This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Women. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to People.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. WCQuidditch☎✎ 15:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Lithuanian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The main notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of sufficient coverage and analysis about her work to get her over WP:GNG -- but the only reference cited here is a primary source that isn't support for notability at all. As I don't read Swedish, I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Swedish media coverage than I've got can find enough to salvage it -- but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I think that ISBN to my books can meet the case, but pl let me know if you need additional information:
1 Seven Russian poets in Stockholm: ISBN 91-7906-004-8
2 Collection of poems "Summer time and Winter Clocks": ISBN 9189424069 (1999), ISBN 91-89424360 (2000)
3 Novel "Always returning to you", ISBN 978-91-7327-089-2
My translations of Swedish poets are published in four literary magazines. Shall I provide publication years/numbers?
My membership in Swedish Writers' Union can be confirmed by the Union. My Ph D about Boris Pasternak is from 1978, it can be confirmed by Göteborg University, the only number I can find is 9 9901417317. If you search my name (Dahl, Elena) in Libris, the database of all books in Swedish libraries, you will find a complete list of my published work.
Sincerely
Elena Dahl 178.174.247.84 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A writer's notability is not established by citing the article to the publication details of her own work as proof that it exists — a writer's notability is established by third party coverage about her and her books in media, as proof that they've been externally validated as culturally significant by somebody other than the writer's own employers. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok look, there's been a bunch of back and forth on this article, including the previous nomination being overturned from keep to no consensus. I've done some digging on the subject, and here's my conclusions:
1. This individual has not won a Guinness World Record. This appears to be a miscited claim from them saying they had submitted a world record attempt for "fastest created movie" for creating a 3 minute animated movie in 10 hours. This attempt was not recorded by the Guinness Book of World Records. In the previous nomination, it was commented by several keep voters that the 3rd source in this article is from a reliable source. Given that they have printed this very simply false claim in the second sentence, I propose it be disregarded.
2. From what I can see, this individual's appointment was by her father's friend (described as her mentor) and carried pretty limited scope of responsibilities. This article seems to explain it best - https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/bs-people-sindhuja-rajamaran-111032400058_1.html
3. WP:NEWSORGINDIA was not mentioned in the previous nomination, but I would like to comment that I think it makes this specific claim of notability extra dubious.
No ill will here, she seems like a smart woman making a good way in the world, but this marketing stunt is her *only* source of notability. It seems like it will be very difficult to write an encyclopaedic article about her because the only sources covering her are local puff pieces about how great she is. BrigadierG (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We literally just closed this less than 3 weeks ago. Let it rest for a bit. There is nothing that's changed in a month. Any "untruths" lets call them (as mentioned above), can be removed from the article by edit, not be deletion. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion closed as no consensus which doesn't hold prejudice to renomination. Given that the most recent coverage for this individual is from 7 years ago or so, I don't think much is going to change about their notability status. At best, waiting stirs the voter pool a bit. BrigadierG (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find press releases saying she's running this panel or other. BrigadierG (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Speaker at xyz event, is about all there is for coverage about this person. One line stub that we can delete. Vaguely PROMO, not enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject lacks GNG as most of the sources available online are just press releases, not enough to establish notability. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails the notability guideline for people. PROD was removed. Sources are either not independent or do not provide significant coverage. – Teratix₵ 05:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she is a COO and has significant news coverage, as well as in-depth coverage (see citations for Fortune, NPR, Tearsheet) which meets WP:NBIO. Because she has a commonly used name, some of the news coverage for Lambert is hard to find. I added new citations since the AfD listing. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The citations you have added are a classic example of a notability bomb – inserting a lot of insignificant references to create a superficial appearance of notability. For the benefit of other editors I will address each of them, but in future AfD discussions, instead of adding a dozen insignificant references and expecting other editors to pick through them, try to focus on a few excellent sources.
Source 1 (Fortune) is an interview with Lambert that is too brief to constitute significant coverage and does not provide independent analysis of Lambert beyond her interview responses.
Source 2 (NPR) is an obvious PR piece – if we dig a little deeper we find Lambert was elected to the NPR board, making this source non-independent and an obvious non-starter.
Sources 3–8 and 10 are about various things Lambert's employers did. None of them provide significant coverage of Lambert herself, but rather mention her only in passing. Again, these obviously constitute a notability bomb.
Sources 9 and 13 are profiles of Lambert for a conference she spoke at. These are obviously not independent sources.
Source 11 is a press release, obviously not independent.
The bulk of Source 12 (Tearsheet) is paywalled. I'm unfamiliar with Tearsheet, but looking at their About Us page brought me to this page explaining their services, where they describe their purpose as [helping] financial services and fintech firms create memorable and meaningful content and get it in front of their target readers and exhort prospective customers to let us craft your unique story in a way that’s memorable and provides value to your audience. I conclude Tearsheet is not an independent reliable source but rather a vehicle for advertorials.
Lambert does share her name with others but it is easy to account for this by using more precise search terms or skipping over sources that obviously don't refer to Lambert the executive. – Teratix₵ 07:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 1 is not an interview, and source 2 has no date (also I don’t think source 2 is PR, because I would expect PR would mention her current employer, or her status at the NPR board for example). Source 12 is not paywalled for me, it has biographical details (and not an interview) but I was also not familiar with the site, and perhaps it is questionable like you say. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 08:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Fortune: Honestly, it doesn't really matter what we call it – the point is it contains very little substantive coverage of Lambert, and what little there is has clearly drawn on interview responses from Lambert or just directly quotes her. Bottom line: it's not a source that provides the significant coverage needed to contribute to notability.
On NPR: a profile that appears on the website of a company for which she serves as a board member, that opens by gushing Lambert is a visionary, outcome driven executive and calls her a transformational leader with a proven track record – you don't think that's PR? You think that's an independent source we should accept as key evidence of Lambert's notability? That's your honest and thoughtfully considered view? – Teratix₵ 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the Tearsheet article on Internet Archive. I also added it to the citation. S0091 (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirectTraumnovelle (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources refer to publications by her and don't establish notability. Being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't necessarily add to notability. LibStar (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS citations, albeit in a high cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Concur that it passes WP:Prof#C1, and Astbury was quite prolific in the 1980's and 1990's so online sources may be hard to come by. Perhaps seeking offline sources to better establish notability might be an option? While I agree being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women doesn't "add to" notability, there is a reason why she is there, and that is for the significant contribution that she has made in her chosen field. I'd also like to add that it is disheartening to see articles of notable women being nominated for deletion, particularly when Wikipedia continues to battle the issue of gender bias when it comes to biographical articles about women 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)— 2001:8003:6C00:F400:48D1:EF54:F265:DE2B (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I think that being on the Victorian Honour Roll of Women does add to notability but, by itself, does not establish it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
The production was 1993 at London's Canazzaro Park. Miss Hanley did TV interviews in which it was stated several times that she was the first american to play the role. The Director was Peter Benedict. Many of the parks productions are not listed in IBDB even to this day. Yet they are listed with the West End summer limited run productions. PleeUK (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are several parks productions - Holland Park, Regents and Cannazaro London summer theatre associated with the West End in the 90s. Which roles were bit parts? Care to be specific? If you watch any of the shows that she has been in they are all featured roles or principle roles. Is this a legit or personal attempt on her work? PleeUK (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions: (1) do you have reliable secondary sources to back up these statements? (2) Do you have a WP:COI with Hanley? I ask because most of your edits are to this article, and you seem to have a knowledge of her career that sources do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all her works are also verifiable on IMDB. There are various article that were online that may be dead links now. I have met her in the past twice. But cannot say I am a friend. I do find Wiki confusing and so If I did not do something correct I apologize. PleeUK (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say you "cannot say I am a friend" - but in this edit, you say "You are looking to delete my friends page." Let's continue this tangent on your talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have said, I do not know her personally but I consider her a friend. I have followed her on social media and she is my friend there. You people here are very technical. Not all as familiar with the technical workings here.
You also make many false statements here saying her roles were bit parts when her name is on poster for movie mouth to mouth. And she has been lead or featured. Maybe you are experts on how to use wikipedia and I am not. I did apologize for it, but you do not have your facts on the actress correct. I was making an intervention on keep her page that's all. You do what you need to do. Thank you. PleeUK (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provide citations to the articles in your scrapbook, as described below and on your own Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:PleeUK, Wikipedia does not accept IMDB as a WP:reliable source, because it is user-generated, so you need to cite reviews or articles from reputable publishers, like newspapers, about each production, show and film in which she appeared. You can't just say "she got press coverage" for something, you need to cite the exact article, author name, page number or URL, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a scrap book with information but i cannot track it to the periodicals online today. This is from over 20 yrs ago not now all online. PleeUK (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be online. Here is how you can succeed: We need the name of the publication, the title and date of the article or book, the name of the author and the page number on which the information appeared. Post those things on the article's Talk page, and also type out the exact text from the article that verifies a statement made in Henley's article, so that I and other editors can see it, and if it does verify WP:NOTEWORTHY facts about her from a WP:RS, then I can add an appropriate cite to her Wikipedia entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say IMDB is user generated but not all most of it is supplied from the tv or film compamies. You can watch the shows and see these actors in the roles. So how is this not legit? PleeUK (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On your talk page, Fred Zepelin has posted the answer to your question. But be assured that it is not an acceptable source, and you will not succeed by arguing about that. Instead, follow the procedure that I outlined for you above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)|}[reply]
I’m wary when I see candidates who did not have articles get them in the run-up to an election. Per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate doesn’t grant notability. That said, not all the referenced coverage here pertains to her candidacy. She was Limerick person of the year and a local businesswoman. Would such mentions have granted her notability, independent of her candidacy? Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She was red linked through Forum for Peace and Reconciliation long before candidacy for DEM, this being the major jumping off point for a page. That with work with the Safefood advisory board, founded as part of the Good Friday Agreement, seemed like valid notability. ChocoElephant (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: As another editor has noted, the article had the air of a party political broadcast. While it might still need work, I’m reasonably satisfied this isn’t as obvious a candidate for deletion as I thought earlier today. My earlier searches provided only references to her current candidacy, but there is more there than that. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphan article that looks like a CV. WP:NOTRESUME. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, this is just promotional. Fails WP:GNG among other notability cirteria, and WP:NOTCV. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO with no sources outside of PR items or lists. Even my searches only turn up PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The highest-held position is as an elected trustee/board president to Cerritos College. All references are based on death/obituary. Don't think she meets the threshold for WP:NPOL or wp:anybio. Notability is not inherited through marriage. Doesn't make any mention of business accomplishments. Internet search results are sparse. I suggest deletion or move to draft at minimum. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that college board member is not a notability-bearing position and the coverage is not significant enough. Reywas92Talk 15:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to have an article just because her husband has one — but the article is not demonstrating or properly sourcing that she has any meaningful claim of standalone notability in her own right. There also appears to be a bit of a pattern here, as this was created by the same editor who created Patti Garamendi, which I put up for AFD last week for virtually identical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added multiple reviews of multiple books. There is additional information about Kiernan in interviews, while this does not contribute to notability the added information would provide context in the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, as the new citations show notability and there are more sources that can be added to expand the article. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98(Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Missouri. Bgsu98(Talk) 18:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (Inquirer, Golden Skate, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But doesn't fail BASIC because the sourcing seems to be there (WBUR, Wicked Local, etc.). As I mentioned to you here, NSKATE is less important than GNG/BASIC. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98(Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Canada. Bgsu98(Talk) 18:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed during NPP. Combination of wp Notability events and wp:not news. Story of a lady who died and the family kept the body in the house. Two of the three sources were the news reports on it the third says that is is providing the Wikipedia data on the topic. Tagged by others for sources and notability since December. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Japan, and England. WCQuidditch☎✎ 18:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should really be an article about the "death of Rina Yasutake". As a person, she isn't notable, the circumstances surrounding her demise seem to be, there are at least 4 BBC stories that pop up in Gnews and some in other news outlets... But I'm not really sure that is enough for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if you changed it to an article about her death, one could argue that all the family members are living persons and are thus entitled to WP:BLP protections. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability for the person, the events surrounding her demise could perhaps be written NPOV, but I don't see enough sourcing to do so. A story could be told I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable death, not heard of it until this AfD.
SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced footballer BLP. I found a couple of pieces covering her move to France (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but nothing in-depth. #3 is probably the best source. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 20:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anwegmann (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. She has not starred in a single notable film; a Google search of her doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources. Most of the sources cited in the article are primary sources that involve the subject granting interviews to several publications. The article was previously deleted via an afd discussion, which can be seen here. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 22:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the previous deletion. My mind is why there seems always to be a minimal participation for consensus reach. However, an article created barely two /four days after deletion. What am I suspecting? Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Safari Scribe, I wasn't aware that the article was previously deleted. I only learned this info after nominating it. Sometimes if an article is different from the one that was previously deleted, the admin handling the speedy deletion will decline the G4 request. I have experienced this in the past. Anyways, thanks for the message. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your contributions to this site. Versace1608Wanna Talk? 17:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although the title of the article is "Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre", it actually only lists the deeds of four women during the Tiananmen Incident, without summarizing the role of women as a whole in the Tiananmen Incident, this article is more like talking about the experiences of these four women during the Tiananmen Incident. 日期20220626 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on a viable-looking topic and is well referenced, and can be improved. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There are a couple of articles that talk about gender in the Tiananmen Square protests and massacre, the Feigon article cited in the artile and there is an article from Radio Free Asia on the forgotten legacy of women and the protests. I agree with the nominator about how the text does not match the title of the page, and I do not think there is sufficient information for a stand-alone page, especially as the women mentioned in the article all have a stand-alone page, so no information will be lost. --Enos733 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NEVENT - none of the sources in the external links are still functional. It does not appear to be a notable event. Given the last AfD occurred in 2006 (result was no consensus) it is appropriate for the question of notability to be tested again. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From the article history there appear to be a few single-purpose accounts attempting to restore the article. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Clearly an obscure, unremarkable event with no lasting consequences. TH1980 (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Until recently this was a redirect to the relevant section of Saugeen–Maitland Hall, where there is a brief description on the incident. As long as that section remains (and I could certainly see it being removed for lack relevance) restoring the redirect seems to make the most sense. If that section should be removed, the redirect should then be deleted. -R. fiend (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:COMMONPLACE. When I lived in the dorms at a certain Big10 school noted for its basketball and swimming programs, girls stripping at alcohol fueled parties in the hall social room were more the norm than the exception. Granted this was 30 years later and in Canada, but college kids haven't changed much. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 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. ✗plicit 23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited, so she isn't automatically entitled to an article just because her husband has one -- but this article is neither making nor reliably sourcing any credible claim that she would pass WP:NPOL in her own right. The strongest notability claim here is that she's been an appointed bureaucrat in a state government department, which is not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her work in that role -- but otherwise, what we've got here is that she's been an unsuccessful candidate in state legislature elections, which is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and recently won a "local woman of the year" award that is not nationally or internationally prominent enough to make its winners "inherently" notable for winning it. And all of this is referenced entirely to primary sources, like her staff profile on the government department's self-published website and raw tables of election results and the self-published website of the presenter of the local award, with not even one piece of GNG-worthy reliable source coverage shown whatsoever. This all reaches far enough back into the past that I'd be perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with much better access to archived Sacramento-area media coverage than I've got can find enough proper media coverage about her work as a public servant to get her over the bar, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No serious claim of notability, nor can I find any by independently searching. She's been an unsuccessful congressional candidate a few times; has been named "woman of the year" of one county (said naming apparently being within the discretion of a single state senator); served as an "associate director", a "deputy secretary" and even an "assistant deputy administrator" (but not even either assistant nor deputy) of some notable agencies and organization (or at least, in the case the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, a subunit of such an agency or organization), but never an actual director / secretary / administrator. If there's a colorable claim to notability here, I can't see it. TJRC (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At least one of the claims in the Dodd "Sacramento Woman of the Year" item is highly inaccurate, so that citation is obviously non-independent and more of a political favor to her husband. Unless significant coverage and notability can be demonstrated from truly independent sources, this thrice-failed political candidate who last ran for office 32 years ago, and who has been a very minor functionary and the wife of a Congressman, fails notability. Persingo (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not independently notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:44, 26 April 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.
WP:BLP of an artist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for artists or writers. As always, creative professionals are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists -- the notability test doesn't hinge on sourcing their work to itself as proof that it exists, it hinges on sourcing their work to external validatation of its significance, through independent third-party reliable source coverage and analysis about them and their work in media and/or books. But this is referenced almost entirely to directly affiliated primary sources -- the self-published websites of galleries that have exhibited her work, "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of organizations she's associated with, etc. -- and the only footnotes that represent any kind of third-party coverage are a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person and a single article in the local newspaper of her own hometown, which doesn't represent enough coverage to get her over the bar all by itself. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a 16 minute segment on CBC radio, holds a residency, has exhibited in many exhibitions. Plus, this well-referenced article seems to be the work of a new editor participating in an editathon, who submitted their work to AfC and had it approved, and has since created another well-referenced biography of a different artist; to delete this would be a slap in the face for a serious new contributor to the encyclopedia. (I was initially suspicious of COI or paid editing because I noticed that the editor had made 10 varied edits a little while before starting this article, but I note that the artist's name was on the list of "Suggestions for notable artists / writers / curators / contributors, etc. without articles:" at Wikipedia:Meetup/Vancouver/ArtAndFeminism 2024, so I believe this art historian is a genuine enthusiastic new editor in the field of artist biographies.) PamD 11:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Artists do not become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows by sourcing those gallery shows to content self-published by those galleries (as was done here) — artists only become notable for having exhibited in gallery shows if you can source the gallery shows to third-party content about the gallery shows, such as a newspaper or magazine art critic reviewing said show, but not a single gallery show here has cited the correct kind of sourcing to make her notable for that.
And the CBC source is an interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which is a kind of source that we're allowed to use for supplementary verification of stray facts in an article that has already passed WP:GNG on stronger sources but not a kind of source we can use to bring the GNG in and of itself, because it isn't independent of her. And no, articles aren't exempted from having to pass GNG just because they came out of editathons, either: editathons still have to follow the same principles as everybody else, and the articles resulting from them still have to properly source their notability claims. Bearcat (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While the CBC radio piece is an interview, surely her selection as the subject of an interview in a series on a major radio station is an indicator of notability? As is her selection for two residencies: the organisations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist, and there are sources from those organisations. PamD 21:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC interview is from one of the CBC's local programs on one of its local stations, not from the national network, so it isn't automatically more special than other interviews just because it came from a CBC station instead of a Corus or Pattison or Rogers station. So it isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she has.
It isn't enough that the organizations hosting the residencies are independent of the artist — they aren't independent of the residency, so they're still affiliated sources. The source for a residency obviously can't be her own website, but it also can't be the website of the organization that she worked with or for either — it has to be a third party that has no affiliation with either end of that relationship, namely a media outlet writing about the residency as news, because the organization is still affiliated with the statement. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, reluctantly. It seems to me I've previously read something about this artist, and her work has been exhibited in well known galleries. I'm just not finding any additional independent reliable sources beyond the first one in the article. Willing to change my vote if better sourcing is found. Curiocurio (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep per PamD. This was not a person-picked-off-the-street interview. BD2412T 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but I think tagging the article for relying on primary sources might be sufficient without needing to delete the entry. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If primary sources are virtually all it has, then just tagging it for relying on primary sources isn't sufficient — it's not enough to assume that better sources exist that haven't been shown. Better sources have to be demonstrated to exist, not just speculated about as theoretically possible, in order to tip the balance between an AFD discussion and just being flagged for better sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG as well as the four criteria set down by WP:NARTIST. The nominator's report is spot on. After discarding the interviews and the primary sources, we're left with a non-existent case for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of artists, nor a collection of indiscriminate information. And the extensive discussion is rather surprising for such an evidently straightforward issue. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. ✗plicit 23:49, 26 April 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NCLIMBER there is zero mention of these people in any mainline climbing media, and yet their main notability claim is climbing. They have tried to get an article here before but it was declined, but I see they have returned with a much higher quality article (from a production point of view) which I suspect is a professional WP:UPE to 'manufacture' notability where there is none. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the article's creator User:CharlesBNB has now been blocked as a UPE, along with several other linked accounts, and their other UPE articles are being deleted. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about twins climbing mountains. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They spent a lot of money to climb some standard high elevation routes, but they are not notable mountaineers. Cullen328 (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCLIMBER and the sources do not substantiate a WP:GNG pass. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 26 April 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with mercy. Subject fails WP:GNG. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 24 April 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. ✗plicit 23:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Fijian women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:31, 19 April 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. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Trinidad and Tobago women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. I found lots of prominent mentions in match reports (1, 2, 3, 4), three sentences of coverage here, and a passing mention of her signing in Brazil here. JTtheOG (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since she fails WP:GNG. She has only played for the Trinidad and Tobago national team in the 2020 CONCACAF Women's Olympic Qualifying Championship qualification phase. WP:FOOTYN demands playing at the Olympic games.. -The Gnome (talk) 15:24, 24 April 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.
She fails WP:GNG as there is no sources covering her in depth. The article is created based on recentism because she just received nominal coverage due to her few days arrest and she being the daughter of a notable politician Shireen Mazari. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems a proper WP:BEFORE search was not conducted before nominating. As the creator of this BLP, It's natural that I prefer not to see it deleted. The BLP is well-sourced, contains no OR, and maintains a NPOV. I'll leave it to the community to decide. I can expand this page further as there's still more coverage on her, but I believe the community may agree that this BLP, in its current state, adequately demonstrates the subject meets WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 21:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Scotland. WCQuidditch☎✎ 00:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article appears to rely heavily on sources that cover her in the context of recent events, particularly her arrests, rather than on her long-term significance as a human rights lawyer. The current state of the article may indeed be more appropriate for Wikinews, given its focus on recent events. Although she marginally satisfies the WP:GNG, the content is largely influenced by her brief detentions and her mother's political stature. Whereas, the criteria demand sustained and significant coverage, reflecting a subject’s lasting relevance. sameeconverse 02:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it surprising that you guys perceiving this as a RECENTISM issue. She has consistently received press coverage- both nationally and internationally- dating back as far as 2014 (see this) which indicates that she passes WP:10YT. It's not a matter of receiving temporary blip of news coverage for a single incident or event, rather- it's a compilation of several incidents. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's merely a brief mention, and even that's only in relation to her being Shireen Mazari's daughter. She states her mother had no objection to attend the protests. There is no mention of her own credentials in the source if she had any. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that she has been consistently covered in the news since 2014. In 2015 she received more press attention after being targeted by trolls on social media, a phenomenon not typically experienced by children of official or public figures in Pakistan. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 11:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage from 2014/2015 you're referring to is primarily because she's Shireen Mazari's daughter. Reports focus on the novelty of her actions, such as voting for her mother's rival party or protesting against PTI affiliates who stormed PTV, rather than her qualifications. Perhaps she stood out as the only protestor who was child of a prominent figure on that particular day. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that this 2014/2015 press coverage is alone establishes her meeting the criteria of WP:GNG. The point is, she has been consistently receiving media attention since 2014. Anyways, to establish WP:GNG, we should focus on the sources present in the BLP itself, which I believe are sufficient. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Saqib that the sources are sufficient, and even the delete vote is acknowledging that the article meets the GNG. With general notability, sufficient sourcing, and a well-written article, what exactly is the problem here? rspεεr (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
off topic discussion
@Rspeer: personal disagreements. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ridiculous. I recently endorsed your nomination just a few days ago. If I had personal disagreements, I wouldn't have supported it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't even mention your name. Isn't this ridiculous that you just recently created this BLP on a non-notable police officer, an unknown figure who just received some recent press attention. This a clear case of WP:RECENTISM. You cited a video source multiple time as a reference to back up claims in the Early Life and Education as well Career sections. Yet here, you even didn't care to do a proper WP:BEFORE search. This clearly suggest that you've some sort of issue with me which I'm trying my best to ignore. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 17:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ANYBIO, award recipients are considered notable, video source is Geo News, a reliable source. You should assume good faith, you ignored the part in my previous comment where I showed you the evidence of my recent support for you. I did not even know that you were the creator until after AFD submission when I saw bot added message to your talk page in my watchlist. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She did receive an award for the recent incident that garnered press attention, but this is falls under WP:RECENTISM. However, the WP:ANYBIO also states that receiving an award does not automatically confer notability. Regarding the citation of a Geo News video as a reference, it's important to note that this video is an interview, and thus a a primary source. Citing video interviews as reference could set a problematic precedent for BLP articles. Despite my efforts to AGF, it seems reciprocity is lacking. And as for your support vote, it was not solicited nor necessary. I find it difficult to believe your assertion that you were unaware this BLP was created by me. Following our disagreement on this BLP, you promptly nominated this for deletion. Therefore, Assume the assumption of good faith. Anyways, let's avoid further escalation on this matter, at least on this page. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 19:35, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG: BCC, TFT, etc. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 03:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources mostly cover her in the context of her unsuccessful candidacies (of which in one she received 84 votes out of 109,350 cast). AusLondonder (talk) 14:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I translated this article into English from Portuguese as part of Women in Red. This page is much longer than Nova Direita, perhaps it could be merged. Moondragon21 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moondragon21 When you translate an article, please check it. The tables of election results had broken templates and looked a mess. I have commented out that code, so the tables now look tidier, even though they don't have a coloured bar for the party. PamD 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsuccessful candidate not otherwise notable. SportingFlyerT·C 16:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think coverage of her activity as founder of the new party probably makes her notable. PamD 08:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A unsuccessful political candidate that is not notable enough. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as PamD said being founder and president also makes me think she's notable
Not sure how being the founder of a minor party which received 0.25% of the vote indicates notability. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. WCQuidditch☎✎ 04:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject definitely fails WP:NSKATE and I am struggling to find any coverage at all. For reference, the Cyrillic script transliteration of her name seems to be Екатерина Заикина. JTtheOG (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a stub article that doesn't explain it's notability. As it stands, it appears to qualify for AfD. Nigel757 (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. It provides comprehensive information about a nonprofit organization seeking to do good work. Remma2 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of WP:USEFUL - just because you believe it provides comprehensive information without explaining why is not a valid Afd argument. If you want the article to be kept, you can demonstrate whether or not it passes notability by showing multiple independent, reliable sources, which the article in its current form does not have. Bandit Heeler (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Notability Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has been in multiple films that seem to have wikipedia articles of their own. As per: WP:ARTIST, criteria 3, that should probably be enough.
also, seems like this is the 3rd nomination. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The newspapers used now in the article for sourcing are all there is for this person; I don't see notability beyond the local level. I can't find any mention of them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact she has been seen on multiple movies which has a wikipedia page doesn't qualify her to have a wikipedia page. This is just like the case of Lucy Grantham (2nd nomination). The subject Mehr Hassan fails WP:GNG. Her first AFD which was keep was just a two vote of keep which was still saying because she appeared in a movie. No independent reliable source, No award won or being nominated as an actress or dancer. I really don't see anything notable. --Meligirl5 (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having just one reliable source qualifies a person of having a Wikipedia page?
Hassan started her dancing career as a stage performer in the United States.
How do we believe such statement with no reliable source.?--Meligirl5 (talk) 00:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, which is clearly the applicable guideline. rspεεr (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep. WP:NACTOR appears to hold here for now, although perhaps the articles for the films she starred should be reviewed for their notability. The bottom line is that long as those films are notable, she is, if barely. Stefen Towers among the rest!Gab • Gruntwerk 16:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Person had no notability. Sources of dubious quality. Only one other source could be found, and it alone could not be enough to build an article upon. aaronneallucas (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Sources of dubious quality"? They are all from FIDE, the ultimate reliable source for chess. PamD 22:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not dubious in the sense that they are unreliable, but they just do not establish notability. They are largely collections of statistics, and not articles about the person. None of the FIDE sources show significant coverage, which, as stated for the notability of sportspeople: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject." This does not meet that, and I cannot find any evidence of significant coverage of this person. aaronneallucas (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is present here or elsewhere for this subject to meet the GNG. The sources are either primary, unreliable, or in the case of the NYT is a brief mention. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, I think it was bad form to nominate this article for an AFD discussion less than an hour after the article was created. That's not enough time to create an article that could withstand scrutiny at an AFD. I'd also like to see some assessment of newly added content since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 04:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV. Passing mentions such as those in the NYT and The Globe and Mail do not contribute to notability, nor do non-independent primary sources like FIDE. JoelleJay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Burtasova does hold the title of Woman grandmaster, perhaps there is someone move familiar with WP:NCHESS who can comment on notability requirements for chess players beyond WP:GNG. I realize this is not a delete/keep statement, but just a thought. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets WP:NCHESS criteria #1 and #6. Respectively, Burtasova is a chess grandmaster, and has contributed to the development of chess in Canada.[1] -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Rosner, Cecil (26 November 2022). "Toronto chess club hires resident female grandmaster to attract more women to the game". Toronto Globe and Mail. Retrieved 23 April 2024.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the comments above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 16:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Also have this article [1] about this person. I think we have just enough to squeak past notability. This interview on CBC just a few days ago [2], while not about her confirms basic details, and this other story about her hired by a Toronto club [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 26 April 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.
No evidence of any notability. A reporter did some OR and identified what he thought was the last in the line of succession. In reality the lne of succession is almost infinite, if one whole line died out the rules allow succession to be tracked back to earlier monarchs and through wider family connections. This is just trivial nonsense. Was PRODed and dePRODded before, hence this AfD. Fails WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 13:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by all the media coverage already cited in the article, including an article in The Wall Street Journal. Contrary to the nominator's claim, the line of succession is distinctly finite. It consists only of descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Interesting human interest story, but without much more, I don't see notability. Medical therapist interviewed a decade ago with nothing since, I don't see sustained coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 4972nd in line, if that helps. Could be a one line mention in an article about the monarchy, but that's all. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Succession to the British throne, a sentence on the lines of "In 2011 it was reported that some genealogists had stated that therapist Karin Vogel, from Rostoock, Germany, was then the 4,972nd and last in the line of succession." with the various sources. (The WSJ seems to be the core report, but is pay-walled so I can't see it). Seems an encyclopedia-worthy snippet of reporting, but not enough to give her an article of her own. PamD 21:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more carefully at Succession to the British throne I note that the list on which she appears is mentioned and referenced, as is the update 10 years later where she was again in last place, this time at 5,753. I have added her name and a couple of her refs to that article. I now think we can just Redirect to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession. PamD 22:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the reporters were not "doing OR" as asserted by the nominator: they were reporting on a report by a notable genealogist William Addams Reitwiesner who had compiled what he asserted to be a complete list (and yes, it is a finite set of people because of the requirement that they be descendants of Sophia, although this list is over-inclusive as it doesn't check for "in communion with the Church of England"!). PamD 22:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Stub with limited opportunity for growth. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 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.
Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. LizRead!Talk! 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [4], [5], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): Most of the sources if not all were based on this film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). The awards'do credit to the movie and it is one win and nominations that didn't meet per seWP:ENT. Redirecting, however, becomes the best option as the subject senses a bit of WP:FUTURE. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy under G4 again, requiring a third AfD nomination. The second AfD fell foul of this and FWIW it was deleted anyway. And nothing has changed. This fails WP:GNG. The coverage remains trivial and doesn't establish notability. It relies too heavily on Cage Match results which - while reliable - do not establish notability. More sources are needed as before and it appears they don't exist even after I tagged this article in early 2022. As this is the third (possible) deletion I would recommend salting if it does go the same way although sending it into draft mode I would agree to. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sydney Morning Herald is fine, but I don't see any other sourcing. What's used in the article is match results and I can't find anything that's in a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even that source was a decade ago, if they're been no media coverage in the years since, I don't think we have notability either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included in the article are a number of recent sources, one being Sports Illustrated, discussing her move from Australia to the United States in March 2023. There are also a number of recently articles such as Hercanberra, Fightful and the now added Pro Wrestling Illustrated, Slam! Wrestling and Sirensports which focus on her specifically.
Please keep in mind that sources such as Wrestling Observer Newsletter, POST Wrestling, Slam! Wrestling, Pro Wrestling Illustrated and Fightful are considered reliable industry specific secondary sources by Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources and should be included as part of any count of recent sources. For the specific purposes of an article on professional wrestling, these sources are to be treated the same as, say, a newspaper. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider them extensive coverage. The Sports Illustrated article is mostly her talking about her move to the US and losing money for half of the article, not the greatest either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Analysing sources:Source one [6] doesn't appear to be reliable. The second [7] seems also the same but I am considering the writer who may be an expert. Source three [8] is still unreliable. Source 4 [9] from a reliable source The Sydney Morning Herald was a quite looking like PR post following the underneath writing mentioning her next show. Source five [10] is just a profile and doesn't count up secondary sources. Source six [11] was a quote-like discussion of two other wrestlers which may mention "Shazam". Sources [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] are all "external links". I don need to stress myself on that. [23] is statistics of Sara Del Rey, though still not from a reliable source. Others seems same and no need to say it lacks verifiability! Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 01:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention reliable secondary sources such as Sports Illustrated, Pro Wrestling Illustrated, POST Wrestling, Fightful, and Wrestling Observer Newsletter in your analysis. All those publications are considered the highest tier of reliability on Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources.
I've now added an hour long interview from Talk is Jericho to the article as well as other articles from Fightful. I hope other editors are noting that someone is making good faith efforts to fix the article on short notice. CeltBrowne (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are failing to acknowledge the fact the WP:GNG usurps WP:RS when the mentions are trivial or otherwise against the rules - as the Canberra and Sydney Morning Herald links are per prohibition of promotional links for example. These were both addressed in the previous AfD. Safari Scribe's comments are absolutely on point. Match results are not enough to establish notability - reliable source or not and the others are trivial mentions only. Podcasts can be temperamental as such for the record. Extensive coverage is needed and it's still not there. Again - just because a source is reliable doesn't mean the GNG guideline is passed. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CeltBrowne, Sources are measured by it's content and not because it's a reliable source. At some I stances, we've reliable sources publishing unreliable materials. Look at each's content pls. — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has few appearances on NXT,[24][25] Impact/TNA,[26] AEW All Out 2019 (pre-show),[27] and ROH.[28] As a freelancer and indie wrestler, I think her name is recognized in pro wrestling sources; plus considering wrestling for several promotions,[29] her championships and titles,[30] and PWI rankings.[31] --Mann Mann (talk) 06:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mann Mann, that doesn't cover appearing in SIGCOV. WP:NEXISTS can be in the future in this case. Could there be option for draftifying? Because I can see that smelling! — Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be familiar with Pro Wrestling Illustrated or it's Top 500/Top 250 but within WikiProject Professional Wrestling, PWI is considered A) a reliable, secondary source and B) Their Top 500/Top 250 lists are actually considered a very potent source for judging notability. PWI takes its modern Top 250 women list extremely seriously (PWI's annual Top 500 and Top 250 issues are always their best selling issues of the year; their entire business model revolves around it). These lists cover professional wrestlers the entire world over (not just the United States). The higher the listing, the more notable the subject is.
As Mann Mann linked to, in 2023 (the current most recent edition) PWI listed McKenzie as number 88 on their Top 250. This placement would mean they are classifying her as the 88th most prominent woman in professional wrestling, beating out hundreds of other candidates from across the US, Japan, Mexico, UK, EU, and other wrestling hotbeds.
Please note, the PWI 500 is not simply a throwaway "list"; it is an entire issue of PWI and most of the those listed will receive at least a blurb explaining who they are and why they have been positioned on the list. CeltBrowne (talk) 12:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable. Your comment is laced with original research and again presumes that WP:RS is enough for notability. It is not. There must be significant coverage or the source fails the WP:GNG test and is therefore not notable. How many times does this need to be said for you to understand this? Addicted4517 (talk) 23:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
McKenzie does not have to be the main topic of the Top 250 list in order for this to count towards SIGCOV, particular as the list in-of-itself is a reference point who is notable within professional wrestling (particularly as other reliable secondary sources give extensive coverage to who makes the Top 500 and Top 250). This in the same sense that no one song is the main topic of Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, but their inclusion in a list from a reliable secondary source is significant.
Also while the PWI blurbs can be short, they are not "trivial mentions" in the sense that is outlined in WP:SIGCOV (The Clinton/Three Blind Mice example). The blurbs directly discuss their subjects and outline what they are achieving at the time. Each blurb is directly discussing their subject (as opposed to the Three Blind Mice example in which they are decidedly not the subject of an article about Bill Clinton).
Pro Wrestling Illustrated's top list does not provide significant coverage for anyone outside the top ten or even just the number 1 - and even then it's debatable
The 2023 edition of the PWI Top 250 makes clear[32] that PWI has a strict criteria for deciding who is and is not eligible for their list. An entire committee legitimately debates who should be included and where. Each entry on each wrestler outlines what they have achieved in the year and gives an outline of who they are. These are decidedly not the "trivial mentions" outlined in WP:SIGCOV. They are short but succinct explanations of why that person is significant within professional wrestling for that year.
This is all besides the fact that in addition to her Top 250 ranking, PWI also gave dedicated coverage to McKenzie in this [33] article, which is included in her Wikipedia article and should be noted towards WP:SIGCOV as well as the other dedicated articles/interviews such as Slam![34], Fightful, Siren Sports, and Talk is Jericho.
Is it the case that this article would be improved by more examples of dedicated coverage of the subject? Yes
Is it the case that this article has little or no instances of dedicated coverage? No. It does have several instances of dedicated coverage by reliable secondary sources.
I've also now added both a 2017 interview conducted by Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer Newsletter to the article as well as a 2019 interview conducted by Mike Sempervive also of Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Alvarez is notable, the platform is notable and the interviews are significant coverage. CeltBrowne (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I indented your comment properly. Please indent this way in the future as it avoids confusion. Aside from that everything that you said there again seeks to push a reliable source above the GNG and SIGCOV tests. Short - by definition - is trivial. The comparison between a list of wrestlers and a list of songs is completely irrelevant. Dedicated coverage does not equal significant coverage, because dedicated and still be shirt and therefore trivial. The Sempervive interview is on You Tube and I will remove that. You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever. The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). Bottom line - a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability. It may add to it but it can not be relied upon. Addicted4517 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You Tube should never be used in a BLP - ever.
Please show me a guideline which states this.WP:Youtube and Wikipedia:Video links make clear that Youtube as a platform is not a problem in-of-itself; Youtube videos may be cited as long as they're from a verifiable, reliable, secondary source. Inauguration of Donald Trump, for example, cites several youtube videos attributed to reliable secondary sources such as PBS and CNN. Belle Delphine, a good-rated BLP article, has an entire subsection in its references dedicated to youtube citations.
The Slam wrestling article is in direct violation of WP:SELFPUB (the subject write it herself). .
It's not SelfPub. Selfpub is when John Smith writes something for JohnSmith.blog, a website Smith control and runs themself. Slam! Wrestling is an Independent reliable secondary source per Wikipedia:PW/RS which McKenzie was asked to write a guest feature for. It's a primary source which can be used to make WP:ABOUTSELF statements, which is what it was used for.
a list is not appropriate by itself to prove notability
No one is arguing it is on it's own. It's to be taken together with all the other sources being provided, obviously. CeltBrowne (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The correct citation criteria I am applying (to answer your struck out request) is WP:NPA via WP:BLP. It openly discourages Youtube videos in combination with WP:YOUTUBE unless certain criteria is fulfilled. The citation you gave doesn't do it. The comparison to the Trump inauguration is irrelevant because that isn't a BLP. Anyway - you have the other source so there's no need for this second one anyway. The article on Slam is selfpub because the subject wrote it. That's the only criteria required to breach that guideline. The platform is not relevant. And finally you are arguing the list to prove notability - because you pressed substantive coverage in it.
This has been done to death now and I suggest we wait for others to come in, now that it has been relisted again - and either agree with me or agree with you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take discussion of this specific citation-issue to Talk:Shazza McKenzie because it's detracting from the purpose of this thread. But it is in fact important whether or not it is included in the article because it's an example of significant coverage, which is obvious important to a deletion discussion thread. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm new here and this should be deleted because it's an ad! What she's done etc etc. Is this allowed? If it is I'm sorry - I didn't know Wikipedia allowed ads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're new and you should use four tildes to sign your posts. No - WP:PROMO prohibits advertising. It's an interesting observation the lack of content on her career aside from match result does in fact appear promotional. but I'll be neutral on this pending other input. Also I assume this is a Delete vote. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never heard of a tilde. Had to look it up and I can't find it on my keyboard. Yes this is a delete vote and thanks for helping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tilde is in the capitalised position to the left of the 1 key. I've added Delete to your first comment in this edit to help you. Addicted4517 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it! Cool! Thanks! 1.145.225.106 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fails general notability guideline. entire section in the article about her apperance in fiction. french article has no citations. ltbdl (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch☎✎ 04:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appearance in fiction and film contributes to her notability and is a reason for Wikipedia to have the article, to satisfy the curiosity of the viewer/reader who wants to know "Who was she?" "Was she fact or fiction?". PamD 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a badly worded deletion request, which makes it difficult to reply to. However even significant fictional characters can be notable. "The Accursed Kings" may not be well known in Britain, although the 1972 adaptation was shown on British television, but I believe it is well known in France. Whether the French Wikipedia version has citations is completely irrelevant, this version now has some. PatGallacher (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant aside - I loved watching this on tv in the early seventies and have not seen any mention of it anywhere for more than fifty years until reading this AfD. You’ve all made my day. Mccapra (talk) 07:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more irrelevant comment. The original series is being shown on French television at the moment. Athel cb (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: French article appears to be PROMO for the film listed, I think this was a translation of that effort. I don't see anything about this person not related to the film. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thierry Larchier d'Hirson. This article (Béatrice's uncle) already mentioned her, and the TV series, in which he also appears. I've added the cast info for Béatrice there, so no info or sources will be lost with the redirect. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 19:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 08:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article about the Autobiography of Britt Ekland, while she herself is clearly notable - her autobiography fails BOOKCRIT. Claim of being "best selling" is not held up. Contents of the article has no commentary on the book (sales figures, reviews etc) and just has a few quotes, with subjective inferences.
Current sources are the book itself and a broken link to blogspot. Only reviews I could find were on GoodReads and such (NYT review about different book - happens to mention title in headline - that took me a while to figure out).
The book may or may not be a valuable source for the Britt Ekland article, but doesn't warrant an article of its own. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. -- D'n'B-t -- 13:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Britt Ekland: It was verifiable that the book is on existence. I would say the best option is to redirect to the author since it's always with WP:PRESERVE and ATD. Yes! There is a problem of SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK, but that shouldn't be a "wake up call" to deletion. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 11:22, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Likewise the nominator, the author is a notable writer or in related field, and so, her book should be a redirect prior to what we see happens in such cases on Wikipedia. There could be in the future detailed reference to the book. So, redirecting to the main author is the 'perfect' way to justify this deletion discussion. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk! 08:37, 20 April 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) 18:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 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.
Mayors are not automatically notable under WP:NPOL. I could not find sufficient sources with significant coverage to demonstrate that this article meets the GNG. In the article, only the Brisbane Times may count – the rest are electoral results and a government (CCC) report that doesn't mention the subject. As part of WP:BEFORE, I found two articles [35] [36], neither of which constitutes SIGCOV of the subject. Toadspike (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to pass WP:SIGCOV based on the cited sources. I'd need to see a more convincing source analysis by the nominator to be convinced otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing this nomination after some time, I would like to thank Totallynotarandomalt69 for adding further good sources that provide significant coverage. This article now comes close to proving notability. However, per WP:GNG, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Recounting the sources, only ABC News and The Courier Mail clearly meet the GNG. I do not believe that the Brisbane Times article provides significant coverage (four sentences are about the subject herself, most of which is simply summarizing electoral results), and the government sources are not SIGCOV. Thus, I still believe the article should be deleted/redirected and will not withdraw my nomination, though I understand if editors disagree. Toadspike (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ipswich is not a large enough place to assume its mayors are notable, and I'm only seeing local coverage. SportingFlyerT·C 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we like in articles about a local officeholder is information that illustrates the impact of their tenure in office. What projects did they champion, what is their legacy. Size of city is not an important factor. Like the nominator, I do not see that significant sources exists. --Enos733 (talk) 03:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing to establish GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are pretty good and she's notable in her own right, 230k people definitely isn't an insignificant number. AmNowEurovision (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is precedence for mayors not holding enough political signifance in a 3 tier system of government, see https://w.wiki/9gw7 Teraplane (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Lacking significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 11:01, 20 April 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.
Regretfully I can't find any evidence she meets WP:GNG. There is no obituary of her death in 1969 or anything about her life except for the 1928 book that has her as president of a Burbank club (not notable enough for its own article), which was not a national position. —KaliforniykaHi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —KaliforniykaHi! 17:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I tried to find some references to establish notability but it came up blank. WCMemail 18:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing in Ebscohost search, nothing on Scholar, no indication that she ever did anything of any encyclopaedic interest or importance, just barely scrapes past WP:A7 as president of a women's club. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO in spades; no persistent coverage (main source from 1928; most recent source, 1970: a passing mention, inadequate for the paragraph it supposedly supports). More broadly fails GNG. No redirect to Woman's Club of Burbank is possible, and the umbrella page (unsurprisingly) mentions neither Burbank nor Marks. ——Serial Number 54129 17:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there are some naming issues which may make searching for content difficult on this person. When I searched for "Jane Brunson Marks" in neswpapers.com nothing came up, but when I looked for just "Jane Marks" thousands of articles popped up and I ultimately was able to find her obituary in the Los Angeles Times from searching under that name. I think it likely that there will be more sources under "Jane Marks" but it will be difficult to sort out her between the many other women of that name. I'm loathe to delete an article with a biographical entry in a reference work on American women. The 1928 source is a strong indicator of notability on its own. If we had just one more source of this type it would be a clear keep. Given the name search challenge, I prefer to err on the side of caution and keep the article.4meter4 (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, I found a reference speaking about her father in which his children with Effie Fox are "Jennie and Clair", so there may be sources where's she's referred to by the nickname Jennie. ForsythiaJo (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on refs added since my last post, I believe the article passes WP:SIGCOV now and have struck the "weak" part of my earlier vote.4meter4 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the strength of the recently-added references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 07:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from the "Women of the West" (an early who's-who) the other sources show (at best) that she existed. There's no plausible claim for notability. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Any more comments on the quality of additions since the article's nomination? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gbooks, Gnewspapers, or over at the Library of Congress newspaper archive. The book from 1928 is biographical, but I don't really see why she's notable for our purposes, active social life/helping others, but that's not quite enough for our notability guidelines. Oaktree b (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Appears to be an autobiography, and in a WP:BEFORE search the only secondary coverage I can find is what's cited here. The rest is primary sources and passing mentions. The only mention I can find of awards is on primary sources like her website, with no mention of her on the Emmys or AP websites. Wikishovel (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria 1 of WP:ANYBIO and criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST as the winner of a Rocky Mountain Emmy Award in 2007. The website archives are incomplete, going back only to 2011. She is widely cited though in RS as an Emmy winner in passing (for example https://www.local10.com/news/2014/01/10/teacher-charged-with-having-sex-with-student/ ) The off-hand mentions of awards from the associated press also occur. It would be career suicide to lie about that kind of thing for a journalist. So all and all, not seeing a good argument here for not passing the criteria for those WP:SNGs.4meter4 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: that article actually quotes an unrelated student named Claudia Rivero, and the Emmy winner is some other reporter. And I still can't find a secondary source about the reporter Claudia Rivero winning an Emmy. Wikishovel (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are able to locate a list of winners of the 2007 Rocky Mountain Emmy Awards (which should be feasible in off-line refs for sure) it should verify the win. She is on the nominees list https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/5970167/2007-rocky-mountain-emmyr-nominees but unfortunately this does not list the winners.4meter4 (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - if there is confusion about different people with the same/similar names then I'm thinking the sensible move is to draft until there is clarity who is who. JMWt (talk) 07:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 06:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable journalist; we only consider Regional Emmys notable with much more sourcing than what's here. This is simply a list of where the person has worked, nothing showing why they're notable. I can only find PR or primary sources. Oaktree b (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources listed here (one being a Who's Who) are not enough to establish the diverse coverage WP:GNG, and a quick search finds little on her. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:Keep There is no indication that the nominator has done WP:BEFORE before creating a deletion page [37]. He also lack the ability to understand about Indonesian subject and notability of sources used in the article as he did here in other nomination page that he created [38] [39]. Also there's another sources about the subject [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. 202.43.93.9 (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources in the article along with this and this should be enough for GNG. At the very least, it's very likely that there is SIGCOV in offline sources. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there appears to be SIGCOV of her in this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devi probably passes NACTOR as well. She starred in Senyum Nona Anna (coverage here), Papa, Mistery in Hongkong, Pulau Putri, Kenapa Kau Pergi and Jurus Maut. She also starred in Mei Lan, Aku Cinta Padamu, which according to this launched the career of Hendra Cipta. It's likely that these films have SIGCOV in offline sources. It's a shame that that's unverifiable though. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: An article about an Indonesian actress and model with unverifiable notability. On English wiki, every statement must be verifiable by at least a reliable source. Here, the films listed weren't sources and won't count to NACTOR. There has no been any recognition or I influence cited by peer for acting in Indonesia films; infact BEFORE have nothing except existence on books which still commutes non notability per SIGCOV. I won't rather vote for now since I am not used or neither speaks Indonesian language (there may be existing but I have clear doubts because the article I saw on ID Wikipedia cited no source.) This is not also a case of System bias, while I can't find maybe two successive citations to her impact in the 1990's or an interview in the 2000's on her role. On the other hand, I will say delete for now. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am of the opinion that nobody should strike comments from an AFD they initiated. Though it may seem clear-cut, the nominator should instead have a third party carry out the sockstrike. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:25, 22 April 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.
non-notable tag since 2012, most references are WP:PSTS or WP:SPS. May be in the news recently due to stepping down as CEO, but otherwise not notable. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 08:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No longer the head. Plus WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 16:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That she is no longer the head doesn't subtract any notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPROF is for highly prestigious academic institutions. I can not see CPR meeting that in WP:RS. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 15:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch☎✎ 16:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google News search whose timeframe ends before her recent resignation: [46]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of refs for this. Desertarun (talk) 15:43, 19 April 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.
Failed WP:NPOL, even WP:BASIC. No in-depth articles, she presents her point of view on national media every day. But this does not prove notability. Only one article is better from India Today. Rest of the news is also non reliable. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article. WP:NPOL isn't the only criteria, I have already told you on another article. She handily passes WP:BASIC of WP:BIO. The criteria needs multiple reliable independent secondary sources. In the absence of any source with in-depth coverage, the criteria also accepts combination of multiple sources with limited but not insignificant coverage.
In here, there is presence of multiple sources with decent in-depth coverage so even the supplementary point isn't needed. The main WP:GNG requirement itself is met. I had added four of them. Indian Express, The Wire, The Print and News Click.
But someone had changed the article completely and turned it into a resume kind of page. That someone had removed all these references and replaced it with an article in
India Today which was written by her and some other things like TedX and "enewsroom.com" but I have fixed it now. MrMkG (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That someone is User:Cikisshpedia who made an account just to do this, I don't know why. MrMkG (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has a good writing. It covered the cause of her notability for being "involved in social work and activism through 2014 to 2018, and eventually came to the limelight during the CAA-NRC protests". It just need a little bit of cleaning i guess. Hi Bree! (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (Removed per WP:SOCKSTRIKE)[reply]
Strong Delete part of an big sockpuppet campaign, and clearly fails WP:NPOL.
Delete fails WP:GNG and also fails WP:NPOL as there is no in depth coverage of her.Tame Rhino (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself have 33 edits, all of them in AfD. How does that happen?
There is in fact in-depth coverage of her. Maybe there is a "sockpuppet campaign" around this article but it shouldn't matter if she actually passes WP:GNG. They should just be kept away. MrMkG (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 01:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus/per the request on my Talk Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarMississippi 01:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not an expert in NPOL or NEWSORGINDIA but there does seem to be decent coverage of this person in RS. However, these are all from spring 2022 and WP:N requires sustained coverage. Perhaps @MrMkG could find coverage from other time periods? JoelleJay (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay Sure. Most of her coverage is in Bengali media and newspapers. Some recent ones are these. Sangbad Pratidin, News18 Bangla. MrMkG (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. Additional input regarding the sources presented herein would be beneficial toward establishing a solid, guideline- and policy-based consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Donating blood isn't notable, details on her husband aren't notable... I only see routine election coverage. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor that ran for public office, raised their vote count for the party, but no coverage beyond that. Coverage of political candidates is usually done to keep the public informed, but doesn't help here if they are no different than any other of the hundreds of candidates each year around the world. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did you read? She isn't a doctor who donated blood.
Please explain to me, how full length profiles as articles can be called routine coverage? The hundreds of politicians or candidates don't get that. MrMkG (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 in the article. Please review again. Full-length articles are significant, but she's only known for being a candidate, which isn't what's needed here for notability. Extensive coverage of a non-notable person doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a post-poll coverage of her, this can't be an informational bit on candidate for voters to consider for an upcoming election, can it? Unless you say this is also to "keep the public informed" then any coverage of anything is to keep the public informed and no politician can be notable if they don't have a legislative office but the guidelines don't say that. Here is another source, not in the context of any particular election. It talks about her impact in relation to the sitting CM from the rival party. Is this also routine coverage? If so what isn't routine coverage? MrMkG (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, but she's only known for being a political candidate, that's not notable here. Unless she wins a seat in the legislature, I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that means she passes the criteria then. Politicians can be notable according to the criteria even if they don't have a seat.
It is also less so that she is known for being a candidate but that she is a known politician, being candidates in elections is just what they do and what gets discussed a lot. MrMkG (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: