Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

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

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

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

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

[edit]

Miranda Hennessy

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

unnotable actress, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniqah Choudhri

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

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

Arshin Mehta

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

Previously deleted and salted. Sources:

  1. IMDB. Really?
  2. Interview hence not independent
  3. What makes this a reliable and independent source? I'm not seeing evidence of either.
  4. A collection of advertisements is not a reliable source.
  5. Another interview
  6. IMBb again
  7. Sole mention of the subject is "The movie stars Arshin Mehta."
  8. Sole mention of the subject is one sentence and a cast list.
  9. Sole mention of the subject is one sentence attributed to her and her presence in a list.
  10. Not significant coverage for various reasons.
  11. Another interview
  12. No mention of the subject other than in the title.

So the sourcing just isn't there. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archana Patnaik

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

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

Ashley Storrie

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

Subject does not appear to meet GNG. None of the article's current sources contribute to notability, all being interviews, promotional pieces about the subject's work, or passing mentions. I was unable to find any independent significant coverage in a BEFORE search. Perhaps a small amount of the content could be merged into her mother's page (Janey Godley) but most of it is off-topic there. CodeTalker (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source assessment table of the article's current sources.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:CodeTalker
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15442369.ashley-storrie-daughter-comedy-legend---taking-game No Source is an interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ No
https://list.co.uk/news/10027/interview-ashley-storrie-i-have-been-known-to-go-a-bit-tonto No Source is an interview with the subject Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/15443896.ashley-storrie-on-being-the-daughter-of-a-comedy-legend-and-taking-her-on-at-her-own-game/ No Source is an interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/1999/aug/16/artsfeatures1 ~ Source is mostly quotes from the subject, with a few sentences of analysis Yes ~ ~ Partial
https://cmmanagement.co.uk/talent/ashley-storrie/ No Source appears to be a blurb from the subject's management company No No ✘ No
https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/meet-tanya-potter-harrys-long-12110480 Yes Yes No Source is a short review of a video produced by the subject ✘ No
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00037wr ~ Yes No Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in ✘ No
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17765419.scotlands-best-talent-celebrates-latest-herald-culture-awards/ Yes Yes No Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name ✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2020/09/23/46953/2020_scottish_comedy_award_winners_revealed Yes Yes No Source is an article about an award won by the subject as well as by others; contains a mere mention of the subject's name ✘ No
https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/comedian-ashley-storrie/ ~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis Yes ~ ~ Partial
https://sundaypost.com/fp/ashley-storrie-dinosaur/ ~ Source is largely based on an interview, contains a small amount of analysis Yes ~ ~ Partial
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001gx7g ~ Yes No Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in ✘ No
https://dabsterproductions.com/projects/ashley-storrie/ ~ Yes No Source is a promotional page about a show that the subject appears in ✘ No
https://www.chortle.co.uk/news/2024/10/02/56719/four_scottish_bafta_nods_for_ashley_storrie%E2%80%99s_dinosaur Yes Yes No Source is about an award won by a show that the subject appears in ✘ No
https://thinkingautismguide.com/2024/04/talking-with-dinosaur-star-and-co-creator-ashley-storrie.html No Source is an interview with the subject Yes Yes ✘ 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}}.

CodeTalker (talk) 22:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is notable, and has been in the public eye with cocomitant media attention for decades. Youngest Edinburgh Fringe performer with her own show, BBC presenter, co-creator and star of a BBC television show. The article should be retained.
@CodeTalker has admitted on the article talk page to not knowing who the subject is -- all the other editors of the page at least know that -- and the amount of effort he (it just has to be a he) is expending here is concerning. Lloyd Wood (talk) 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article was originally a redirect to Godley's page. Part of why I never actually finished drafting the article was because pretty much everything I was finding was interviews and the likes. Also @Lloyd Wood:, please bear in mind WP:CANVASS. Posting heavily-worded comments on other Wikipedias as ye did here tends to be frowned upon CiphriusKane (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on source analysis. Her being the youngest Edinburgh fringe performer (what an obscure claim to notability), alongside hosting a BBC tv show does not create notability, sourcing does. Also @Llyod Wood I advise you to keep discussion focused on the subject and her notability. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the table indicates three sources which the nom has grudgingly labelled 'partial' when it appears to be 'yes', has dismissed three as non-independent due to containing content of an interview but are actually standard articles focused purely on the subject over which she presumably had no editorial control, and has misrepresented one on 'an award won by a show that the subject appears in', it was actually a nomination but in fact three nominations as writer, actor and for the show itself. Based on the criteria (interviews don't count, their shows and even awards for their shows don't count as only a passing mention / not notable in itself), it's difficult to imagine how any comedian bio meets the threshold of inclusion. WP:ENTERTAINER states "Such a person may be considered notable if; The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" - the subject appears to meet all three of the above requirements to an extent, although no single one emphatically.Crowsus (talk) 07:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Edinburgh Fringe example was just to show that the subject has been in the public eye for decades. The subject has hosted multiple BBC radio shows and has starred in multiple BBC television and radio shows, so @Traumnovelle's description was misleading. Speaking of accuracy, @Traumnovelle do note your typo of my name. Lloyd Wood (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the assessment by @Crowsus. Storrie would not have had editorial control over interviews with her, the sources of those interview articles are independent. It's also notable that these major media outlets (national newspapers, etc.) thought that that the subject was notable enough to be worth interviewing in the first place. Those sources are good. Lloyd Wood (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interview published by the interviewer is still an interview and not independent of the interviewee. CodeTalker (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reject interviews, even though the interview format is standard for actors, and for standup comics, where words matter, and the comic's opinions and experiences are entirely relevant to the matter at hand. Interviewed repeatedly by national media? That's notable, and the content will have been factchecked before publication.
Yet you also reject articles about awards won by work done by the subject, simply because the subject... actually appeared in the award-winning work that they did?
Being nominated for and winning awards in her chosen field -- for writing and performing -- is notable. Laudable, too. Just out of curiosity, how many awards have you won?
Your chosen criteria and your interpretation of them are... strange. If I look at the table you made up, I see a lot of green ticks, and a whole lot of your nitpicking. Lloyd Wood (talk) 03:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview can be used as a source, but generally isn’t used to prove notability. Bearian (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (as WP:ATD) Delete for now. While I would expect that she will someday become WP:NOTABLE that is not quite today, she is WP:BAREBLP. She has been a prolific entertainer for many years, but length of years is not sufficient enough. As per WP:NACTOR it requires significant roles in multiple noteworthy shows, and from what I can tell, Dinosaur (TV series) is the only one that fits that criteria. No other shows fit WP:N. While she has been nominated for an award, she didn't win WP:RUNNERUP. While her public life about being on the autism spectrum is admirable, it is hardly a "unique, prolific or innovative contribution" WP:NACTOR. Arguably what brought her the most notability is her mother, Janey Godley, but WP:NOTINHERITED. Not inherited also applies to the BBC radios shows; the channel is noteworthy, but the program itself is not. I'm not seeing any coverage that counts as WP:SECOND where "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". Rather the bulk is simply coverage of interviews or self-promotion (ie channel listings, agent website, etc). About the only actual secondary article talks briefly about her award nomination, but that really just becomes a reliable source reference that she received an award nomination. Also looking at WP:DIRECTOR, as an alternative criterion to NACTOR, this article seems to also fail all of those examples as well. All that being said, I would not be surprised if one day she does truly become a notable figure, and she will quite possibly check all or more of these boxes, but right now she does not yet pass the criteria for inclusion. TiggerJay (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Merge/Redirect from delete, but otherwise my rationale for why it shouldn't YET be an article still remains. TiggerJay (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comparison research of the other actors involved in Dinosaur (TV series) shows how every one that has an article clearly exceeds notability. Aside from that one TV shows, the only other article which Storrie actual professional work that meets notability guidelines appears to be when she was a child, at 4 years old in a commercial. Everything else is references to very broad categories -- such as Edinburgh Festival Fringe which in 2024 had over 3,317 different shows -- being a part of such a massive festival isn't noteworthy. The same goes with simply being a comedian, appearing on a radio show, etc. Now perhaps there is a case that one or more of those might be notable, but I couldn't find anything that makes a radio talk/music show that is on a 22:00 until 0100 anything of significant notability. Compare that with David Carlyle with 5 notable films, 2 BAFTA noms, winner of several awards. Or Lorn Macdonald with 2 movies and several tv shows. Or Greg Hemphill undisputedly notable, and a article and IMDB profile to show for it. Ben Green (comedian) who is another comedian, has over a 22 in his filmography. Or Sally Howitt who has been in a reoccurring role since 2003 on the award winning River City, plus 5 other shows. Or Sanjeev Kohli another actor/comedian with a long history. Also most of these have far less references, but far more checkboxes when it comes to notability criteria for actors/entertainers/etc. By comparison this just seems too soon for Storrie. TiggerJay (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the event that it's determined she fails GNG, would a redirect to Janey Godley (as it was originally) or Dinosaur (TV series) be a suitable WP:ATD? It stood as a redirect for 3 years before this bourach CiphriusKane (talk) 08:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely I would support a redirect to either, and even merging some of the content. Again, I would say she will probably WP:CRYSTAL be WP:GNG in the near future, but not yet, and certainly not by the references in the article thus far. TiggerJay (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "not by the references in the article thus far": then you need to learn what AfD is about. We should not be voting on the 'references in the article thus far', but in what information is in reliable sources in the public domain, and that means people should look more widely before voting. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you that the analysis by CodeTalker of the on page references is questionable and I would disagree with some of the summary judgements be passed. However, if you think my !vote was based simply on "references in the article" then you didn't read what I wrote at all, but simply cherry picked something to disagree with. Rather I presented 8 various different links to policies, guidelines and essays from which I based my !vote, the majority of which has nothing to do with "references in the article" (but I think the references do precious little to help establish GNG), but certainly review them along with independent research I performed. If you'd like to suggest reliable sources to disagree with requirements for "multiple noteworthy shows" or secondary sources that "contain analysis, interpretation or synthesis" or how she meets any of the other criteria of things like DIRECTOR or NACTOR, etc. I would be happy to read a reliable, secondary source that talks about the attributes required in ENTERTAINER. I would be happy to hear what she as actually "contributed to a field of entertainment" that really isn't just WP:SNOWFLAKE. TiggerJay (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – obscure comedian, one of 10,000s on the comedy circuit in the UK but not significant in her own right. Vast majority of coverage found via search engines (most of which have been barrel scraped to build the article) have been scrutinised well above. Most are about her mother, who actually was a renowned comedian. One of the sources in the "partial" category above is largely about her being a comedian with autism, which whilst interesting, does not give her ground for an article of her own. Another is a tiny comment piece in The Guardian. The only one I'd give any weight to is the Sunday Post interview. I'll also add that in the past it looks like there's been resistance to giving her an article of its own, perhaps for the reasons already outlined here. Her name, until recently, would redirect to her mum's article, Janey Godley. Godley's illness and death does not change Storrie's notability. --Jkaharper (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Parker Appel

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No indication of significant roles in notable films found. Also article is very short, and still has apparently insignificant facts. Ur frnd (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability and BLP concerns leave me to not see any purpose in an AtD, redirects can be recreated after and sourced content can always be added irrespective of this AfD's outcome. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot find any reliable sources with coverage to support NOTABILITY. I can’t tell from the article what the subject is notable for in order to do a deeper dive. Nnev66 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khosi Twala

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

Reality television participant of Big Brother Titans who does not appear to have received coverage outside of the show. Appears to fail WP:GNG/WP:ENT at this point of time. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

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

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

References

  1. ^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
  2. ^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.

Kif Augustine-Adams

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

None of the eight criteria at WP:NPROF applies to Augustine-Adams. It is true that she holds a named chair, but in my view she still does not satisfy criterion #5 because the BYU Law School is not an elite school that has the requisite "reputation for excellence and selectivity", as the specific notes say, like a Harvard or Yale would.  White Whirlwind  15:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prabha Misra

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

Failed a WP:BEFORE search, and poorly sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what is a WP:before search? 82.6.40.205 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BEFORE search is a search done before you nominate an article for deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added one source. How else can I improve this article? 82.6.40.205 (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources that aren't directory listings. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this considered a directory listing? https://rajasthanlink.com/VanuDetails/ajmer/assembly-2/57038/prabha-mishra-mla 82.6.40.205 (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't assess that, as I only know English. You can use non-English sources, to be clear; I just can't assess them. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarvepalli Sisters

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

Non-notable singers. Fails WP:GNG. BBQboffingrill me 07:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Taylor

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

Fails WP:NMG. Singer has no music chart entries, certified units, major award wins, etc. The promotional content tag has been on the page since 2010 and there aren't any reliable sources for this singer to verify anything written in this article. Frankly, it would be better to repurpose this page for the other singer named Angel Taylor from Trin-i-tee 5:7. The other Angel Taylor (from Trin-i-tee 5:7) has music chart entries and award wins. Sackkid (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. You are arguing that she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and I am arguing that she meets the minimum notability of WP:GNG. Two different things. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be redundant because this is article about a musical artist. For the page to be on Wikipedia, it would need to meet the guidelines of WP:NMG. Furthermore, it only meets WP:GNG simply for the AllMusic source which only has a very brief paragraph on her. It basically just states that she negotiated a record deal with Aware/Columbia Records and released an album in 2009. But the article doesn't mention anything after that event, probably because the artist is not notable for them. And as she has not done anything notable by Wikipedia standards, there is no point in this page being here. Sackkid (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic is cited in the article. The other sources I mentioned are not cited yet, but they could be, and they show that the subject was notable in 2012. Notability doesn't fade with time. The 2012 sources stand on their own. And finally, an article about a musician is not required to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Any article at all can pass WP:GNG and stay on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Felipe and Bernadina Rivera

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

Could not find coverage to meet WP:ARTIST. The one source provided may be indepth but one needs multiple sources to demonstrate notability. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sahla Parveen

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

Nothing has changed since the last AFD. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Waters Willard

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Julia as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] [3][4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Julia Waters Tillman

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

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

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

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe Yes Yes Held by university libraries No Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads Yes Yes Held by university libraries No Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Yes ? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred. No Adelle is never mentioned. ✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy" Yes Yes No Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua Yes Yes Held in university libraries No Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science Yes Yes Held in university libraries No Barely mentions her ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete. According to this (Italian version here), there was no Adelle. She comes from a late foundation myth for the Salernitan school. There were four founding doctors: the Greek Pontus, the Hebrew Helinus, the Saracen Adela and the Latin Salernus. In the paper linked, the tale is taken as allegory of knowledge converging from the four corners of the Earth on Salerno, an acknowledgement of the culturally and linguistically diverse origins of its medicine. She is mentioned twice at Schola Medica Salernitana as "Abdela", which is not correct, but reflects (I think) the idea that Adela/Adala is a corruption of an Arabic name like Abdul. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Da-bin

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 07:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Yashina

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

Fails notability and significant coverage criteria. This is a tennis player who has never won a WTA Tour level title or even got close, never reached a Grand Slam tournament main draw and the few citations on the page are merely bog standard stat profiles. There is no significant coverage shown. I did PROD this but apparently that has been done before and challenged hence I'm going this route now. Shrug02 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In tennis, the criterion is that a player must have competed in the main draw of one of the top professional tournaments (WTA Tour tournaments (WTA Finals, WTA 1000, WTA 250 or WTA 250 events)) and have won at least one championship. Winning a WTA Challenger level tournament or any of the ITF W50, W75, or W100 tournaments starting in 2023 ($50,000+ between 2008 and 2022, $25,000+ between 1978 and 2007) or any WTA 125K tournament. This rule applies to both singles and doubles players. Player!!! As a result, this player meets the criteria.User:Vecihi91 12:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know all this then why don't you add the content and citations to prove it? Even if what you say is the case (and I have no reason to say it isn't), then at the moment the article still lacks significant coverage references. Shrug02 (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting WP:NTENNIS is only an indicator that significant coverage is likely to exist. You would still need to prove that WP:SIGCOV exists for the article to meet notability criteria. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SlowpokesB (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.*[8] <[9]< [10] I found these resources. User:Vecihi91 12:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I feel like I’m repeating myself in every AfD: the individual who passes WP:NTENNIS is presumed to have had significant coverage, but it’s not proof of that. BLPs almost always require both SIGCOV and a particular rule for their career. If you find proof, please let us know. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Raffa

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

The subject might not meet WP:SIGCOV. I see some sources about her, but it might be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Many of the sources are from her university or employer. TJMSmith (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Keep arguments will have to supply evidence of notability (not just claims) in the form of reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Ovcharenko

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

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

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

Altani

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

In a previous AfD, a clear consensus emerged that this biography did not meet WP:BIO1E, and it was merged to Tolui.

The author of the recreated article claims that this woman is identical to another woman of a similar name. This is pure original research. They claim that this source "confirms Eltina or Aylt'ana was Altani", when in reality it does no such thing: is a chapter about transliterations of names.

I suggest that the original merge be restored. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francise confirmed they were one and same person Ortaq (talk) 14:38, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortaq: Could you perhaps quote the relevant part of the source? Or indicate the page number(s)? TompaDompa (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TompaDompa, Ortaq is free to correct me, but I believe they mean pages 410–411. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I figured, but I don't see how it supports their position. The source states (if you'll excuse my poor attempts at representing the characters used in the text correctly) that Grigor calls the wife of Čormaqan "Ayltʻana Xatʻun," but Kirakos calls her "Eltina Xatʻun" (Tiflis edition, p. 269, 1. 6 from the bottom). and In the Secret History (§ 214) the name of the wife of Boro𝛾ul appears seven times (YCPS 9.13b2 and 4; 14a5; 14b3; 15a2 and 4; 16a1). Each time it is transcribed [...] Al ta ni (= Altani).. It's all a bit technical of course, but this does not look to me like stating that the two are the same person—even if the source may be saying that these are two variations (or just transcriptions?) of the same name? TompaDompa (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, hence their argument is entirely flawed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Well, I don't have any particular opinions on the merits of having a stand-alone article in this specific case beside that, but on the assumption that the last AfD got it right and given that nothing obvious has changed since (unless there's something I'm missing, the only thing that was new was the assertion that these two people were one and the same?), I suppose the "merge" outcome should stand—and since the content was presumably already merged that would amount to a (reinstate) redirect from me. TompaDompa (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanja Odland

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

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

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

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

Balkees Jarrah

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

BLP of a human rights lawyer sourced mainly to statements she has made, comments she has offered and interviews she has recorded. Lacks independent in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radda Novikova

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

Russian film director. The importance of a serial (mostly) director is extremely questionable. The Russian Wikipedia article was deleted [13].--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should be kept because the director in question has a significant body of work, having directed multiple popular television sitcoms in Russia, a major media market. Furthermore, she has received international recognition, with awards that affirm her notability beyond national boundaries. There are plenty of references from major outlets, including Cosmopolitan and RIA Novosti. The fact that the Russian Wikipedia chose to delete the article does not diminish her achievements, as Wikipedia in different languages may have unique standards or biases—this is the English Wikipedia, which evaluates notability from an international perspective and should base its decision on the director's clear contributions to the industry and documented impact, not on the editorial decisions of other Wikipedias. It is also unfortunate to delete a page about a notable female director, as representation in media coverage is essential to recognizing the contributions of women in film and television, especially in an industry where they are historically underrepresented. Er nesto (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radka Zelníčková

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

Does not meet notability or significant coverage criterias. Shrug02 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@asilvering How much more thorough and clear does it need to be? After a week 4 people say it fails significant coverage and just 1 says "keep" but fails to back that opinion up by adding anything to an article which indeed clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. What is the point of the AFD process? I've had articles with far more citations deleted yet these tennis ones seem like the holy grail that must not be touched no matter how poorly sourced or non-notable they are. Prediction time - "keep due to no consnsus" will be the eventual outcome. Waste of time. Shrug02 (talk) 00:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shrug02, we regularly relist discussions where opinion is divided and this was just a first relisting. It's more important to get this discussion closed right than quickly. What's the hurry? Liz Read! Talk! 23:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Zelnickova won 1 W40 (now a W50) doubles tournament, WP:NTENNIS is a part of the global sports notability guideline and its FAQ at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline". WP:GNG requires multiple independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't see that, either in my searches or the article here. Everything that comes up can be categorized either as passing mentions in the scope of something else or just routine match recaps (mostly local coverage in Slovakian tournaments). Generally, it's very tough to get significant coverage based on just winning low-tier doubles tournaments in a predominantly singles sport - and this case (along with others nominated right now) proves it yet again. She might get there in the future, but as of right now, it's WP:TOOSOON. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Issaka Kriese

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

Article about an unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as meeting notability criteria for unelected political candidates. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name happens to be on the ballot -- a person has to win election to an WP:NPOL-passing office to get an article on that basis, while unelected candidates must either (a) demonstrate that they had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article as it is, or (b) show credible reasons why they should be seen as a special case of much greater and more enduring significance than other candidates.
And no, the fact that a smattering of campaign coverage happens to exist is not, in and of itself, a WP:GNG-based exemption from NPOL -- every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then NPOL would just be completely meaningless and unenforceable.
But there's no strong claim to preexisting notability here, and no particular evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test in and of itself -- even the campaign coverage is entirely a two-day blip of "presidential candidate announces running mate", with no evidence of substantial or sustained coverage for any other reason shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation after election day if she wins the election, but she isn't "inherently" notable just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janicke Askevold

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

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Breathnach-Banwait

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

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

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

Hinapia

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

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states "Genre-specific digital song sales and streaming songs charts should not be included unless a song did not chart on the respective all-genre Digital Song Sales or Streaming Songs charts and the genre's "hot" chart." so in these circumstances it is an acceptable chart. The better Naver ref is here, and there is significant coverage in this Billboard article here, more coverage here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cymmerman

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

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for editors to supply other sources that could establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete or userfy/draftify if Michael Bednarek plans on fixing the sourcing issues raised, but needs more time. The subject might be notable, but the referencing is too poor to verify most claims at present. PS. Polish online encyclopedia of theater has a bit of info on her, including on one award ([18]), it mentions three news pieces, but only one seems to have WP:SIGCOV: [19]. That article does call her a "star of the Łódź theater scence", and her being chosen to sing at the Olympics seems to suggest she is notable - if someone can dig for more sources, and check for possible OR in the article. Ping me if it is improved and I'll revise my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal: The Opais link you gave here is already in the article, and I dealt with its thinness in the deletion nomination. The embassy link provides just three sentences on the pageant, one of which is about the judges and not the subject of this bio. The South African gives us a bulleted list of stuff in the pageant handout like birth place and star sign, but nothing of substance for a biography – certainly nothing that could be used to expand the article. The Forbes article says very little at all, but notes she has an afro, a red swimsuit, and an unnamed "social project", but nothing really about the person. AngoRussia, a single sentence mentioning birthplace, area of study, and country of residence, nothing more. These, like the original sources, are shallow and/or in-passing and tied to the single event, which just underscores this is a BLP1E situation. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An award is not an event, that passes, it’s an honour, that remains, and BLP1E does not apply imv. The guideline does not mention awards, at least, unless I missed it, whereas ANYBIO does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the fact this was a bundled Afd....my !vote was originally about Lauriela Martins. Coverage in Pt exists about her. Ana Coimbra: see above, now. Other: idem. So keep all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
    1. [20] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
    2. [21] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
    3. [22] recital
    4. [23] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Deletion review

[edit]
  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1998/02/02/the-reliable-source/19f5abdf-0eaf-4b71-8842-b2cafd2af050/
  2. ^ https://lbpost.com/hi-lo/my-first-job-singer-maxine-waters-andrews/
  3. ^ https://www.popmatters.com/the-waters-2020-interview-2645252287.html
  4. ^ https://www.thefader.com/2013/06/14/no-concessions-20-feet-from-stardom-and-the-hidden-world-of-back-up-singers
  5. ^ https://cultmtl.com/2013/07/pop-musics-dirty-vocal-secret/
  6. ^ https://wamu.org/story/13/06/12/20_feet_from_the_spotlight_theres_singing_worthy_of_one/
  7. ^ https://uproxx.com/hitfix/twenty-feet-from-stardom-puts-back-up-singers-in-the-spotlight-review/
  8. ^ https://www.pbssocal.org/shows/artbound/carrying-a-note-forward-an-l-a-legacy-of-back-up-singers
  9. ^ https://www.popmatters.com/178175-finally-in-the-spotlight-20-feet-from-stardom-2495695496.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1256507345"