Points of interest related to Women on Wikipedia: Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive 3

Tya Jané Ramey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just another run of the mill model with scant general notability and nothing that I can see that satisfies WP:ENT Blanes tree (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Trinidad and Tobago. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Ada Eme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I'm surprised this article made it through the draft review process, given that the subject has zero press coverage outside a few paid Nigerian blogs and the accolade "Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria" doesn't seem like a particularly notable award. On the contrary it sounds quite sexist. Blanes tree (talk) 12:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria is clearly a notable award, sexist maybe, but surely no more or less than any other national beauty pagent. But WP:NMODEL isn't met with just one notable award, so WP:SIGCOV must be met. Vanguard can be considered marginally reliable when, as in this case, the article is not explicity paid content. Curiously, I couldn't find a previous discussion on von.gov.ng or RadioNigeria but maybe them being state outlets count for something? Even then the articles are pretty short, bordering on routine. So I am on the fence here. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

McCall Salmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks the needed reliable coverage from independent sources to meet the WP:GNG as a BLP. The sources currently in the article are either school websites or student newspapers, neither of which are independent. A check for coverage elsewhere didn't reveal anything more. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Softball, and Michigan. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: no independent sources and none found online '''User:CanonNi''' (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Shirin Towfigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly promotional article which doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:NPROF. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Medicine, and United States of America. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete. Purely promotional. Not notable – fails WP:NPROF. Ira Leviton (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Domonique Ramirez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP1E applies here, as there is no coverage present for this subject outside of a brief and non-significant controversy from a minor beauty pageant. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Texas. Let'srun (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Elsie M. Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but 1 and 9 appear to be about her husband, 2 is a paid family death notice, 3-8 are neither independent nor reliably published, and 10 appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Ashley Harder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

By longstanding consensus, a state beauty title (in this case Miss New Jersey) isn't notable in itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. Not notable at this time. Her win is a one time event, of local significance. Not enough significant coverage for a Wikipedia article. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Feminist Majority Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not much claim to notability besides helping publish a notable magazine, Ms.. Article credits FMF with helping get several pieces of notable legislation passed, but does not cite a source proving that they played a large role in passing that legislation. I can't really find any in-depth coverage on Google, and the pre-internet coverage cited on the page isn't very convincing. An editor removed my PROD on this page on the basis that they found two new sources on Newspapers.com; however, one of those sources is a profile of Mavis Leno that simply mentions FMF in passing, while the other is about women's groups more broadly, only briefly mentioning FMF in a paragraph about its president, Eleanor Smeal. The editor who removed the PROD suggested a redirect to the magazine's page, which I wouldn't be mad about, but I think Smeal's page would be a better redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Politics, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep or merge. There is definitely some notability here although it might or might not be enough for an article. The Google Scholar search turns up two papers with the name of the organisation in the actual title: 3 and 4 in two different publications. One is unrelated to the magazine, which seems to point away from that as a merge target. There is also some Google News coverage but a lot of it is passing mentions. Here is some coverage of a lawsuit they brought 5 and 6. Is it enough for a keep? I'm not sure, but it's definitely close enough not to be a delete and probably also not a redirect, at least not without merging some of the content. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep I found further peer reviewed materials: "Unequal Virtual Terrains: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)" "RAWA was briefly allied with the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) when this United States (US)-based organisation also made theplight of women in Afghanistan a priority. However, disagreements between the two organisations soon came to light. This article examines the experiences of RAWA's interactions with FMF using Appadurai’s imaginary landscapes as a theoretical basis." South Asian Survey 20(1), 2013 pp 6-21. "Amplifying Our Voices: Feminist Scholars Writing for the Public" Feminist Formations, 32(2), 2020, pp. 29-51. "Expecting the unexpected. Non-profit women’s organizations’ media responses to anti-abortion terrorism" Journal of communication management, 17(1), 2013, pp.341-363. WP:NEXIST, passes the WP:GNG. Merge with Ms. would be inappropriate; depsite the present relationship both have quite distinct histories. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Jovanna Huguet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. No evidence of multiple significant roles. Her TV career is made up of small appearances. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. She lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. All of her roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Alyy Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth.
But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all.
Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This 7 is a student newspaper and this is primary 8. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Mélanie Charles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. No third party sources. A google news search comes up with a namesake jazz musician who seems more notable. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Handball, France, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete: Not notable. Apart from already cited article, nothing comes up. Changeworld1984 (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. There is only one source listed in the article, and I couldn’t find any others. If you manage to do this, please ping me. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. I agree with the above. Bduke (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete I per nom, above. I couldn't find a sinlge article even mentioning her via a Newsbank database search. Fails GNG. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Didem (belly dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails wp:np, sources are scarce, and I believe it should be deleted. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dance, Fashion, Romania, and Turkey. فيصل (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep: Seems to have been talked about 9 10 and has influenced others 11 Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep Per @Oaktree b. She has significant, regular coverage in the mainstream Turkish news media, spanning a large period. Also adding another reliable source.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Christine Axsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Textbook WP:BIO1E. Was in the news for one blog post that got her fired in 2006. No notability as defined in WP:BIO, such as WP:SUSTAINED otherwise. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: per nom. Meets all three criteria of WP:BLP1E. Barely scrapes by GNG either way. C F A 💬 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete based on WP:BIO1E. Axsmith's notability stems from a single incident: her firing following a 2006 blog post. There has yet to be the kind of steady coverage that shows a broader notability. There are also no writings or citations related to her work. Thus, the article does not meet WP:BIO. The lack of sustained coverage or impact in her field supports the case for deletion. It's crucial to remember that this platform's content focuses on subjects that have lasting significance.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: Seems to be a writer for Daily Kos now, but that's not terribly notable. The firing got into the news cycle almost 20 yrs ago, but nothing since. I don't see sustained notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: Agree that this is a case of WP:BIO1E due to a lack of sustained coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete The article doesn't have enough coverage from independent, reliable sources to show she's notable. The current information is too sparse to meet WP:N. Yakov-kobi (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Hiba Farès (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

non notable, written by an undisclosed paid editor, sources are terrible Polygnotus (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Lebanon, and France. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete some coverage in regards to the RATP in Paris in railway journals 12, but nothing for extensive sourcing.French wiki article is also up for deletion for notability reasons, it appears to be a translation using the same sources as here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Delete. Agreed. Axad12 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete Article is promotional in tone and reads like a resume. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Redirect to RATP Group#Presidents. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Was kinda planning to remove that section and move em to the infobox. Polygnotus (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Antonina Liedtke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

She is an author of a sole short story; that story is notable (see pl:CyberJoly Drim which I just expanded; it won awards in Poland and was subject to literary criticism) - but she herself has not done anything else to merit a stand-alone article in an encyclopedia. This article should redirect to her short story article, once it is created on en wiki, per WP:NOTINHERITED, for now it could be soft-deleted by redirecting to the page about most notable award that her story got (Janusz A. Zajdel Award per WP:ATD-R. I'll add I've done extensive BEFORE while expanding article about her story on pl wiki and I cannot find anything that discusses her outside the analysis of her short story; the few biographical information we have about her come from a short bio note on a page of a publishing company she works or worked for at some point. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science fiction and fantasy, and Poland. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Comment - note that, as WP:NOTINHERITED itself points out, the "not inherited" principle explicitly does not apply to the relationship between aurhors and their works. For more on this, see WP:NAUTHOR. Newimpartial (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete: Gbooks has some coverage 13, but most are just names in what appear to be a directory... I don't find enough coverage to write an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep until the article on her story exists in en.wiki, then redirect to that article. While the story's article does not exist, our encyclopedia is the better for having this article on a notable story's author. A reader interested in winners of the Janusz A. Zajdel Award should be offered one blue link for "1999, short story* rather than two red links. PamD 08:08, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  @PamD Template ill does the job well - one red, one blue: CyberJoly Drim pl _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I don't see any reason to delete the article. Yes, she is an author known only for one story. Nevertheless, she received three awards for this story, and the story itself (published in 1999) is still the subject of critical and literary analysis (see pl:CyberJoly Drim). Redirecting to Janusz A. Zajdel Award is a bad idea - the article about the award contains no information about the author, except that she received the award. --Teukros (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply

If her short story is notable, but she isn't. It is best to have an article on her short story with a section on the author. Even if she wrote one book, it could be enough to make her notable. What the editors need to show is that she is notable enough with reliable sources. The awards are a good direction. I will oppose deletion if the result is to redirect to the award. In favour of a joint article on her short story and the author. O.maximov (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Lisa-Anne Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Redirect to Shooting at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's trap: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources are all primary and a cursory search didn't reveal anything better. Let'srun (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Redirect to Shooting at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's trap#Qualification round. I found no evidence of passage WP:GNG. Tau Corvi (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Fiona Krautil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Lynn Carey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Follow-up from this AfD. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, and struggling to find any sources to support existing information in article. Mdann52 (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and California. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: This is all I could find 14, brief mention. Just not enough coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• I'm uncommitted as of yet, but this is a possible merge target for Neil Merryweather (since she was the lead singer of his band Mama Lion, and I expect Merryweather's article to survive vetting here). She may also meet WP:NACTOR if not WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Comment I don't have paid access to newspapers dot com right now (money is tight) but there seems to be a good amount of non-trivial coverage for her on there. "Lynn Carey" singer and "Lynn Carey" actress are the best search terms, it seems. If someone who has access could clip some of those and add them, I think there would be a good case of her meeting the GNG at least for news coverage. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete Another BLP page entirely made from somebody's recollections and album covers. No reliable sources at all. My reasonable BEFORE is unsuccessful. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Keep based on abundant RS presented by User:GoldenAgeFan1. Given the current largely unsourced state of this page, it would be good if some of these sources could be used to back assertions made to date. BusterD (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep I looked around other newspaper databases since it doesn't look like anyone is going to look for newspapers dot com articles as I requested and found several articles relating to Carey. I don't know how long the genealogybank links will last since I don't think they have permanent link sharing. Another note: I don't see why people expect to easily find sourcing for people that had a certain degree of fame that predated the internet by quite a number of years (decades in Carey's case). However, I think these articles display that she was once indeed notable, and that's all that is required to have article. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 23:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Some of these bare mentions but the first two clearly meet independent, diverse, and direct detailing by RS. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep per GoldenAgeFan's findings, which are worthy of the old Article Rescue Service. If you've time, could you take a look at the related deletions for Neil Merryweather and Mama Lion as well? I thought Carey's article was the least likely to survive, but with this much coverage, there might be a good case for keeping all three (and for a whole bunch of trouts to be served to overeager deletionists). Chubbles (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete does not seem to be an encyclopedia page candidate based on sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This debate has recently trended towards 'keep' somewhat, but relisting to allow further analysis of GoldenAgeFan1's sources and additional input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Ella Baff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing that would qualify under the general notability guideline. Lots of problems with inadequate sourcing and WP:NOR. GuardianH (talk) 07:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep: Meets notability requirements including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:Basic per available sources 151617181920 Ednabrenze (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep Has a lot of sources, and 3 or 4 of those sources passes the WP:DEPTH requirement, seems pretty notable if you ask me.

Ferdinand Marcos's dead (and weird) soul (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Arts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: A program officer for arts and culture is simply an office job inside the foundation, nothing notable that gets you an article. Sourcing is a mix of PR items and confirmation of appointments to various positions, none of which are notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  She is better known for her work as the executive and artistic director of the Jacob's Pillow dance festival, than for what she did while working at the Mellon Foundation. I am adding in details now. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  @Oaktree b - I invite you to re-consider the article now that I have made multiple additions and shifted the focus to make it clear that her primary impact is at Jacob's Pillow DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Comment: New sources are more about Jacob's Pillow, not about this person. Not really helping prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Comment: For others to consider, I think the top three sources about Baff are these (selected because of the extended coverage that spans multiple years):¹²³. I further think that she meets WP:CREATIVE for her work with Jacob's Pillow (criteria #4, which in part says "The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention ..." That being said. I look forward to hearing what others think. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:11, 13 July 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) 08:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Niharika Lyra Dutt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Notability issue Thewikizoomer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, Television, Theatre, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Strong Keep: I do not really see any notability issues here. The subject person has officially credited lead roles in TV series like Paatal Lok21, Choona22, and an upcoming series Call Me Bae23, as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher24 and Sutliyan25, which clearly fulfills the NACTOR#1. Besides, The Hindustan Times interview, as well as sources from Times of India, Indian Express, and Yahoo! News that are currently cited in the article have also clearly demonstrated that the subject person has fulfilled GNG. It does not even require a BEFORE, as the information presented in the article is already sufficient to show that the subject person has fulfilled two notability guidelines. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Strong delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48JCL 16:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• NACTOR has clearly been fulfilled but not addressed. And yes, a single interview source itself does not establish notability. But if there are multiple interviews covering a breadth of different topics, this can count towards notability per WP:IV. I am not sure about Times of India, but even if it is excluded, there are still multiple interviews from The Hindustan Times, The Indian Express, or Mid-Day26, which have fulfilled this requirement imo. Still an obvious keep to me. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  • Comment— I agree wholeheartedly with Prince of Erebor. These are absolutely reliable sources. She is a main cast member in the television show mentioned in the article.

  9t5 (talk) 04:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Comment -- She is 'way down the cast list (not in the top 6 actors listed) in either Paatal Lok or Choona, or in the streaming/web projects, so not an obviously notable career on the face of it. I am not sure whether any of the articles cited are really WP:RSs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• The sources I provided show that she is credited as main cast, and they are from The Indian Express, The Hindu, and Variety. I do not believe these three sources have any concerns regarding their reliability. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Comment — The subject is clearly a member of the main cast. If you want to argue that a recurring or guest appearance isn’t notable, that’s understandable. However, this actress is a main cast member. The article needs strengthening not deletion.

9t5 (talk) 23:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Ssilvers, I've done a source assessment. — 48JCL 23:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete Weak Keep - (switch to weak keep: after having reevaluated 48JCL‘s arguments) // (switch to delete: I stand by my views on policy & notability, but this specific article is progressively unearthing problems. Extremely irked by the sock puppet attempt, and that paired with Ssilvers’s comments have me feeling uncomfortable with leaving a keep on this AfD. So I am switching to Delete) — I (still) strongly disagree with 48JCL. If someone is interviewed by the New York Times, that would make a person mighty notable. You cannot say “interviews don’t prove notability” when that is plainly untrue.

9t5 (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Comment, @9t5, they were not interviewed by the New York Times.
1 -- From WP:TOI: "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It has a bias in favor of the Indian government and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage." Seeing how promotional the article is, I think it is fair to say that this does not help establish notability.
2 -- From WP:IV#Independence: "Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source." This is basically what the Hindustan Times article discusses. It is fine for a WP:BLP (I think) but It does not establish notability.
3 -- Another interview.
4 -- IMDb, not reliable. Per WP:IMDb
5 -- Another interview.
6 -- Another interview.
7 -- Passing mention.
8 -- Passing mention. — 48JCL 23:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Comment— so you’re saying if it were the NYT then interviews can count? You wrote, and I quote, “interviews do not help establish notability.” It seems that you made a wildly incorrect assertion as justification for your delete vote. Have you done the proper research into the Indian outlet to determine that it is not reliable?

9t5 (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

48JCL Then tag the article with {{verify}}? This is a ridiculous use of AfD. 9t5 (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• I still do not see any address on NACTOR. The subject person has at least three officially credited main roles. GNG does not override SNG. They are companion guidelines, and fulfilling either one is already sufficient in the first place.

I am also unclear on the purpose of your source analysis. I have already analysed them when I cast my !vote and explained why I believe the interviews can serve as evidence of notability per WP:IV. Besides, you have misidentified sources 7 and 8. They are clearly proving the subject person's involvement in certain projects, and are being used to flesh out the article, not to demonstrate SIGCOV on the subject person, just like the five sources I provided in this discussion. I believe I have made a strong case for why this is an obvious keep, and I have not seen any rebuttals directed to my arguments at all, despite the various comments. (Probably because it is inarguable that the subject person has significant roles, given their numerous credited main parts.) —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• And I think 9t5 was raising a hypothetical question, asking what if someone has been interviewed by a reputable source, instead of claiming that the subject person has been interviewed by the NYT. I do not fully agree with this, given that interviews are generally regarded as PS and do not necessarily count towards notability on their own. However, if a person has been interviewed by multiple reputable media outlets like NYT+WSJ+WaPo, this could serve as evidence of notability, and I think this makes sense. You may go ahead and argue that WP:IV is an essay or whatnot, but I doubt that would be a strong and well-reasoned position. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 05:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Prince of Erebor I simply interpret policies a lot more leniently than 48JCL, and am allowed to do so as per WP:5P5. I have been involved in debate with 48JCL before. We are a pretty equal match. Just two different points of view. I respect their dedication to the project. 9t5 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  9t5 and Prince of Erebor, I completely agree that WP:IV makes sense. However, from WP:IV: but a person does not pass GNG if interviews are the only kind of sourcing they have. Also, Prince of Erebor, those sources you provided are passing mentions and do not count towards notability. — 48JCL 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• @48JCL: I have already mentioned three times in this discussion - the sources I provided are to prove that the subject person has officially credited main/supporting roles in the respective projects, instead of providing SIGCOV about the person. The five roles I have listed already showed that the subject person has fulfilled NACTOR#1, and a Keep is the only reasonable conclusion. The interviews are only additional evidence of notability, since I have noticed many Wikipedians often bring up "coverage" in cases where the subject person has already fulfilled SNG, and this part is to satisfy their concerns. I still do not see any rebuttals on why the subject person fails NACTOR in your multiple replies, and the fact that you now agree the interviews can count towards notability even makes this case not borderline, but a strong Keep. Are you sure you do not want to change your stance, given that your arguments seem to be quite affirmative to a keep rather than a delete? —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 12:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep It not be deleted. Wikicontriiiiibute (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)User Blockedreply

You have a bizarre contribution history. Typical of a sock puppet. WP:SOCK 9t5 (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

@Wikicontriiiiibute —- to the closing editor, this account is likely best kept unconsidered. The user has a very short and very opinionated history of solely AfD discussions. 🂡🂡9t5 05:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete. I'm going to say "Delete" for now, per WP:NOTYET and because of the mischaracterization of the roles this person has played as "3 main roles". They are supporting roles, but not within the first half dozen roles listed in the cast lists. It is very suspicious that this person has not received substantial press other than interviews. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
  • This is simply original research and IDONTLIKEIT to determine an actor's role by subjective assessment. Based on both the official billings and the sources, the subject person was listed among the main cast of Choona (27282930) and Paatal Lok (31323334), as well as part of the ensemble cast with a credit of "Also Featuring" in Call Me Bae (353637). Large productions can have a large main cast. For instance, a season of The Boys can have a total of 16 actors in main roles, while A Murder at the End of the World has a total of 13 actors in main roles. The main roles are officially credited, and their position in the billing does not matter at all. A main role will not be diminished to a recurring or supporting role simply because the actor is not credited front enough.

Her role in Sutliyan was also referred as "principal cast" by Scroll.in,38 and mentioned in multiple reviews,3940 which I do not think this is what a minor and non-notable role would be like. With at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, I still do not see how the subject person fails NACTOR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

You are not being persuasive, because you are just throwing in a lot of refs that merely list the cast, and because you are being emotional. Instead, if you cite a review or other independent article (not an interview of someone connected to the production) for each role that *states* why it is one of the most important roles in the work, or that *describes* the role's its importance to the plot arc, I will review them and see if they persuade me. Above you mention Sutliyan, but this is not even mentioned in the article. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, add all the relevant information and cites to the article that you want to discuss, instead of WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion. Then you can make a more persuasive point. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Ssilvers, why would I be emotional? I always make lengthy comments on AFD, and I normally do not expand an article with the sources and information I present before the article is kept, or else that would just be a waste of my time. If you are complaining about TLDR, here is a shortened version:

The subject person's main roles are officially credited in the billings and supported by numerous sources. Three sources per WP:THREE, and the fourth sources are related to the billings, like the official website of Netflix or credits listed at Screen Rant, so I believe this is the perfect amount of evidence I should provide. But for the sake of discussion, I would simply quote all the first sources:

For Choona, Created by Pushpendra Nath, the main cast includes: Jimmy Shergill as Avinash Shukla, Minister of Urban Development ... Gyanendra Tripathi as Baankey and Niharika Lyra Dutt as Jhumpa, among others.

For Pataal Lok, Amazon Prime Video recently dropped the Anushka Sharma-bankrolled series, Paatal Lok, which stars Jaideep Ahlawat, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Neeraj Kabi and Gul Panag in the leading roles.

For Call Me Bae, The eight-part series, also featuring Vir Das, Gurfateh Pirzada, Varun Sood, Vihaan Samat, Muskkaan Jaferi, Niharika Lyra Dutt, Lisa Mishra, and Mini Mathur, will premiere on September 6.

For Sutliyan, The principal cast, which includes Niharika Lyra Dutt as the object of Raman’s affection, is uniformly compelling.

There is nothing for me to describe or persuade, as a credited main role would not be diminished simply because of subjective disagreements. If someone comment on why they consider it is main or it is supporting, this is called original research. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note to closer: Perhaps I made too many comments and my argument has been messy to follow. So for the benefit of reviewing, I will make a summary: I think the subject person passes both NACTOR and GNG. For NACTOR, she has at least 3 officially credited main roles and 1 significant supporting role, supported by billings and sources, which is a clear fulfillment of NACTOR#1. For GNG, she has a certain extent of secondary source coverage, such as from Times of India41 or Tellychakkar4243, albeit not the best sources. However, this can be compensated with numerous interviews from reputable media outlets per WP:IV, including The Hindustan Times44, Indian Express45, Mid-Day46, Yahoo! News47, Sakshi48, etc. Therefore, by combining both primary and secondary sources covering the subject person, it clearly demonstrates enough notability to pass GNG. Fulfilling two notability guidelines is a strong keep to me, and I have reservations about the opposing !votes in this discussion, as they do not seem to be based on P&G. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete: Sources i find are interviews 49and 50. Source 2 is also an interview in prose form. Rest of the sourcing in the article is about other projects, not about this person. We don't have articles about her that aren't primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Shabana Shajahan Aryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep: 2 lead roles In notable series have her clearly meet WP:NACTOR. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep: I concur with Mushy Yank. At least two co-leading roles in the television series Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Fulfills NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Dokibird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Entertainment, and Internet. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Rewrite to remove all references to her previous identity as Selen. Otherwise, redirect to Nijisanji. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 04:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Why remove the previous identity User:Hansen Sebastian, I don't see any BLP or privacy issues. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• If you found two other reliable sources, User:ArcticSeeress , for different events, and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply? I feel I'm missing something. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  If you found two other reliable sources - Maybe I should have worded my opening statement better. I only found one reliable source (Siliconera) that talks about the subject beyond the single event, per WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability".

  and this "event" has significant international coverage (has anyone checked in other languages?) in major publications, such as in India, then surely GNG applies, and WP:1E doesn't apply - I'm not sure I understand this. WP:1E makes no reference to the geographic breadth of the sources. The coverage being international does not change the fact that most of it is about a single event. Also, I could not find sources in any other languages; sources generally also have the original word in Latin writing, so I'm certain you could find them pretty easily by searching "Dokibird". ArcticSeeress (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Ginny Holder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable actress, Bar Holby City her roles have all been one-bit/minor roles, Cannot find anything in-depth on Google News (all are gossip/mentions), Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep In addition to her recurring role in Holby City, she also made recurring appearances in Death in Paradise (TV series) (this is not cited in the article, but see this source, for instance). Thus, because she has had significant roles in these two series, she satisfies the criteria of WP:ENT. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete: Probably not enough coverage... I find this 51 and a bunch of articles in Hello! about celebrity gossip, but nothing to use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR indeed, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, as Gödel2200 explained.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update: at least 3 (see page).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) Update; 6 (PLEASE see 1st Afd, where other productions and sources are mentioned...and that was closed as a clear and fair Keep)....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete This is a tough one because while she does have a fair amount of credits, she herself has no significant third-party coverage despite being in the business for three decades, which is evident by her article having no content since the beginning, literally consisting of two sentences and a filmography. She is merely a byproduct in content focusing on Death in Paradise, and "meet the cast"–type articles do not meet SIGCOV. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Added a few things to the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep: I disagree with Casualty's statement, which seems to have mixed up GNG and SNG. The subject person has officially credited main roles in the television series Death in Paradise and The Capture, as well as a recurring role in Holby City which earned her a nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. This means the subject person has at least three significant roles in notable projects, which clearly fulfills NACTOR#1 and should be kept. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep, as she had recurring roles in multiple shows — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterencio (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement on whether the subject passes or fails NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep and improve the article, specifically with regard to her nomination for Female Performance in TV at the Screen Nation Film and Television Awards. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Thelma Rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply

  Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 July 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) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini