentence article I linked earlier. 5: This is literally just a picture of her on a government website (not independent, not SIGCOV).
In-person interviews are primary and non-independent. Per policy: The University of Nevada, Reno Libraries define primary sources as providing "an inside view of a particular event". They offer as examples: original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews,
Al Ahly TV is her own sports organization, so that interview obviously fails as primary and non-independent in multiple ways.
If this is the extent of the coverage you're finding on her, then we are severely lacking in anything approaching SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for your response.

Re: paragraph 1, The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople -- Can you please link to the not-vote where this happened? From my read this isn't what happened in NSPORTS2022. Reading WP:NSPORTS2022, NBASIC is only mentioned once and it's not in the context of overriding it. They are separate policies and broad over-arching guidelines like WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC still apply even where more subject-specific guidelines exist.

Re: WP:REFBOMBing -- As an English speaker, I simply can't read all of the sources I am finding in Arabic, so I pasted the plausible ones here so that someone who does speak Arabic can look them over. Also, WP:REFBOMB only refers to putting unnecessary citations in an article. There's nothing wrong with linking many sources in an AfD discussion. In fact, I think they should all be addressed -- I see you left comments on five of the sources, but there are still 13 on just the first two pages of results that need to be looked at.

Re: In-person interviews are primary and non-independent -- This simply isn't supported by Wikipedia policy. I recently had a discussion about an unrelated article with an admin just this week about this, and this is what they said this week at Special:Diff/1245933378:

I think what will help with precedent is getting the interview issue settled. It has come up more and more often and I think it's unsettled. My personal (editor, not admin) POV is that if X media outlet chooses to interview someone, there's something there.

The quote that you're citing and have cited in past discussions is not directly from any Wikipedia policy, but is from a sub-bullet of a footnote of a section of WP:PRIMARY. The word "interview" is in fact never mentioned in the Wikipedia-voice text on that page other than to say that interviews depend on context. So, taking context into consideration, what can we say about the 26-minute ONTime Sports news segment (plus various clips) and the 30-minute Al Ahly TV news segment, both of which seem to be solely about Owis?

Quoting the admin comment on this issue, Is Ojala (or anyone in comparable position) being interviewed as a matter of post match interviews, or is it more substantive? We would expect post-match interviews to be only five or six minutes and only focusing on the game -- instead, these interviews are much longer and were conducted in what seems to be an in-studio news segment setting. I want to emphasize clearly that we need the assistance of an Arabic speaker to say much more, but it seems like a lot exists here for Arabic speakers.

I think the pieces for meeting SPORTCRIT and GNG have been presented. Can you explain why all 15 sources are "severely lacking"? --Habst (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You found one closer who holds the idiosyncratic opinion that interviews can somehow count towards GNG based on "the fact that they chose to interview them" rather than anything about the interview content being IRS SIGCOV. But you can't just claim that their close reflects any sort of consensus or even suggests broader disagreement while simultaneously ignoring the far more prevalent examples of closes supporting the view that only the secondary, independent material in an interview may count toward GNG. How could content that someone says about themselves ever be secondary and independent, anyway? And I know you're aware of these examples since I've linked them to you in the past, so why are you only now accepting admin AfD judgments as evidence of consensus? 1: The result was delete. Interviews are primary sources so the delete argument is the policy based one. 2: admin nom statement This article on a tattoo artist is sourced mainly from interviews. Being primary sources, they don't help us establish his notability. 3: admin nom: There are interviews, and a number of performance listings but nothing independent, or significant enough. 4: The result was delete. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. 5: The "keeps" are largely based on the slew of references provided early on in the discussion; however, nobody arguing to keep has presented evidence here as to how these sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. The argument that interviews are admissible is an oversimplification; interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content; that has not been demonstrated here. 6: admin nom: referenced entirely to WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and Q&A interviews that cannot support notability with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all.
The WP:OR treatment of interviews is still policy. Just because specific examples of primary sources are listed in the footnotes does not mean they "aren't policy".
It is absolutely acceptable to characterize someone's behavior at AfD as "refbombing". It is breathtakingly entitled for you to dump a bunch of sources that you haven't even read and insist that other editors must prove each of them to be insufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, thanks for finding these links.

I was actually having an unrelated discussion with the administrator when they opined on interviews unprompted -- I wasn't looking to find a point of view one way or the other and I'm trying to enter discussions with an open mind. It seems intuitive to me that if a reputable news organization conducts a long-form interview, that speaks to the notability of the subject, and I haven't been able to find any Wikipedia policy contradicting that practice here.

I am still curious about the justification for discounting interviews. The only mention you cited earlier, in WP:PRIMARY, doesn't mention interviews in the policy text, and the only mention in a footnote says, other opinion pieces, including (depending on context) reviews and interviews as examples of what could be a primary source. Surely a lengthy news segment interview on a subject would fall under "depending on context" and could be used to establish notability? Also, the way the footnote is written, it makes it seem like only opinion-piece interviews are discussed and not news interviews.

Looking at the links, 1) doesn't contain any news interviews, 2) only comments that the particular interviews used were primary and does not make a sweeping claim about all interviews, 3) doesn't seem to contain any news interviews but instead promotional interviews for his books (?), 4) makes no comment about interviews in general, 5) actually says interviews may count toward GNG when they have intellectually independent content which I think should be met in this case, and 6) only speaks to specific "Q&A interviews" but not news interviews nor interviews in general.

Re: Refbombing, I don't think it's productive to say that other editors are providing too many citations in AfD discussions where the point of the discussion is to evaluate sources. I plan on making a best effort at translation, but the reason why I linked and will continue to link sources in AfDs without being excessive is to see what the community thinks about them even if neither of us can read Arabic natively. I greatly respect your encyclopedic contributions and hope you can extend the same respect to me and can refrain from making personal comments.

Acknowledging that "interviews may count towards GNG" if conditions are met, can we discuss the substance of the news interviews found so far, or if not them, then the other undiscussed sources linked? --Habst (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "wikipedia [guideline] contradicting this practice" is the one that requires the coverage to be substantial, independent, and secondary. An org's choice to interview someone is not any of that.
Seriously, what can you possibly consider independent and secondary in any of those interviews? The subject speaking about herself is, by definition, non-independent and primary, thus it is absolutely ineligible for GNG consideration.
You think bombarding editors with a bunch of links you haven't even read and demanding they prove that each one of them fails GNG is acceptable behavior?? JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on this specific case, but in response to your claim: [That notability can be established through NBASIC for sportspeople] is absolutely not true ... The community !voted to override NBASIC in the case of sportspeople in an RfC that was much more recent and global; that takes precedence. – No, the community absolutely did not !vote to override the notability guideline for people, as said by the user who established SPORTCRIT in the first place: this provision was intended to aid us in expunging the plethora of sub-stubs sourced to databases and lacking any significant coverage that would allow us to write a well-rounded biography ... SPORTBASIC #5 was never intended, nor should it be misused, to trump or overrule the more general, overarching rule. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Habst appear to be good enough (via reading a rough translation) for meeting the WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Let'srun (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Let'srun, the first link has three brief sentences announcing her event results. That is routine news coverage on its own, but it's also clearly lacking in any secondary analysis as the specifics are just substituted into the boilerplate announcements put out by Kooora and Kas News for every athlete at every competition. You can look at the links I provided to see the identical formatting, and also compare to the contemporaneous announcements put out for others in her cohort. They are pure fluff.
Kooora:
Israa Owais, the Egyptian track and field player, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria. Israa Owais succeeded in winning the gold medal after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held on Tuesday evening in the Algerian city of Oran.
Kooora:
Mostafa Amr, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the shot put competition at the Arab Games held in Algeria from July 5 to 15. Amr succeeded in winning the gold medal at the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 20.52 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.
Run-of-the-mill sports announcements are not enough to demonstrate notability, and athletes are required to have a source of IRS SIGCOV cited in the article. A 3-sentence blurb that contains nothing beyond the results of an event is certainly not enough to meet SPORTSCRIT. The second piece is by the same news agency as the first (the Kooora piece is functionally identical to a Kas News piece) and so these definitely don't even constitute "multiple" sources of coverage.
Kas News:
Israa Owais, a player in the Egyptian track and field team, won the gold medal in the long jump competition at the Arab Games currently being held in Algeria. Israa Awis succeeded in winning the gold medal in the Arab Games after achieving a distance of 6.54 meters in the competitions held today in the city of Oran, Algeria.
Per policy: For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage
Per WP:N: It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have none of the keep !voters actually read any of the proposed sources...? JoelleJay (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambari Jethwani

AfDs for this article:

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

Just like previous AfD, no evidence support this individual's page meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Currently, sources cover this person only in the context of a single event which is a sexual harassment case which is still under investigation WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Gujarat. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has at least 3 significant roles in notable productions and meets WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In line with WP:BEFORE, I checked IMDb, and it appears that none were lead roles. However, if reliable sources indicate otherwise, it could meet the WP:HEYMANN. Charlie (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not lead roles, perhaps, but significant roles, not minor. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources are poor and most are written from the perspective of subject herself. She is a very minor actress who has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice in her minor career. Fails WP:N and WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially a bit-part actor. No indication of significance. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 06:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has significant roles mentioned in filmography. meets WP:NACTOR clearly. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E isn't correct too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer At the moment, there are no reliable sources that mention her roles in the movies listed in the article. If you find any, you are welcome to update the page or share a source analysis at this AfD. Please avoid using interviews or self-quotations. Also, please include any other events or supportive information that would elevate her beyond the BLP1E criteria. Charlie (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Stand as per - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kadambari Jethwani (2nd nomination)#c-Thewikizoomer-20240909075000-CharlieMehta-20240903172200 Thewikizoomer (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC) (struck duplicate !vote — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis now would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis.
- Source 1.2,3,4 are interviews with the subject and are NOT independent with no secondary verification for the claims in the interview made by the subject.
- Source 5 is an unreliable source moviemint.com that was a blog and the domain does not exist anymore. This source was about interview with a director of the film the subject acted in and just has a passing mention of the subject.
- Source 6 is also by unreliable moviemint.com and just has an entry name of the subject.
- Source 7,8,9,10,11 are about routine news on subject's allegations about harassment by the IPS officers and these sources do not have the subject's name maybe to hide the identity but I did verify from other sources online that the subject was the actress behind the allegation news.

There is no significant coverage on the subject's biodata and career or any achievement that is noteworthy to warrant a page on by any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending the time to sort this out, RangersRus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work @RangersRus: scope_creep^Talk 06:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Juliana

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

Bit part actor. Lots of social media driven puff piece, clickbait and paid placement article but fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Medicine, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ENT. Xegma(talk) 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xegma: How does the subject pass WP:ENT exactly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by scope creep (talk • contribs)

They have worked in multiple films and television shows. Xegma(talk) 04:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDB she has had a series of minor parts. No leading parts in any series or film. So currently fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: ACTOR requires significant roles, but not necessarily lead roles. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even in "Naan Sirithal" she is right down at the bottom of the cast list. I cant see how she is notable. Coverage is a PR. scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That particular role is certainly not a lead but could be considered significant. See plot Summary. (If ImDb cannot be used to establish notability, I don’t think it is fair to use it to establish non-notability) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus states must be a lead role. On your comment about non-notabilty, you can't have both sides of the coin. This is where notability is proved, the final arbiter. If you have sources, post them up instead of relying on non-arguments outside consensus that doesn't add anything to the argument. scope_creep^Talk 10:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Long established consensus states must be a lead role. No, that is simply not true. SIGNIFICANT, not necessarily lead (or change the guideline). As for the rest, no comment; thank you.. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all intents and purposes that is what it means. scope_creep^Talk 15:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. Lead roles are all significant but not all significant roles are leading roles and to state it is the same thing is obviously erroneous. But I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very much a non-notable actor, with bit parts. Nothing showing she's had a starring role in any project, which is the bare minimum needed for notability,. Articles are simply confirmation of presence in various film/television projects. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable actor, worked in film and television in Tamil language in significant roles. She is well known in Tamil film industry. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is she known exactly. Can you provide three reference that prove it? scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "Prolific"? Single TV episodes in about 20 shows and 6th billing in a film nobody's heard of denote a journeyperson actor. And being a high school teacher doesn't make her a notable educator. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a film nobody's heard of".....Except the critic from the LAT, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, practically nobody's heard of. In any case, not a major film, and NACTOR asks for multiple notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching newspapers I find her named in places like TV listings. These attest to the fact that she appeared on the named TV shows but those short sentences or two are about the plot and her character, not about her. These could be useful in recreating her career if there were also 2 or more substantial articles about her and in reliable sources. This I do not find. The sources given here are two short obits, an article saying that she won a student award (not notable), and a paragraph in a newspaper naming some roles she had in minor productions. I don't find anything longer than a paragraph, and nothing in major news sources. I can't find that she won a major award. I'll swing back by to check on progress, if there is any. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia McIsaac

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no significant coverage. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The InsideHalton article already in the article, combined with [[73]] each provide WP:SIGCOV about the subject which allows for the WP:GNG to be met. Let'srun (talk) 13:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the second source. Looking at Proquest there are numerous other Halton/Burlington articles about her as well - but that's from the same source. Nfitz (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The subject looks notable. EEverest 8848 (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Goa. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – news coverage appears to be only connected to her death. As tragic as that event was, WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:BLP1E applies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just from a quick search, appears across all major news media in country, both regarding death and various controversies. --Soman (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Strum

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			little content outside of fluff and quotes	✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023.	~	WP:METRO		✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	written by Strum	~		✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023.			Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end.	✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum	?	~	✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023.	mostly quotes from Strum	~		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and England. Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the nomination for deletion.

Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.

Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria:

'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'

In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer:

'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.'

'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)

Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/

In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.

She is also eligible for inclusion under:

'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'

Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.

She is also eligible for inclusion under:

'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'

The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.

She is also eligible for inclusion under:

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006:

- https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/

Strum's music career has also been the feature of multiple, non-trivial, published works, as well as being mentioned in articles where she has been listed as a musical performer, worthy of note:

- https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/lorraine-mix-up-destroyed-alexis-strums-career-for-20-years-19596176/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7ld1glk3o - https://www.aol.com/clean-bandit-were-told-stop-233558500.html?guccounter=1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pop-star-music-alexis-strum-album-b2380472.html - https://player.winamp.com/podcasts/womans-hour-podcast-e59d55dc59 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/aug/23/popandrock - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/festival-finalises-acts-for-v-line-up-12712 - https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13337233.kylie-minogue-songwriter-stage-homeland-meets-loose-women-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebritney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In its current state, the article needs to be cleaned up so it is less reliant on unreliable/insignificant sources, but it could then be expanded with info from the sources found in the discussion above. There's enough out there in solid sources like the Guardian and the BBC to at least support a stub article, maybe with more focus on her songwriting success. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Although keep !voters have speculated that secondary sources must exist, they have not made the case showing that they actually do. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I used IAbot to fix a broken reference. Probably notable as co-editor of an academic journal, Labour and Industry (1030-1763), although Wikipedia does not have an article on the journal. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and New Zealand. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrThneed, I thought I’d draw your attention to this article and suggest that an article rescue is as legitimate as creating a new one. Schwede 66 10:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Schwede66. I'll have a go at sorting out that mess of a publication list for a start. First glance at her uni profile suggests to me that she is notable (full professor is not an easy ask in New Zealand, where named chairs are not the norm), and A ranked in PBRF is a significant achievement and not something I think they'd let her say on her page if it wasn't true. DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wrt notability I think she is notable in her field. The Big Issues In Employment is in its second edition, and was made broader in scope for the second edition. That, the chief co-editorship, the ILEA Committee membership and the leadership of a large international research collaboration (not mentioned on the page, I will add) all contribute to notability.
Wrt to improving the page: Noting that I have built her a Scholia to contain all the pubs that I've removed from the page. I've divided what's left into type of publication (as I think that is helpful for readers), and selected the publications that ResearchGate/Scopus/Google suggest are most highly cited. I'm not at all wedded to this selection though if other editors have opinions. DrThneed (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable in her field --ProudWatermelon (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources and there does not appear to be enough secondary coverage for an article. The only secondary source about her is too brief to create a proper article from. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly needs some help by someone who knows more I do, but I think it can be kept for now. Bduke (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [74]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.

I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree with Traumnovelle's source review and have not found any better sources out there to meet WP:GNG. No indication of meeting any of WP:NACADEMIC's criteria 1,3,4,6 and 7. 2 requires more notable awards than what she has, 5 requires some special type of professorship, which this person does not seem to have (edited), and 8 requires a more notable journal than what she has. — Alien333 ( what I did
why I did it wrong ) 09:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She seems to be Notable in her field. There are probably some more references out there. TheSwamphen (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TheSwamphen, when you find these references, please bring them to this discussion. It's not enough to say they are out there, sources have to be put in the article or brought here so that they can be evaluated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to h index, I checked her on OpenAlex but that profile also has conflation issues. I've asked them to fix it, and referred them to the Scholia I built for her, and hopefully we might be able to get a more accurate idea of her impact. DrThneed (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as reviewing all of these comments, it's not clear to me whether or not WP:NACADEMIC is met since it sounds like she is a professor (unless I misunderstood DrThneed's comments).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the review done by Traumnovelle, the article still needs better sourcing. I could not find any better sources to improve it, so although the professor seems notable, regrettably I must suggest deletion until these sources are found.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced by the keep !votes. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACADEMIC criteria 5 and 8. Subject is full professor (i.e the highest academic rank) in New Zealand, a country where named chairs are uncommon. Subject is co-chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal that has been published since 1987. Paora (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This is an article I would really like us to Keep but there is a clear consensus among editors to Delete this article. Unfortunately there is no consensus for an ATD like a Merge or a Redirect. Interested editors can always try writing a better article in Draft space that hopefully can overcome all of the problems pointed out here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [75] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete. No evidence yet of significant achievement WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Canada, Puerto Rico, California, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm very much in favor of showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, but the pedestal needs to be something they are already standing on, not something we place in front of them as an obstacle to trip over. She has not yet had the impact in post-student research needed for WP:PROF; although people at this point in their career can sometimes pass, doing so typically takes work with extraordinary impact and major prizes. Instead she is on a promising academic career track and if she keeps it up I would expect her to pass WP:PROF eventually, but eventually is not now. That leaves the IMO accomplishments and Schafer prize, which are separate enough to save the article from WP:BIO1E but would require in-depth coverage of her accomplishments in independent media for WP:GNG-based notability. I don't see that independent coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sadly, I agree with all of the above. Like virtually all assistant professors, this is WP:TOOSOON.Qflib (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After an unsuccessful search for independent news coverage, I have to agree with the delete !votes. Spacepine (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as David Eppstein notes she has IMO accomplishments which don't have in-depth coverage but do have a couple of sentences in three reliable secondary sources. Agree she doesn't have enough yet for WP:PROF but may for WP:GNG depending how notable the math olympiad accomplishments are. Nnev66 (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is not about significance of accomplishments at all. It is about coverage of those accomplishments in multiple reliable sources, each published independently of the article subject and the events they describe, and with in-depth coverage of the article subject. What sources do you think contribute towards that criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the two I was thinking of. I found a third but didn’t add it to the page because I wasn’t sure it would matter. Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I saw someone added a NYTimes reference which I added to my list below. I changed my recommendation from “Weak keep” to “Keep”. There has been much better sourcing since the beginning of this discussion so I encourage folks who voted earlier to have another look. Nnev66 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the entirety of the coverage in the NYTimes about Gong, a sentence only half about her: "Since then, two female high school students, Alison Miller, from upstate New York, and Sherry Gong, whose parents emigrated to the United States from China, have made the United States team (they both won gold)." That is definitely not an in-depth source in the sense required by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a second sentence later on: “Ms. Miller, who is 22 and recently graduated from Harvard, and Ms. Gong, 19 and a Harvard sophomore, both cite Ms. Wood as their role model.” I had noted earlier that none of the references I found have more than two sentences about Gong - you had asked me to list the reliable secondary sources so I did. My original question was whether IMO achievements are notable - they have been covered in top sources. Nnev66 (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable", in the context of an AfD, means that there exist reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject, not merely that "they have been covered in top sources". So you found a second half-sentence in one source; two half-sentences is still not significant coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These four references have more coverage of the subject. Three were written to highlight winning the Alice T. Schafer Prize. Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timmerman, Michelle B. (December 10, 2010). "Sherry Gong". The Harvard Crimson.

"Sherry Gong named Clay Olympiad Scholar". Clay Mathematics Institute. June 27, 2005. Archived from the original on 2012-05-11.

"Alice T. Schafer Prize for Excellence in Mathematics by an Undergraduate Woman 2011". awm-math.org. Association for Women in Mathematics.

"Math In The News | Sherry Gong Receives 2011 Alice T. Schafer Prize". Mathdl.maa.org. Mathematical Association of America. 2011-01-14. Archived from the original on 2012-03-08.

Nnev66 (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McGuire, Annie; Collins, Donald (24 July 2002). "Mind-boggling games as the whiz-kids limber up for Glasgow Maths Olympiad". The Herald. ProQuest 332893451.

"Rising Stars". Science. 317 (5842): 1153. 31 August 2007. doi:10.1126/science.317.5842.1153c.

Rimer, Sara (10 October 2008). "Math Skills Suffer in U.S., Study Finds". The New York Times.
Nnev66 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A coverage in Chinese media was added.
"美国华裔女孩5次参加国际数学奥赛3次拿奖". news.sohu.com, 2007-08-12.

24.107.3.211 (talk) 05:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.107.3.211 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is Sherry Gong's mother. I saw your discussion about media coverage of Sherry Gong. I will not vote because of the conflict of interest, but I would like to contribute some information about in depth coverage about her that was in independent media in Puerto Rico, specifically, El Nuevo Dia (Puerto Rico's most circulated newspaper, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nuevo_D%C3%ADa) and The San Juan Star (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_San_Juan_Daily_Star).

This coverage haven't been put online, but I have photos of the articles:

1. August 2, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 22. See

https://ibb.co/FqhjzCX

2. August 3, 2001: El Nueva Dia, page 3. See

https://ibb.co/qMDPKGd

3. August 5, 2001: The San Juan Star, page 10. See

https://ibb.co/Jmd7Spn

4. September 16, 2003: El Nueva Dia, page 78. See

https://ibb.co/TH0N4Nz Sanjuanli (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. San Juan Star article is about Sherry got Silver medal and a Special Award for Original Solution at 2001 Math Olympiads for Central American & Caribbean, not for IMO. There is an article on El Nueva Dia talking about Sherry got Bronze medal on IMO 2003. Sanjuanli (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the welcome and comments. I don't know which page you can not see. So I post them from another site. (El Nuevo Dia is considered Puerto Rico's newspaper of record.)

It seems I can not post here--so I post them in the Talk page. Sanjuanli (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gong is the only U.S. woman who won medals in both IMO and IPhO. This achievement qualifies her for a page. Significant improvements have been made on the page. The sections about IMO performance and coaching are rewritten with more details and independent references included. In the career section, Gong's notable contributions to mathematical research are included too. 128.252.229.153 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The research contributions are far too early in the subject's career to meet any of the eight criteria described in WP:NPROF. It's virtually impossible for an assistant professor to meet that standard and so WP:GNG is the only possibility. Qflib (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 128.252.229.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.

In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)

https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)

https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)

https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)

https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)

https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)

https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)

https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.

The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.

I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.

Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 128.194.2.54 has made few or no other edits other than to initiate a WP:PROD for Sherry Gong which led to this AfD discussion. The IP address is associated with Texas A&M University where the subject of the article is currently a professor. How much if at all does this matter? Nnev66 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have little enough to do with Texas A&M, and made my own independent assessment of notability before this nomination, which I take responsibility for. The answer to your question is "not at all" -- even if the IP was a banned user, WP:PROXYING would apply. I remain unconvinced that the series of passing mentions and non-independent coverage adds up to a pass of WP:BASIC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving my comment to where you thought it should go as I wasn't sure and for your answer to my question. I would have thought The Harvard Crimson or Mathematical Association of America were independent of the subject but I assume because the subject attended Harvard and received medals in math competitions they are not orthogonal. What about the Mom's scans of articles from Puerto Rican newspapers? It would make sense that there would be more excitement about the subject in Puerto Rico as she was the first from there to win a medal. Unfortunately I couldn't find The San Juan Star article in newspapers.com or Proquest. As I re-read WP:BASIC, it seems to me that the mentions in The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Science (magazine) are more than trivial. It's true there's no in-depth coverage but they are more than trivial in-passing mentions but rather acknowledgments of accomplishment at the International Math Olympiad. Nnev66 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Local news coverage celebrating a local person's achievements, however admirable, is not enough for WP:NOTABLE. Also see WP:SUSTAINED. "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." Qflib (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Weak keep Per meeting criteria #2 of WP:NPROF. CaptainAngus (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF#C2 explicitly excludes student awards, even at the graduate school level. See the specific criteria notes, 2c. The only awards here are at the high school (IMO) and undergraduate (Schafer) levels. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"

This fact is showed in reference [4]

https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209

In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%

Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Weak) Keep - good arguments on both sides. There's a bit of too-soon/one-more-coverage-needed, but there's also more risk to learning and to the encyclopedia if we delete and we have missed a source. The Math DL/Math in the News coverage ended up being the tipping point for me to move from weak delete to weak keep. We have one math organization covering with a full article an award given by a different math organization. This meets my (and I think WP's) definition of a significant prize, and not a run-of-the-mill student award. That plus the notability-from-one-thousand small articles is a keep for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator and David Epstein. jraimbau (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that some alternative to deletion is merited here. Perhaps merge/redirect to International Mathematical Olympiad#History, as the subject's historic performance there is noteworthy for the event. Alternatively, move to draft iff there is reason to believe that further information can be developed supporting article-worthiness. BD2412 T 21:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect / lightly merge outcome, perhaps to the "Gender gap" section of the International Mathematics Olympiad article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with David Eppstein's comments. She seems to be a very good mathematician, perhaps in the future a wikipage will be more suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. I have kept coming back to this AfD since it started. For certain she appears to be a rising star, but that is not the same as a NPROF notable academic. I don't see a redirect to International Mathematics Olympiad working as there already are quite a few women there, but I won't oppose that if someone adds content and does it after the delete. While she does have supporting articles about her achievements to date, I don't think they are enough. She is young, I expect her to have done enough in a few years. As always, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, so it has to be deleted for now. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In the anticipation of a possible merge/redirect ATD closure, I invite interested editors to add sourced mentions of Sherry Gong to articles such as those mentioned above, so that we have a redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the comments above that although she has the potential to be notable in the future she is not there yet. Athel cb (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a winner of the Alice T. Schafer Prize for Mathematics, Gong meets Criterion 2 of WP:NPROF. Since she only has to meet one criterion, I think this establishes her notability.DesiMoore (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2 of NPROF very explicitly excludes student awards. She does not meet this criterion. Please read the guidelines you link to before making comments that make it obvious you have not read them. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As David Eppstein just said, she does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Qflib (talk) 20:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect proposal. In response to Sandstein's relisting comment, I suggest adding the following as the 2nd paragraph under the Gender Gap section of the International Mathematical Olympiad article. "In the United States, the first female student to take part was Melanie Wood, who first competed in 1998. She was followed a few years later by Alison Miller and Sherry Gong." Could be sourced to NYTimes [76]. Might be worthwhile being a little more specific with dates on Alison Miller and Sherry Gong, if we could do so sticking to general secondary sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, User:Russ Woodroofe. You can't vote again in the AFD you created. If your opinion has changed, strike the original, or add something at the top instead. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russ didn't "vote" again. He was responding to Sandstein's request for recommendations. And even the keep/delete contributions aren't votes - they are recommendations. Qflib (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Qflib says, I am certainly not trying to !vote again. I have indicated above that I am supportive of alternatives to deletion (which are always to be looked for), and I was fleshing out what these might look like, in response to a direct question. I otherwise stand by my nomination -- we have a very early career assistant professor, with some high school para-WP:YOUNGATH coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NPROF isn't relevant here, there was more than enough suitable references in the article (and look at Proquest!) dated before they became a Prof. Also, why even mention NPROF when the article was created many years before she came a prof? The nomination is a BEFORE failure. Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Japan. Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the runner-up in the 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Miyu Takahashi have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. DCsansei (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NBAD is subordinate to the higher requirements of NSPORT, including SPORTCRIT, which demands an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Routine event recaps don't count towards notability, and we don't have evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT through any other coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of having the WP:SNG guideline if they are not given some level of deference? I agree that writing this article was likely premature but the fact remains that as of September 1, 2024, she has now passes a subject-specific notability guideline. In the spirit of ignore all rules, I don't see the point of deleting an article now when the guideline states that she now meets a level where significant coverage is likely to exist (or will very soon exist). Wikipedia is not served by deleting articles for individuals for whom "appropriate sourcing likely exists" just to recreate them. DCsansei (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review