WIKIPEDIA:DS WOMEN

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Sue Robbie

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

Does not contain any reliable, verifiable references and no other sources can be found through a web search, adherence to WP:ENTERTAINER is dubious; limited evidence of significant coverage in multiple notable productions. Redtree21 ( talk) 06:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. Redtree21 ( talk) 06:35, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete lots of images of her, not much sigcov in RS Traumnovelle ( talk) 08:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Penny Pax

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

Fails GNG and does not approach ENT. The sources provided are basically just awards noise that doesn’t count for anything and there was nothing for google news except some non-GNG counting tabloid fodder suggesting she was paid for sex by a disgraced executive. This was prodded years ago before our standards hardened but this isn’t at the current sourcing expectations Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Page Six and Daily Star articles, which aren't a RS, are all I can pull up. Lack of sourcing for this individual. The AVN and Xbiz articles are just lists of winners. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 07:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). Fine. But this actress, having received various awards that still have a page on this Wikipedia (so far, until the cancellation of PORNBIO is cancelled or extended further to the awards themselves, maybe), the page about the recipients might be redirected to the most notable they received. Here obviously, the AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress (mentioned in the lead section). So I !vote for a redirect to AVN_Award_for_Best_Actress#2015–2019, where she is obviously listed. If my !vote is commented with "Oh, but we can't really decide to redirect her article to that page, because she has received various other notable awards that also have a page", I won't reply (but I will smile :D).- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ella Baff

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ella Baff

(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 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 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

Janneke Parrish

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO; at best WP:BIO1E. Also unambiguous WP:COI as page created and curated by the subject. Page was previously subject of PROD and deleted. Note my recent PROD tag was (appropriately) declined by Primefac: "cannot be nominated under PROD because of the previous AFD, and cannot be nominated under WP:G4 because it is significantly different than the original". Cabrils ( talk) 23:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Covered in the Guardian [7] and the NY Times [8]. With the rest of the coverage for this activist, it should be fine for GNG Oaktree b ( talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Pennsylvania. Shellwood ( talk) 23:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: and [9] and some textbooks talking about her in the last few years, showing sustained coverage [10] and [11]. Her situation at work is discussed here [12]. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or redirect to AppleToo. The serious WP:COI with the creator is an issue, but not the primary one. Per nom, Parrish is notable for one event: being fired from Apple as it relates to #AppleToo. 99.99999% of sources are specifically about AppleToo: nearly all about her firing. The sources Oaktree b shares are the same topic, sustained or otherwise. The very first article about #AppleToo was in Vice, some weeks later The Guardian covered it, and of the hundreds of results during the first month, there is nothing about Parrish. Her first mention is in The New York Times about the recording that was leaked and #AppleToo. For the following month Business Insider & Vox. That's 3 sources for #AppleToo as a standalone event—and BI is derivative of NYT.

Only 5 sources out of all of the sources about her are not related to her being fired. Only 2 of those are not related to #AppleToo. There's no case for WP:BLP2E here. Say ocean again ( talk) 07:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Additional comment: I weigh events individually to determine notability. The Information and Stat News do not meet WP:EVENTCRIT. (I can only read the first few paragraphs from The Information, but the title also says it's about her firing, so it is, by extension, related to the same event.) The time span between them is only a month and there's no lasting impact or sustained coverage of the event. ... viral phenomena – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable. It's a bit misleading to say there are multiple sources from before #AppleToo, when there is only one: The Austin American-Statesman. She was not elected and it was local election so it fails WP:NPOL (not widely or significantly covered, either). The notable event is #AppleToo. WP:BIO1E says: In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. Without Parrish's firing, there are only two intellectually independent sources. Vox and NYT. Coverage about her role in #AppleToo begins on the day she was fired from The Verge (Oct. 15, 2021: 3 months after #AppleToo began). Her role is described in a variety of sources as being one of the people who shared and posted the stories beginning in September: Parrish and Cher Scarlett, an Apple software engineer, then began sharing these stories on Medium. In Business Journals she describes analyzing the data. I went in and read every single employee story so that we could put together statistics on what they were about. Wired describes her as a founder of Apple Together, but there's nothing beyond this mention. WP:WEIGHT is a significant factor here for all of this, especially it is a WP:AUTOBIO. The firing is what is persistent here in the context of #AppleToo, so the question remains if her firing is a standalone event from #AppleToo, which would be the single qualifier for an article about her.

Separate comment: I don't think the Kara Alaimo source can be used. The author writes Parrish started #AppleToo. That seems false based on the sources (especially after having read them chronologically). While some later sources describe Parrish as a co-founder, none of the early ones do. They describe her as a leader for her role in sharing the stories on Medium. The Vice source says a pseudonymous Apple service provider "Fudge" co-founded the group and the vast majority say the founders were Scarlett and a group of anonymous 15 employees in Fudge's Discord server. This is part of the reason why I consider narrative to be a primary source, even if it's in a book. I am more wary of it with Parrish given that this is the second autobiography from her. Say ocean again ( talk) 15:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Agree with Oaktree b above. Looking closer, multiple sources providing in-depth WP:SIGCOV into her specifically ( 1, 2). Additional sources from before #AppleToo, such as 3. In regards to WP:BLP1E, I would say she does not meet condition #3: the event in question (#AppleToo) is very significant and Parrish's role in it was both substantial and well documented. CaptainAngus ( talk) 11:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. While there is coverage of her being fired from Apple, there is also ample coverage on her activism in the area. Hence, the firing is just one aspect of her coverage and is not a single event. The sources noted by CaptainAngus and Oaktree b are examples of significant coverage. In addition, and unrelated to her work at Apple, Parrish has received significant coverage about her experiences with health professionals when she had a miscarriage and how changes in US regulations about abortion will impact women seeking medical care in the United States, see stories here: [ [13]] [14]. DaffodilOcean ( talk) 12:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Favour Eucharia Ngozi Ugwuanyi

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

BLP of an educational administrator whom I don’t believe is notable. Article sourced to PR announcements and affiliated sources. Mccapra ( talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Education, and Nigeria. Mccapra ( talk) 19:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Nothing to establish notability here, not presumptively either. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 19:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jite Agbro

AfDs for this article:

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

Main reason is that the subject fails all 4 criteria of WP:ARTIST and the article reads like a Vanity page with the addition of the website and specific details such as "Agbro focuses on non-verbal communication and the idea that everyone presents themselves within a system" which is taken from non-independent/bias non-reliable references (museum which exposed the work of the subject). The subject fails WP:NBIO with lacking significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Lekkha Moun ( talk) 14:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Nigeria, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: The “Selected exhibitions” section clearly helps understand how this pass NCREATIVE 4b. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - It is TOOSOON for this artist to have an encyclopedia article because they do not yet have the professional track record of reviews, articles about their work, chapters in art history books, museum or national gallery collections, etc. that is required. The work is beautiful however all of the exhibitions are at non-notable venues, except the Bainbridge Island Museum, which is a small regional museum. Fails both GNG and NARTIST, and does not meet NCREATIVE 4b criteria at this time; perhaps in a few more years after more critical attention is received. A "significant exhibition" would be at a venue like the Venice Bienniale, Whitney Biennial, Documenta, the Carnegie International. In the previous deletion discussion, WomenArtistUpdates provided an excellent source assessment summary table why this does not meet GNG. It does not seem like much changed in the article since then other than formatting. Netherzone ( talk) 21:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone ( talk) 21:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. Nice stuff but WP:TOOSOON. See source assessment table created July 1 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jite Agbro. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:53, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Niharika Lyra Dutt

AfDs for this article:

(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 Lok [15], Choona [16], and an upcoming series Call Me Bae [17], as well as supporting roles in projects like Music Teacher [18] and Sutliyan [19], 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
Delete, interviews do not help establish notability. Also, Times of India is not suitable for a biography. — 48 JCL 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-Day [20], 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 -- 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

Jennifer Obaseki

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

Article on non notable lawyer who has received neither significant nor trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All of the 20 sources cited are primary sources and are unreliable. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze ( talk) 07:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 12:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

(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

Yasmin Nair

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability standards Floralbergamot ( talk) 20:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would like to add that the subject has received virtually no coverage in reliable sources. Based on the contents of the article, such as using the subject's personal website as a source numerous times and directing the reader to articles archived on the subject's personal website, it was possibly created as a result of self-promotion. Floralbergamot ( talk) 20:39, 10 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 India. Shellwood ( talk) 21:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Not quite notable activist, coverage is mostly in articles she's written, or stuff about spats she's having with one person or another... [21]. I don't see notability with a lack of sourcing as well. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jacqueline Lovell

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

No significant coverage found. She had three supporting roles in Full Moon Features films that have articles, but that does not seem to be enough - especially with no significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 19:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and California. SL93 ( talk) 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The exact guideline says "Such a person may be considered notable if:", not that they are automatically notable. SL93 ( talk) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And she is not automatically notable from three roles in three films when none of the roles received significant coverage. SL93 ( talk) 20:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

But do you allow me to think she is and to !vote according to the applicable guideline? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, but do you allow me to voice my thoughts because AfD is not merely just a vote? SL93 ( talk) 20:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think your thoughts were pretty clear in your rationale, but feel free, of course. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete While she does meet WP:NACTOR, I cannot find a single source mentioning her other than movie databases, so she does not pass WP:GNG. Gödel2200 ( talk) 20:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Added some sources. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources are either not independent (words from co-star, an interview) and trivial coverage. One of the sources says, "This film (along with the aforementioned Hideous!) stars the beautiful Jacqueline Lovell, whose career came to screeching halt shortly after this film." Not only is a sentence not significant coverage but I would say that her career coming to a screeching halt shortly after a B-film speaks towards non-notability. SL93 ( talk) 21:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
In less than 2 minutes, you've read all the sources added? Wow, I confess I am impressed. Anyway, begging to differ; even if her career as a b-movie star stopped it's sufficiently notable; and anyway again, I've added even more, and more exists, not that it is necessary imv. I disagree with almost everything you said but will leave it at that, thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why would I need to read the full sources when I just need to use CTRl+F to search for "Jacqueline Lovell"? Why would I need to read full sources to know that something is an interview? Same with knowing that something is just a film database like IMDb and TV.com? SL93 ( talk) 21:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The sources added (by the time of your first reply to me, I will check the new sources now) do not constitute significant coverage. Here is an analysis of them:

[22] Only two passing mentions
[23] This is unreliable per WP:IMDB
[24] This is an interview, so it is not independent
[25] This is a movie summary, and only makes three passing mentions of her
[26] Only one passing mention
[27] Only one passing mention
[28] Only one passing mention
[29] This is a movie, which is not independent of the subject
[30] Only two passing mentions
[31] Again, this is a list of movies, so not significant coverage
[32] This is another movie, which is not independent of the subject

Gödel2200 ( talk) 21:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Here is an analysis of the five new sources added, which still do not constitute significant coverage.

[33] Only two passing mentions
[34] This is an encyclopedia of movies, with only two passing mentions
[35] This source does devote a few sentences to talking about her, but this is only a review of her performance
[36] Only two passing mentions
[37] Only two passing mentions

Gödel2200 ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: I tend to agree with the source analysis above; the best I could find was [38], it's not quite enough for notability. Delete for lack of sourcing, not meeting ACTOR. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR for her significant roles (including lead roles) in at least Hideous!, Head of The Family and The Killer Eye, that are notable productions. There is no added need to also satisfy GNG. The two are companion guidelines, GNG is not a trump card. duffbeerforme ( talk) 02:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Emmymade

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

Non notable article that doesnt meet WP:ENT. Sometimes celebrities may appear in trivial mentions, which doesnt mean they meet WP:SIRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 14:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 14:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify. The TechCrunch and Hollywood Reporter sources are the most passing of passing mentions. The Daily Dot piece is substantial, but smacks of churnalism. BD2412 T 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Internet, Japan, California, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Whitney_Wright

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Whitney Wright

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

Actor that fails to meet the notability guidelines of WP:ENT: Does not have significant roles in multiple notable productions, nor have they made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The only reliable secondary source about the subject relates to how this pornographic actor went to Iran, posted some photos on social media, and has cause a social media controversy online. This doesn't establish notability as an entertainer, and is exclusively be tied to a single event that is largely unrelated to the subject's profession as an entertainer. Davidwbaker ( talk) 19:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: a few years ago, a group of users has managed to create a consensus that states that pornographic entertainers are basically not notable for what they do (their awards do not count, the coverage from the industry does not count, etc.). However the torrent of coverage W. Wright received for her political opinions shows her notability as porn actress is recognised outside WP and outside industry/adult coverage. That's why I think the article could be retained. NB-Coverage is international and includes reliable media, Guardian, Al Jazeera, Euronews, Hindustan Times, and so on. Despite this being limited in time, my !vote is based on the fact that it confirms her more general notability (since PORNBIO has been "cancelled"). (Note: I am the one who DPDd the page- same nominator, as I didn't judge deletion uncontroversial). - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Israel, and Palestine. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Meets GNG with the Guardian and the AP source. Coverage in a few different news sources [39] as well. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 13:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Coverage of her persists as she visits Syria: [40] Aintabli ( talk) 10:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abigailbassett ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Abigail Bassett

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage -- analysis about the significance of their work, evidence of winning a notable journalism award, and on and so forth.
You don't establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the bylined author of content about other things, you establish a journalist as notable by referencing the article to sources where she's the written-about subject of content written by other people. But this is referenced entirely to the self-published websites of her employers or other organizations that she's been directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage about her or her work at all. Bearcat ( talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United States of America. Bearcat ( talk) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Draftify As per WP:Journalist "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series"

Bassett won an Emmy award for her work, and as noted in the article, the page was under construction and I planned on finding the sources today, and if not would have draftified it myself.

While you are correct, it's borderline absurd to believe that all the pages which listed her bio are lying about her award winning status. Also, the reason I did not create a draft initially, is because I recently had a draft stolen and published to mainspace, and was told by admins "It's whoever publishes to mainspace first." Comintell ( talk) 18:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nobody assumed that any source was lying, but the problem was, is and remains that notability can never be established by sources that an article subject was directly affiliated with, and can only be established by third parties covering her and her work independently of her. Even an award still has to have been written about as news, somewhere other than her own staff profiles on the websites of her own employers, before it turns into a valid notability claim, because even awards are still only notable if they get reported as news by a source that doesn't represent the awarded entity simply tooting its own horn.
Also, nobody "owns" Wikipedia content, so I don't understand your "I had a draft stolen" story at all — what did anybody owe you there, and what is it preventing you from now? Bearcat ( talk) 19:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You're right I may have jumped the gun here, and this isn't ready for mainspace. Asking closing admin to close as a draftify Comintell ( talk) 19:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Comintell, if you like to work "privately" on drafts, rather than using draftspace, you might want to make userspace drafts instead. Other editors typically won't touch those, at least not without talking to you first. They aren't easy for other editors to find, so if you're working on a topic that's in the news, it's best to work in draftspace so others don't duplicate your work. -- asilvering ( talk) 22:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm Abigail Bassett (the actual journalist that this page is about) and I have no idea how it was created, and I see that it was only built a few days ago. I received a random (questionable) email message about it and have been working on updating and editing it to meet Wikipedia needs and to be accurate to my career. I won the Peabody as part of the team that produced coverage of Hurricane Katrina at CNN, and for my work on Lou Dobb's Tonight's Education and Immigration series. Here is the Peabody link I was part of the CNN Presents production, and worked for Anderson Cooper during that time. Here is a link to the Lou Dobbs Emmy the staff won. Also, here is the Wikipedia link to his profile which also confirms this. I have also appeared on camera for CNN (a couple of sample links are here and here) I'm happy to provide more if needed. My work is also referenced in this Wikipedia article about Fisker. Abigailbassett ( talk) 16:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Angela Jerabek

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

Poorly written promotional article about an academic not shown to meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:ANYBIO. The page's sole purpose appears to be to promote an educational model with little peer-reviewed research to back up its efficacy. Blanes tree ( talk) 12:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and United States of America. Shellwood ( talk) 12:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Angela Jerabek just won the James Bryant Conant award, given to one American educator annually in recognition of their contributions to American education. Previous awardees include Thurgood Marshall, Fred Rogers, Claiborne Pell, and Miriam Wright Edelman.

The American Institutes for Research reviewed the BARR model for three years, across three separate studies funded by the U.S. Department of Education, and found it to improve educational outcomes across numerous measurements. AIR's scale-up study, for example, was an independent review of 21,500 students in 69 schools. Most educational models cannot withstand this level of scrutiny. Among their findings:

"The BARR approach had substantial and statistically significant impacts on the proportion of students who passed all their core courses."

"BARR significantly reduced chronic absenteeism."

"The BARR approach improved teachers’ collaboration with their peers, their data use, and a range of other teacher outcomes."

Here is the report. Here is the actual PDF report.

This model was also the only educational model to move through all three stages of federal government review in the I3 program. This article from the widely respected industry publication The Hechinger Report (a publication of the non-profit Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media) outlines the general failure of the 170 educational grantees to meet the program criteria. The one exception: BARR. It names the BARR model as the "poster child" for what the grant was intended to fund.

The above reading of this article is factually uninformed about how educational models are reviewed and how important the BARR model is nationally at this time. Gtatum ( talk) 14:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

KEEP Gtatum ( talk) 14:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak keep. I am uncertain about the Conant award. But the NPR piece included in a bunch of refbombing at the bottom [41] appears to be a start towards WP:SIGCOV for a GNG case. I also see a MinnPost article [42] that looks like reasonable coverage. I agree that the article is in somewhat poor shape, although I don't think it's so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 14:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Slávka Frniaková

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Basketball as ATD because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this women's basketball player to meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating fellow Slovakia women's basketball teammates at said tournament for the same reason, except Zuzana Žirková, as most of them seem to fall under BLP1E:

Martina Godályová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Renáta Hiráková ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dagmar Huťková ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marcela Kalistová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anna Kotočová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alena Kováčová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lívia Libičová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jana Lichnerová ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Martina Luptáková ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katarína Poláková ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Basketball, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: I have fixed this nomination, where {{ subst:afd2}} was being stopped by an unclosed {{ la}}. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Basketball is a popular and very well-covered sport. I would be shocked if all of these were lacking coverage. For that reason, nominating Olympic basketball players en masse is not a good idea. Suggest procedural keep with the possibility of individual renominations. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- None of these are BLP1E as well. All of them had significant accomplishments in order to get to the Olympics. E.g. Martina Godalyova (randomly selected) was a 12-time national champion in multiple countries and led MBK Ružomberok to consecutive EuroLeague Women championships. I suspect many, maybe even a majority, would be notable, the issue is finding digitized 1990s Slovakian newspapers... BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  - Another one, Anna Kotočová, competed at two further Olympics and was inducted into the French Basketball Hall of Fame! BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
As a start, keep the following: Kotočová (1988, 1992 and 2000 Olympian); Luptáková and Hiráková (1992 and 2000 Olympian); Lichnerová (played in the WNBA); Kováčová (won the Euroleague in 2005-06). This is on the presumption of coverage, yes, but I'll let that fly as the nomination is too large to handle them all anyway. Plus, Beaniefan started digging up some things. I have no opinion on the rest of the players yet, though I have a general opinion: Bundled nominations almost always fail nowadays and should be removed as a feature in AFD, actually. They are nothing but a waste of time. Geschichte ( talk) 21:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree with this generalization, but as things go the bigger the bulk, the less likely it will pass muster. Let'srun ( talk) 04:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Happy to keep Kotočová, Luptáková, Hiráková, and Lichner then. Not sure about the other players. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep all: After a spot review, several of these players appear to at the very least not fall into WP:BLP1E and may potentially be notable under WP:BIO. No prejudice against speedy renominating individual players. Let'srun ( talk) 04:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Clariniie, it doesn't appear like the articles in this bundled nomination have been tagged for this AFD or that this AFD discussion has been formatted correctly which makes it invalid. Have you informed all of the article creators of this discussion? Bundled nominations are tricky so please follow all of the instructions at WP:AFD for a bundled nomination, especially regarding formatting. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- @ Liz: I usually informed article creators about the nomination. However, since this might be my first time making bundled nominations, I didn't notice the other pages listed weren't nominated. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep All – Comment from the nominator: At the time of my WP:BEFORE check, I did not notice that several women from this nomination have received independent coverage. Generally, there is a consensus that the players listed here should end up as redirect. I was told that pretty much of my AfD nominations look seriously ill thought out, so I am going to withdraw this AfD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Dokibird

(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

Priyanka Chhabra

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan ( talk) 18:13, 9 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 India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Lack of sourcing, beyond this [43]... What's now in the article for sourcing isn't enough either. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR, with at least 2 significant roles in notable productions, and that's the applicable guideline. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Mushy Yank And what are those 2 significant roles in notable productions? M S Hassan ( talk) 05:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Her roles in Athadu Aame O Scooter and Shobha Somnath Ki. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Youknow? ( talk) 11:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sally Norton

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. I have checked the sources are most of them are primarily about the Australian Grains Genebank and small mentions of this person not meeting WP:SIGCOV. LibStar ( talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 05:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Thanks for nominating this for deletion. It doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and should go. MaskedSinger ( talk) 08:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Julie Marie

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

Another bad, short compound given name list created by banned editor Neelix. The two articles, contrary to what it lists, are actually titled Julie Vinter Hansen and Julie Berman. Clarityfiend ( talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
~~Delete~~ per nom. Walsh90210 ( talk) 05:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Striking my vote as it was about an article at a different title with different contents, and the rationale no longer applies. Walsh90210 ( talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete, undesirable namecruft failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We do have one non-redirect page starting with Julie Marie, Julie Marie Wade, as well as two hyphenated ones. Geschichte ( talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep I've replaced the two given/middle name entries with Julie-Marie Parmentier and Julie-Marie Strange, which do seem to be valid compound names. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Courtesy ping User:Geschichte and User:Walsh90210 if they'd like to reconsider their vote. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse ( talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Withdraw nomination. Sacre bleu (it), on top of zat, I ~~will create~~ have created Marie-Julie. Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep This shouldn't have been moved out of process, however. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 07:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Ginny Holder

AfDs for this article:

(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 [44] 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

Harlette

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

I'm unable to find any significant coverage of the subject, that would indicate that either WP:BIO WP:CORP or WP:CREATIVE are met. The sources cited in the article are either unreliable ( [45] [46]), contain only very brief mentions ( [47] [48]) or were written by the subject: [49]. My own searches have only turned up more of the same, e.g. [50] SmartSE ( talk) 17:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Fashion, United Kingdom, and Australia. Shellwood ( talk) 18:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Mentions of "Harlette de Falaise" are almost exclusively to Herleva, who was known by this name. Mentions in references cited in the Harlette article appear to be to a brand rather than a person. This is confirmed by a search at Companies House – Harlette is a limited company, not a person. [51] This article appears to be a work of promotional fiction. Robminchin ( talk) 20:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom and other comments. I started looking into this after the recent unsourced additions; I also found that the existing sources referred to the company rather than a person, and am unable to find anything about her from reliable sources.

Naomi McGill appears to be the owner of various Harlette companies, and indeed old revisions such as this one list Naomi McGill as if it's an alternative name for the article's subject.

I wondered if the page had been hijacked from being about the fashion brand itself but it appears it's always been like this. Ligaturama ( talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete For the reasons mentioned above. I would also like to thank Robminchin for pointing out that this is promotional fiction, because I tried to look for sources (as well as looked at the sources added in the recent COI-editing spurt), and found no reliable sources other than the historical figure, which is not the subject. Harlette, in the modern sense, appears to be some sort of business pseudonym, as the Arab News source (citation 4) has no mention of a Harlette whatsoever, but it does mention a "Nayomi", which is a similar name to the Naomi McGill mentioned in the Sunday People sources, as well as the Parliament submissions that the COI editing keeps trying to add. Even then, the real person, Naomi McGill, appears to not have the credentials she claims. The COI editing claims about Harlette having a PhD in Space Telecommunications from Kings College London (which are attempted to be proved by the Parliament submissions) are also bunk, as the university doesn't appear to offer - or to have ever offered - any sort of degree with the name "Space Telecommunications." Therefore, this shouldn't be a BLP at all - this article, for all intents and purposes, is a hoax. There is no Harlette de Falaise, as the article purports.

Even if there was an attempt to remove the fabricated parts of this article, and make it just about the real person, Naomi McGill, there aren't any reliable secondary sources that prove notability as a BLP. There are only short promotional blurbs from various news outlets, such as the PR Newswire piece. Therefore, I support deleting this article.-- Panian513 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep but make the article about the company or brand, rather than the person. I think the references establish notability for the company or brand. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. I attempted a cleanup of this article in September last year, it struck me as promotional/non-notable then but I erred on the side of leaving to improve. Thanks for the good work and nomination. Jdcooper ( talk) 22:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thelma Rodgers

(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. Pam D 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. Schwede 66 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. Pam D 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

Heather Cooper

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Prod was removed by an editor who added sources. However, almost all the sources are primary. E.g. from Handball Australia. The ABC source is third party but it's not WP:SIGCOV. Winning the Oceania Cup isn't much of an achievement given the weakness of competition. LibStar ( talk) 23:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Handball, and Australia. LibStar ( talk) 23:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak delete Can’t see how it could fulfil WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV too. Winning Oceania Handball Nations Cup does not give notability for an article. Vorann Gencov ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Agree. It doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger ( talk) 08:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note - Secondary sources have now been added, and the references to the person playing in International games have been added. DrPlantGenomics.
Comment The following added sources are all 1 line mentions and not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. [52], [53], [54] also a primary source, [55] picture from photo library not even a source. LibStar ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Also, this is a primary source and [56] this is just a picture from a photo library and not even a source. LibStar ( talk) 03:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yasmeen Tahir

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

Non-notable actor, possible mercenary work. Most of the sources are mere mentions/name-drops of her, being focused on other members of her family instead. Urdu!VoA is a prose-style interview with her based on the automated translation, two sources are about being given a non-exclusive reward. Draftification attempts led to a move-war; see WP:AN/I#User:BeauSuzanne. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 16:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In light of Jeraxmoira's efforts to bring this article up to par, I am Withdrawing this AfD. Any issues in re COI can be handled at other venues. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 17:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Radio, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: has received the Sitara-i-Imtiaz, which can be considered a "well-known and significant award or honour", so that she meets WP:ANYBIO imv. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
And as for the rest of the sourcing? Being notable is not enough here; BLP applies as well. A look for sources isn't turning up much for me (strings: ["yasmin tahir" pakistan], ["yasmeen tahir" pakistan]). — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Being notable is enough for being notable imv.:D- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Not where biographies of living persons are concerned. Literally everything in the article that could reasonably be challenged must be sourced, and the award is the only thing that can be sourced based on what I'm seeing. An "article" that just states she won an award without any further context isn't really much of a stub, let alone an article. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 16:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
But that is not the case, is it? Again, I'm leaving it at that and will stand by my Keep. Thank you for your time, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
If we're allowing BLPs based on such awards, I suppose many WP:ROTM personalities could manage to get a stand-alone BLP then. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 20:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: For the record - I draftified the BLP because it was in poor shape, filled with WP:OR using WP:FICTREF. However, Mushy Yank reverted my draftification without addressing the WP:OR issues, which escalated into a move war (not initiated by me though). This BLP appears to be a case of WP:UPE because it was created by an editor BeauSuzanne‎, who has a notoriously bad history of creating BLPs on non-notable subjects using WP:FICTREF. Anyone arguing for keeping this based on WP:ANYBIO # 1 must understand that there is no consensus that ANYBIO #1 supersedes GNG.. Clearly, the subject fails to meet the requirements of GNG and WP:NBIO as well. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- @ Jeraxmoira expanded the BLP since it was AfD'd, but I still don't see it meeting the GNG and since there's no consensus that ANYBIO#1 overrides GNG, so in order to preserve Jeraxmoira's work, I'd like to suggest we Redirect it to Naeem Tahir per @ S0091, — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Stating that I had not tried to honestly address the issues mentioned in the tags then on the page (and judged that they could reasonably appear addressed; even if they were perhaps not completely addressed) is at best exaggerated (see my edit, edit summary, the tags themselves (different of those currently on the page), the state of the page then and page history) and stating that there was a move-war is clearly misleading (see article TP, where this was explained. Thank you. I will not make any further comments here, the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, for various reasons, including lack of time. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Final comment, though: interesting diff when one knows this is 1) a standard section of ALL articles where they can bee added 2) sourced 3) a major claim at notability :D...- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- Mushy Yank, ...the same way I did not reply any further on that page and stopped editing it, But your continued participation here, here and even here contradict your earlier statement of disengagement. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  No, they don't, not that it matters. Read me with more attention; but thank you for this comment all the same. I'm gone, though, this time, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. She is a well know a radio artist. The government of pakistan awarded her and she also worked in a few dramas which i added but you removed it.( BeauSuzanne ( talk) 16:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)) reply

BeauSuzanne, Your argument that she received an award (WP:ANYBIO# 1) has already been countered above and your claim that she also worked in a few dramas doesn't really justifies a standalone BLP and is not convincing either, especially if the roles were not major. And as you yourself mentioned, that she's a radio artist, which also makes it difficult for her to meet the NACTOR. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 17:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Aren't radio artist notable she has been workin since 1958 which is in the source too and has worked more than three decades.( BeauSuzanne ( talk) 17:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)) reply

@ BeauSuzanne: Longevity does not matter for notability. What matters is the available sources discussing the subject, and frankly outside of the award there aren't any. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 17:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: wedding photos and discussions of her spouse are all I find... The award could suggest notability, but the sourcing isn't there. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete winning a minor civilian honor as discussed above is not really enough for notability from WP:ANYBIO without other references. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 20:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Allan Nonymous the award is one of the highest national honors bestowed by Pakistan. In the year she received it, there were only 36 recipients and she was one of the two females. It may not be enough to establish notability but please do not call minor. S0091 ( talk) 20:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
S0091, We've doubts about the credibility of such awards; they seem to be given based on personal connections. The same year, this award was also given to someone merely for performing their job, without any significant achievement. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 07:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Saqib, will you please provide evidence of your claim that Sitara-i-Imtiaz is paid? The source you attached never supported such claims. Will you care to prove that Yasmeen Tahir got this award due to a personal connection? 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC ( talk) 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
IP - I'm simply pointing out that the credibility of this award isn't strong, so it's not inappropriate to classify it as a minor civilian award. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 09:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Saqib Do you have any proof that these awards credibility is not strong or they are minor? Please provide evidence that support your claims. 2404:3100:144D:4E4:1:0:A80F:2CCB ( talk) 10:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I think I've stated my position and while I don't need to provide evidence for everything I say, but, if you insist, you can refer to this, this and this, which says In the past, numerous Pakistani TV, film, music and literature personalities have been given these awards, while others struggled to even get nominated. Many complained of the lack of a stringent criterion and claimed favouritism as well.. If you don't want to trust me, that's your choice. However, you should consider trusting these sources and the former senior cabinet minister who have made the same statements as mine, about these civil awards. I prefer not to engage with WP:LOUTSOCK, so I won't argue further. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 10:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Not a single source claims that Yasmeen Tahir got an award due to personal connections or that she was not awarded as per merit neither they mentioned Sitara-i-Imtiaz is fake/minor. You are throwing fictious sources that does'nt support your claims. 2404:3100:1402:FFDF:1:0:9155:36D0 ( talk) 10:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Right and most awards are criticized for overlooking others who are arguably more deserving, the political nature of them, etc. See Nobel Prize controversies and this NYT article about the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the US. Either way, Sitara-i-Imtiaz is one the highest awards and it is not given out like candy with hundreds of recipients each year like some. S0091 ( talk) 15:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
S0091, Allow me to clarify my remarks. I do not deny that it is one of the highest civilian awards in the country. Perhaps my wording was incorrect. What I intended to say is that it is referred to as minor in the sense that it lacks credibility and I provided sources to support my claims, and the more I research it, the more I find opinions aligning with mine. [Granting civil awards to minions, crooks and fraudsters has eroded the prestige and value of these awards.] That said, it's still an honor to receive such an award, even if its credibility has diminished. However, basing a BLP solely on this award doesn't make sense to me at all. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 16:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Well I think we can all agree Yasmeen Tahir is not one those crooks or fraudsters. :) That opinion piece is about civil awards in general, of which there are several, with specific focus on higher education and one example regarding the Tamgha-e-Imtiaz. Also clearly he agrees the award has prestige and value; otherwise it couldn't be eroded. As I state above I am not saying the award in and of itself establishes notability; only that is not a minor award. S0091 ( talk) 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep Recipent of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, third-highest honour and civilian award in the State of Pakistan. 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC ( talk) 09:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — 2404:3100:140E:5180:1:0:90E3:E5DC ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
The issue is that's the only thing there exists sources for. Nobody's been able to find any usable sources for literally anything else, making an article on her fairly questionable. — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 15:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
~~Redirect to Sitara-i-Imtiaz#Recipients of Sitara-e-Imtiaz~~: I have tried to find at least a couple secondary reliable sources with in-depth coverage about her but everything is brief mentions. Within those mentions it is clear to me she has had an impact but it's not enough to establish notability. However, sources could come to light in the future so I at least want to maintain the work that has been done which a redirect will accomplish. I do think the title should changed to Yasmin Tahir, though. S0091 ( talk) 17:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Changing to keep per Jeraxmoira's improvements and additional findings along with mine. It is clear Tahir/Tahir's work has been written about so sources exist but the issues are access to sources and transliteration. S0091 ( talk) 18:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Most of the sources exist in the keyphrase "یاسمین طاہر". The initial concerns about sourcing have been significantly fixed now. Many of the latest sources added are not mere passing mentions and multiple sources verify particular claims. Everything in the article is sourced and the concerns about OR and UPE have been fixed as I have contributed to almost 55.5% of the article's content, completely rewriting it forward and none were referred from the 4 July version of this article.

There is much more information available now beyond wedding photos and content related to Naeem Tahir which were also one of the previous concerns. This article cannot be redirected or merged to a suitable target, i.e Naeem Tahir, Imtiaz Ali Taj or Sitara-i-Imtiaz as it has extensive coverage from her early life till now, which will be lost or cannot be fit into another article without disparaging it. With the current level of sourcing, the subject passes WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO#1.

Per Sitara-i-Imtiaz - It recognizes individuals who have made an "especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of Pakistan, world peace, cultural or other significant public endeavours". I believe her continued contributions from Indo-Pakistani war of 1965 until now is what made her eligible for Sitara-i-Imtiaz. The amount of coverage she has now is surprising for someone who is notable for her work during and after the war, when the internet did not exist. This article should be kept as a significant amount of coverage exists in offline books, local newspapers and other magazines popular during that time. Adding that to what we have online will easily make her notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 20:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your efforts, Jeraxmoira. How easy/possible would it be for a given person to find offline sources about her, assuming they'll mainly be in Pakistan? — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads
critiques} 20:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

To be honest, I have no idea how or where they'll be able to find it in Pakistan. Most probably in a renowned public library I guess. My point is that the subject will pass GNG easily with what we may find offline, which is just additional to what we have online and I believe what we already have online/in the article is enough to establish notability via SNG. FWIW, her name has a lot of hits in the Urdu Digest monthly magazine, but I haven't used them because of poor translation output. If I am right, significant coverage is not necessary for someone who passes WP:ANYBIO, so I think we have addressed all the issues here. Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 11:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jeraxmoira can try Yasmin Imtiaz in Urdu, her name before she was married and see what you get? Just curious because I am getting snippet hits in English like this and this. S0091 ( talk) 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jeraxmoira, Thanks for your efforts in expanding this BLP However I must highlight that the majority of Urdu sources you cited are not even considered RS for BLPs and I'm unsure if we can use them for WP:V much less to establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk I contribs) 18:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep; the sources added by Jeraxmoira are impressive. Transliteration makes searching difficult -- Yasmeen, Yasmin, Yasmine could all be used in English -- and the fact there aren't sources in English doesn't mean this person isn't notable in Pakistan. Valereee ( talk) 11:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Audrey A. McNiff

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

this person does not seem very notable, just a retired executive. one of the only recent pieces of information that comes up when I search her name is this article: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/07/07/abortion-rights-supporters-wont-get-their-amendment-passed-without-republican-women-like-audrey-mcniff-00165157 CGP05 ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CGP05 ( talk) 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: I find no coverage of this person, what's used in the article is trivial coverage. There seems to be nothing online about her. Oaktree b ( talk) 15:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Massachusetts and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Just another department head, seemingly. Fails the GNG, and meets no other notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jana Labáthová

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

There are some mentions on online newspapers of her being paired with Nada Daabousová in the synchronized swimming competition at the 2016 Summer Olympics, but I could not find any in-depth coverage of Labáthová herself that would pass WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is an unsourced stub, which may help copy over English article otherwise. No news about Labáthová have been reported since then either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A few things I located: [57] [58] [59]. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 18:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- Source #1 mentions Labáthová in the first five paragraphs, Source #2 does not address her in-depth, and Source #3 mentions her in one paragraph repeated from the title. None of these provide significant coverage that is required for notability; Labáthová still needs to meet SIGCOV and GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 09:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Princesa Lea

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Canada, and Mexico. Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 04:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with some significant roles in notable films (also see Sp WP). And WP:GNG, https://heraldodemexico.com.mx/espectaculos/2021/10/18/princesa-lea-que-fue-de-la-famosa-vedette-canadiense-del-cine-de-ficheras-345367.html https://www.debate.com.mx/show/Conoce-a-las-tres-actrices-del-Cine-de-Oro-que-eran-la-Karely-Ruiz-de-su-epoca-20230117-0311.html https://www.gq.com.mx/entretenimiento/articulo/vedettes-iconicas-cine-mexicano ; https://www.eleconomista.com.mx/arteseideas/Vedettes-femeninas-y-empoderadas-20161206-0102.html among other things. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: Slightly Notable, article needs more citations and improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feellingfly ( talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

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

Fails WP:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood ( talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia. LPascal ( talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal ( talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list. https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal ( talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would support a merge to List of female Anglican bishops as an AtD. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: per WP:HEY, if any only if the sources found are added. Bearian ( talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Thanks Bearian for the Keep. I am happy to both keep the article/list or merge it with List of female Anglican bishops. If consensus is reached on Keep I will certainly add in more refs to show women bishops in Australia are much discussed as a group. If the agreement is to merge, I will add them into the List of female Anglican bishops. If I merge the lists, whoever is responsible, please do not delete the old one until I have added names and refs to the LOFAB. As some of the bishops will not yet be bluelinked because they won't have an article, I will need to keep the refs in the list to show they are bishops.

On that note Dclemens1971 whatever happens to the two lists, I would appreciate your help in creating articles for the new women bishops as your user page states you focus on bishops on Wikipedia. I've been waiting for another editor to create articles for those three women bishops, but no one has started one yet, unless it's in someone's sandbox. LPascal ( talk) 07:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Haliey Welch

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

Latest viral meme, very WP:BIO1E. WP:TOOSOON to tell if this is lasting. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Language, Entertainment, and United States of America. UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Draft: I guess, this is likely TOOSOON, but it's got decent enough sourcing. Time will tell if it's notable or not. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I am amenable to this WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Why did you copy my draft? I created this page first User:UtherSRG Comintell ( talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sorry confused you with User:BullDawg2021 Comintell ( talk) 19:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I created the draft first Comintell ( talk) 19:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Sorry about that. I had no idea that you also created a draft. BullDawg2021 ( talk) 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draftify per nom - WP:BIO1E, but possible WP:TOOSOON. KylieTastic ( talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I created this article first and it's already in drafts and was submitted to AfC. Edit history proves I created the draft first. It's current in draft space. user basically copied my draft Comintell ( talk) 19:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As Comintell did create first at the article is now a copy-paste of that draft Draftify no longer makes any sense. Also I agree if kept it should be as "Hawk Tuah" not Hailey/Haliey Welch, and as BullDawg2021 has accepted Comintell as the creator it would be best to delete this as move Draft:Hailey Welch to Hawk Tuah to keep creator attribution. KylieTastic ( talk) 09:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment. Her name is Hailey Welch, and I created this page fitst and submitted through AfC. Draft:Hailey Welch

The user paraphrased much of my draft, and changed the name because my draft already existed. THIS is incredibly disingenuous.

To clarify. If you read my draft, I think you will see that Welch DOES qualify for notability, specifically because of sustained significant coverage over the last month, and her pivioting into a career and getting mentored by Shaq. I can't believe this UtherSRG basically copied my draft and moved it to mainspace with a spelling error in the name Comintell ( talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Super suspicious that this article says "Often misspelled as Hailey Welch" When All reliable sources cite her name to be Hailey Welch Comintell ( talk) 19:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Please go to her social medias. Her name is Haliey Welch. BullDawg2021 ( talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Rdirect or merge: to Draft:Hailey_Welch: I created this page first. Technically this qualifies as speedy delete under WP:A10 Comintell ( talk) 19:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
As can be seen by the edit history on this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Haliey_Welch&action=history the page was created 13 minutes after I created the inital draft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Draft:Hailey_Welch&action=history Comintell ( talk) 19:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Please assume good faith. I had no idea you created a draft. Also, you spelt her name wrong. BullDawg2021 ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Where is your source for this? My article was much more detailed. You literally copied the same flow of facts as I did. What source spells her name this way. Every single reliable source says her name is Hailey. Sure I will assume good faith, but you shouldn't have been permitted to create this article Comintell ( talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Please calm down. Her name is Haliey Welch. You are blowing this way out of proportion. I did not copy you. BullDawg2021 ( talk) 19:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
To the both of you: there are established procedures in place to preserve the page histories and authorial credits. If this article is kept and you continue the article improvement process, both of you should receive the appropriate credits for things like DYK, etc. I suggest you put aside your differences and work together, not against each other. Viriditas ( talk) 20:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- @ Comintell and BullDawg2021: Both of you need to stop edit-warring on this article. jp× g 🗯️ 06:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Absurd as it may seem, the phenomenon has started to gather coverage in reliable sources and move from mere Tiktok gag into a Let's Go Brandon-style cultural moment. Here's eg Slate, 7News, Rolling Stone. That said, this likely belongs under Hawk Tuah, not under Ms Welch's name. Jpatokal ( talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - Keep per Jpatokal, or redirect to either Zach Bryan or Shaquille O'Neal. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 21:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Please see my comment in the discussion Comintell ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Reply - @ Comintell:, come again? -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 17:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - Even if the meme is receiving media coverage, one single TikTok meme is hardly enough to provide notability for a person. WP:1E comes to mind as this person really has no other claims to notability. Di (they-them) ( talk) 04:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete or Draftify: There is not only the fact that the nominator is correct, there are two "competing" drafts, both containing overlapping information. Since it is WP:TOOSOON both draft creators should work together in Draft space to create one draft which may become appropriate to accept when the subject meets WP:BIO which I am not persuaded thsat it does currently 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't be opposed to that. BullDawg2021 ( talk) 06:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Yea, @ BullDawg2021 I'm sorry that I got so protective and frustrated. Even assuming good faith, this was a frustrating experience for me and I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive or un collaborative. Comintell ( talk) 06:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment on the purely clerical issue here: there seem to be two pages here, Draft:Hailey Welch (created 2024-07-02T20:47:03) and Haliey Welch (created 2024-07-02T21:54:54‎). The overlap between both articles is fairly significant. I don't know to what extent one was copied from the other, but it seems like this may be worthy of later consideration in some other venue (assuming this is kept, otherwise there is no point). jp× g 🗯️ 06:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Notable for making a joke on a street interview? This is the epitome of people notable for only one event. It's possible the event (the joke itself (Hawk Tuah)) is notable, though even that is too soon to tell imo. ato— mic 06:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Reminder: There are two issues at play here, whether the "Hawk Tuah" event meets WP:GNG (based on the amount of reliable sources garnered, probably yes) and whether Ms. Welch herself is notable (probably no, it's hard to dispute that this is WP:BIO1E). If you're suggesting that this article be deleted entirely, please clarify your stance on both these points. Jpatokal ( talk) 09:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO1E Celjski Grad ( talk) 09:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: Creating an article for the notable controversy or Hawk Tuah event will solve this problem. Clearly, this is a problem of WP:TOOSOON for the subject, as well as WP:BIO1E. In such a situation, there is only one way out–having an article about the popular word, "Hawk Tuah", and the influencer (not yet meeting WP:ENT) will redirect to the article. We don't need to argue on an article and a existing draft; it isn't necessary here. Who can/will create the event's article, and save us this stress? Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with this. The person herself obviously falls under WP:TOOSOON ( WP:1E), but an article about the phenomenon/trend is much more suitable. There's definitely enough coverage in WP:RS for this. I think a lot of people voting delete here are simply saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many TikTok trends (no exception here) do receive lots of reliable media coverage and do meet WP:NEVENT/GNG. I hope editors start to realize this — it's not 2010 anymore. C F A 💬 01:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
2010? Hilarious. "Every generation thinks they invented sex". I created the article on Pinky the Cat a viral video from 1992. Viriditas ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Comintell, why not create the event with this energy of dragging having your draft and a post mainspace move by another editor? Safari Scribe^{Edits!
Talk!} 11:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Of course it is notable. Publish the story, under EITHER title to eventually be personalized if she becomes more famous. Thank you, either way likely a Hawk Tuah page is indeed coming to Wikipedia, especially if this story expands further. Thanks again, can't wait to see the page that IS coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.137.161 ( talk) 13:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Article is well-cited, subject is notable. I get that memes are not the most encyclopedic topic, but this one definitely meets the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. 162 etc. ( talk) 19:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. There is nothing notable about this subject. I watched the original video, the interview, and read the sources. There is literally nothing there. Her entire claim to fame consists of expressing her enthusiasm for fellatio. That's it, nothing else. I watched her entire interview that was published the other day, hoping for something, anything, that I could glom onto and say, that's something we should have an article about. There's nothing. She likes to use saliva as lubrication during oral sex. That's the entirety of her notability. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, and she seems like a very sweet young lady, but how do we write a biography about this? We can't. Viriditas ( talk) 21:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The criteria for deciding notability is WP:GNG, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jpatokal ( talk) 21:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I didn't say I didn't like it. I said there's nothing encyclopedic about the subject. The entire article is a promotional advertising campaign for Welch by her management team who are trying to capitalize on a five second joke she told on social media. This has the longevity of a mayfly. She isn't notable for doing anything. Yes, the video went viral, but Welch was only one of a dozen random subjects interviewed by Tim & Dee TV, which itself isn't even notable. There's nothing here. Nobody will know who she is next week. Viriditas ( talk) 21:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The articles written about her by The Guardian, Vanity Fair, People, Forbes, etc. etc., will certainly still be there next week. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 162 etc. ( talk) 22:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Warhol was right: "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." Welch even alludes to that in the Guardian article. There's nothing here to write about. "Haliey Welch is a young woman who was randomly interviewed in the middle of the street and made a joke about fellatio. A video of her went viral, and she was soon approached by an agent who sought to capitalize upon her sexual-themed joke by making clothing with her name on it." That's what we're doing now? Viriditas ( talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

All of this coverage calls her 'Hawk Tuah Girl'. Unless she starts a show, becomes a musician, etc, and receives coverage unrelated to Hawk Tuah, this is WP:1E ato— mic 23:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Viriditas's prediction "Nobody will know who she is next week" (above) is commendably free of hedging, obscurantism, waffle. Let this AfD run on until next week, and then reconsider. The article will then live or die; either way, this AfD (with its miscellaneous expressions of indignation) will survive "for ever". -- Hoary ( talk) 22:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I want a "like" button, @ Hoary!!! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The early filmmakers of the 20th century and the former journalists of MTV News would like a word. The topic of media preservation is one of the most depressing ever. Nothing lasts, everything fades away. Consider, if you will, the Silurian hypothesis. In the far future, nobody will ever know you or I existed. People like to think they are making their lasting mark on the world, but it's a bedtime story we tell ourselves to keep the terror of the dark at bay. Viriditas ( talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. We've kind of got two subjects there: 1) Haliey Welch and 2) the Hawk Tuah meme. There's already a lot of good coverage and it's highly likely coverage of one or both will be lasting. There's something notable here. Similar memes and figures that come to mind are The Crazy Nastyass Honey Badger and Jenn Sterger. Tiffany Gomes, aka the "Crazy Plane Lady", is still getting coverage a year after her initial internet meme moment. Surprised there isn't an article about her. Probably should be. Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jenn Sterger's article is a biographical page discussing her successful careers in television, modeling, and writing. Where is the comparison? Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Read the article.

"Sterger and Catherine Perry (who later gained fame in WWE under the ringname Lana) were among a group of friends called the FSU Cowgirls, known for wearing skimpy clothing and cowboy hats to football games. She first came to attention when she was shown during a 2005 Florida State– Miami football game televised on ABC Sports. On seeing the shot, announcer Brent Musburger commented on-air that "1,500 red-blooded Americans just decided to apply to Florida State.""

She gained fame in a similar manner to Haliey Welch. RTredwell ( talk) 14:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Point being? Jenn Sterger actually went on to become a notable person in her own right. If she and her friend were only known as "the FSU cowgirls", a subject that has no article on the encyclopedia, neither she nor her friend would have articles either. Sterger has an article because she gained further notability as a journalist, television personality, and model, enough to justify a BLP page. This article is just the short story of how someone's impromptu joke became a viral moment and she quickly cashed in and got to hang out with a few celebrities as a result. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
You asked what the comparison is, I explained it to you. RTredwell ( talk) 18:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
RTredwell, yeah, thanks for your explanation. That was my thinking. Obviously Sterger has had something of sustained notable career, and it's too early to tell if Welch will. But it's worth noting that the article for Sterger was created on February 11, 2006, before she had had much of that career, and after she was known almost entirely for being a memetic hot chick who happened to get on national TV at a football game. Jweiss11 ( talk) 07:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Too soon; for now, likely fleeting WP:BLP1E. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Draftify and move to the incident rather then the person to comply with WP:BIO1E -1ctinus📝 🗨 21:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete and adding that if this page is kept in any form, it should be exclusively about the meme, not the person. The person is not a suitable subject for a biographical article. This is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. The meme itself is highly unlikely to have any enduring notability. Vanilla Wizard 💙 02:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

also feel like it's worth noting this may be a rare example of a situation where WP:NOTNEWS ( WP:ENDURING) is actually potentially applicable in a deletion discussion. A significant percent of what's here is just a description of the subject's fifteen minutes of fame, just listing out every time the subject has appeared near another celebrity in the last few weeks. There's not exactly a lot of encyclopedic material to salvage here. Should also mention that not all of the sources in the article are quality sources. There's a handful of reliable ones, but TMZ, Times of India, Dexerto, and Distractify are not. I'm not convinced a page about the meme itself is justified. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Why do you think the meme is unlikely to have any enduring notability? What makes you think you can predict what will be popular in the future? It's impossible to predict the future. RTredwell ( talk) 04:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It's WP:TOOSOON to properly assess if it meets the criteria on enduring notability, too soon for this to be a mainspace article. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That said, I agree with LilianaUwU's comments below that draftifying can be an acceptable outcome, too. I don't think this page is ready to be in mainspace. But it is not impossible that the meme/catchphrase could be article-worthy at some point in the future, and there's no harm in incubating it in draftspace as a work-in-progress. The page will need a lot of reworking, anyways; there seems to be little disagreement that the page should just be about the "hawk tuah" phrase — this cannot exist as a BLP page about Haliey Welch. Consider this a delete as first preference, draftify as second preference !vote. Vanilla Wizard 💙 00:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep. or merge into an article about the meme itself if it does not meet notability guidelines for a biography. The meme has gained massive coverage and notability, and this article cites numerous reliable secondary sources. Thousands of people are looking up Hawk Tuah Girl daily looking for a Wikipedia article on the subject, they should be provided with one. RTredwell ( talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete : Definitely the case of WP:BLP1E and may be WP:TOOSOON at best. So I'd suggest to delete this and see this notability is sustained, but definitely delete for now. Coderzombie ( talk) 06:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - Whether we like it or not, she is notable per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Extensive and continued media coverage as well. BabbaQ ( talk) 21:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete (or draftify, see below) per common sense, and the ten-year test. No one will remember this in 10 years. LilianaUwU ^{(
talk /
contributions)} 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
With that said... I'd be down with the idea of having an article on the meme rather than the woman behind it, considering BLP1E and all that. The meme has gotten loads of coverage and will be remembered. So... perhaps draftify, maybe? LilianaUwU ^{(
talk /
contributions)} 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - We are not here to judge worthiness; we are here to judge whether a topic has been the object of multiple, independently-published, instances of significant coverage in sources which are presumably reliable. This fits the bill. GNG pass from sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite ( talk) 22:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. Extensive media coverage. Too soon to delete; nominator's argument that this will not have lasting notability is WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Lowellian ( reply) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Move to Hawk-Tuah I think it's pretty clear that WP:BLP1E applies to Hailey Welch's article since well they are famous for one thing and one thing only as of the present day, most of the coverage is in the context of the meme not the person itself and I think we should have a article about the meme rather than the person themselves. Sohom ( talk) 13:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Anyone considering whether to keep or delete this page, should look at the original draft, Draft:Hailey Welch which has been expanded is formatted properly.

Comintell ( talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Come on. The problem isn't with the formatting, it's with the article being about the person rather than the event. LilianaUwU ^{(
talk /
contributions)} 23:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As my draft was updated to note, she is in talks to get a reality TV show about her life, and further, the Hawk Tuah phrase origins are disputed, with many sources citing that Welch is garnering interest as an individual and public figure. I was just saying. Comintell ( talk) 00:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Maybe recreate this if the news is somehow still obsessed with her in a few months. I'm pretty sure there's just going to be a deluge of articles for the next few days and then none at all. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep This girl is essentially Bhad Bhabie/"Cash Me Outside Girl" (who unfortunately also recently made tragic news) for Zoomers instead of Millennials. She is more notable than some other articles.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 02:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:BIO1E. Zinderboff( talk) 06:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep - Hailey has a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources (see USA Today, Rolling Stone & The Guardian) and has already collaborated with Shaq and Zach Bryan. She gained online virality in a similar fashion to Gorilla Glue Girl, Bhad Bhabie, and Jenn Sterger - with Sterger also discovered from a passing comment made in a vox pop. While WP:CRYSTALBALL is always a fair argument to suggest she won't forever be notable, it can also be used on the contrary, as this may just not die down any time soon. If there is still not enough supporting evidence for Welch to have her own article, then the video should be the subject instead, e.g. " Looking for a Man in Finance" and Chewbacca Mask Lady. But not delete. -- Mechanical Elephant ( talk) 23:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep there are plenty of reliable sources and flash-in-the-pan memes get articles due to proper sourcing all the time, such as rizz or gyatt XanderK09 ( talk) 20:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
@ XanderK09: The problem here is that the article is about the person, not the meme. Since the person is only notable for the meme, she falls under WP:1E. C F A 💬 03:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep I feel like this might be of some importance as we have articles on stuff like " your mom jokes" and stuff Thehistorianisaac ( talk) 04:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BLP1E lists three criteria, all of which are required for deletion. Please address the actual criteria rather than merely WP:VAGUEWAVE "per BLP1E".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is a clear BLP1E situation. The coverage of the individual is because of the video, the person absolutely is still a low-profile individual (assuming she's going to successfully parlay this into wider fame is impossible to say at this point), and point three doesn't particularly apply to this (if it's about the meme, she would be a footnote in the article.) "Subsequent" developments like her finding representation or starting her own company are still in relation to being the "Hawk Tuah Girl". The best you could argue is the meme should have its own page, but this bio ain't it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Viva Van

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

No notable independent wrestler. She worked on small independent promotions. She had a few matches with big promotions, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Most of the sources are just WP:RESULTS with no in-deep coverage of the wrestler HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 10:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and California. Shellwood ( talk) 11:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Just not enough in RS to keep the article; this is all I can find [60], rest are match reports. Tried using a search listed under Wiki Wrestling [61], none turn up. Oaktree b ( talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Stay: Viva Van currently works for Ring of Honor & AEW so that should be enough notability for her page to stay, it could also be in the hopes of her someday capturing a ROH TV Women's title or a AEW Women's or AEW TBS title or even a New Japan Women's or New Japan Strong Women's title or Wonder Ring Stardom Women's title while still in the indy's if given enough time or she could even soon or someday sign with WWE, so I think that that should be enough for her page should stay around. Because she also is still a very active indy wrestler today. (She also was trained by Rikishi and probably is apart of the Samoan / Polynesian Heritage / Bloodline. Which could do good if she we're to someday join WWE as well. She was also apart of the ROH TV Women's title tournament, so that should also be enough notability for her page to stay.) 71.65.161.223 ( talk) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Even that, most of the article are just WP:RESULTS, with no focus on her. Most of the article looks like wants to present the wrestler as notable by comparation. "made her debut for Thunder Rosa's Mission Pro Wrestling in May 2021 in a Triple Threat match against Impact Wrestler Masha Slamovich ", "Van was defeated by CMLL Veteran Estrellita." "June 2019, Viva teamed up with WWE wrestler MVP", like namedropping. Also, Reddit is not a valid source. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 22:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

But she has returned to take on Willow Nightingale & Lluvia for the CMLL World Women's Championship it was announced today and she also tried out for WWE in 2020 & in 2022. Hopefully with those two things now added to her page could change something or could make her page stay. 71.65.161.223 ( talk) 22:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Not seeing enough independent and significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. The vast majority of the sources are match results, blogs, interviews, or are non-RS. Working for a certain promotion does not grant inherent notability. Let'srun ( talk) 02:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Nonhlanhla Joye

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

WP:BLP of a social entrepreneur, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for entrepreneurs. The attempted notability claim here, that she founded an organization, would be fine if the article were reliably sourced to WP:GNG-worthy coverage about her in real media of record, but this as written is referenced far, far too heavily to primary source content self-published by organizations she's directly affiliated with, and shows very little evidence of third-party coverage about her in independent GNG-worthy sources. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and South Africa. Bearcat ( talk) 16:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
weak delete: Should be notable, but there just isn't much coverage... A PBS interview here [62] and a brief mention here in a French article [63]. Oaktree b ( talk) 00:09, 4 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!} 19:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Supreet Bedi

AfDs for this article:

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

Article refunded after soft deletion, but still fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The vast majority of sources are tabloid coverage, which doesn't count as WP:SIGCOV under GNG. Other sources include primary sources like the subject's own book or WP:INTERVIEWS, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 15:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Shellwood ( talk) 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails all criteria WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP. No WP:SIGCOV. Sources are poor to unreliable WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus ( talk) 18:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wang Qingyun

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: per nom. I was not able to find any English or Chinese sources about the subject person, and she has only won bronze medals in the Chinese Championships, failing both GNG and NSKATE. — Prince of Erebor（ The Book of Mazarbul） 14:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Veronika Kropotina

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable skater; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:46, 29 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Redirect to ISU_Junior_Grand_Prix_in_Croatia#Women's_singles. Achievements are insufficient to meet WP:NSKATE. I have not found any secondary sources that speak directly about her, only mentioning her in passing. By the way, references 1 and 3 do not work, and 2nd gives meager performance statistics. Tau Corvi ( talk) 01:34, 11 July 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 no consensus‎. After discarding the clearly canvassed votes, and the views not based on P&G (or incorrectly based on them), we're left with no consensus either way. Since the subject of the article chose a public life, arguments for privacy have limited weight here. Broad participation, including by some of the project's most experienced editors, makes it unlikely relisting will bring about a consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Aimee Knight

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

AfDs for this article:

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

Hi, I’ve nominated this page for deletion as I’m not sure whether they are relevant enough to warrant an entire wikipedia page, politicians who’ve stood for election and lost with less than 2% of the vote don’t generally get Wikipedia pages, especially when they’ve done nothing of much note after the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxisediting ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, not meeting the WP:NPOL criteria only means that there's no inherent notability, not that the subject is not notable. There seems to be enough significant coverage to meet WP:NBIO/ WP:GNG. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 07:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, agree with the above. Fundamentally well covered enough to meet criteria, and little reason to remove well enough sourced information. Flatthew ( talk) 14:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, Knight is much more than a failed election candidate as is attested to by the numerous citations to other events covered in the article. JezGrove ( talk) 16:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 28. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete already been deleted twice under a different title, and the article contains massive WP:BLP concerns. SportingFlyer T· C 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
A lot of the sources in the article are newer than the previous AfDs, I don't really see the relevance of them. AlexandraAVX ( talk) 06:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm just struggling to figure out why she's notable. She clearly doesn't qualify for NPOL, and her other "event" was being fired. Most of the sources are either local papers or self-published. The article reads like WP:NPF needs to be properly applied as well. I'm struggling to see why this should be kept. SportingFlyer T· C 13:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:NPF doesn't offer much definition of who counts as an NPF, but links to WP:LOWPROFILE. That says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Knight today does not seek out media attention, but from 2015-8, she was an active campaigner and political candidate, clearly repeatedly seeking media attention. Ergo, she does not come under WP:NPF. Bondegezou ( talk) 22:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, Knight is an important figure in the recent history and controversies of Green Party of England and Wales as the article shows - Knight was not just a failed politician but someone whose behaviour and actions have had ramifications across the political spectrum. Zeno27 ( talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
(Redacted)

Can an admin delete this comment and block this person for using such a language! FuzzyMagma ( talk) 11:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The only "problem" with the redaction is that it proved my point that there are massive WP:NPF concerns with this article, which is about a non-public figure. SportingFlyer T· C 13:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there is a numerical consensus to Keep, they are weak Keeps with no reference to policy or sources. Also most participants have, what I consider, low edit counts so I'm not sure how familiar they are with the norms of AFD discussions. I'd just like to relist and hopefully hear how this subject meets Wikipedia's standards of notability and, specifically, what reliable independent sources provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just noting that there has been offwiki canvassing related to this AfD: [64], and I suspect that several of the infrequently active accounts voting in this discussion are likely the result of it. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
looking to nom (from someone with two edits) and User:Aquila ka Hecate comment, I think there is more to consider when evaluating this nom FuzzyMagma ( talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There are MULTIPLE reliable sources about the subject cited on the page, notability is obviously established, keep. Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 04:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete Very interesting subject, but I'm not seeing the consistent, in-depth news coverage that would be required for a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 23:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: although not a notable as a politician, there is a substantial coverage from reliable sources that Checks all the boxes of WP:GNG comment there is coverage but the page is mostly about David Challenor, Knight's father, and gives undue weight to Challenor. If the article is kept, can someone fix this problem please and create a separate article for David Challenor (currently a redirect) because he actually deserves one with all of the coverage. I am really concerned about why this article was first created and I can’t assume good faith looking to keep votes above. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 11:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete - Very difficult case. She's borderline notable, but mostly for other people's wrong-doing and the way it affected her. I don't think it's realistic to have an article on this subject that adheres to the spirit of WP:BLP while also respecting WP:WEIGHT. That is, when the notability claim isn't extremely sound to begin with, and the source of that notability would demand a largely negative article chiefly related to the misdeeds of other people, we arrive at an exceptional scenario. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep It would do this website injustice NOT to include a trans rights activist covered by the likes of The Guardian and BBC News. Content for women's rights, trans, and other activists is already lacking here as it is. We all must do better and try to improve it by not deleting swathes of content. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45373833 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/06/aimee-challenor-theresa-may-lgbt-inequality-transgender-green-party Historyexpert2 — Historyexpert2 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Her activism is highly notable. Agreed with the above. There's no need to delete. Ahri Boy ( talk) 01:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Based on searches of Aimee Knight, this looks like a WP:BLP1E: her firing from Reddit. Many of the included sources are about her father, David Challenor, and per nom, she doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Say ocean again ( talk) 02:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
To clarify: I don't believe we should consider BLP notability based on a subject's adjacency to the actions of another party at all, but especially not when those actions are horrifyingly awful. My concerns echo that of Rhododendrites. Say ocean again ( talk) 05:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Seems to be WP:SIGCOV in multiple WP:RS both for the stuff with Reddit and for the stuff to do with her father being her campaign manager. This is certainly not a WP:BLP1E. Can do with some clean-up but is not beyond redemption to the point of WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 13:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep - Obvious, easy GNG keep from sources showing in the footnotes. If there is a content issue, SOFIXIT. Nor should IDONTLIKEIT arguments show their head in this venue. Carrite ( talk) 22:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
The delete votes aren't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a very difficult article about a private person. SportingFlyer T· C 23:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
She was the former spokesperson and electoral candidate for a political party. On face value, that says to me that she's not a private person. TarnishedPath^talk 13:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
We wouldn't normally keep a spokesperson for a political party, especially not a minor political party, and we rarely keep articles on failed candidates. Merely running for office or being a spokesperson doesn't make you a public figure. SportingFlyer T· C 21:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
I can't see keep arguments on the basis of her being a former spokesperson or candidate. The keep arguments, at least mine, is on the basis of GNG. My comment about her being a spokesperson and former candidate was made only in reference to the claim that she is a private person. TarnishedPath^talk 15:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per Rhododendrites. This is certainly an edge case but she does not appear to be notable as a political candidate. She is marginally notable due to the protest against Reddit, but as Rhododendrites notes, this is tangled up with a separate person's misdeeds. I don't think documenting a private person's troubles here is good policy - maybe she gave up some expectation of privacy via running for office, but let's be real, it was a minor party protest vote. No objection to bringing back if her political career actually goes somewhere. SnowFire ( talk) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep per WP:HEY: I just rewrote the article to be less of a train wreck. There's still some work to do but it no longer repeats her fathers crimes in every section and no longer misrepresents the sources as more critical than they are. I'm very sympathetic to arguments presented by @ SportingFlyer, @ Rhododendrites, @ Say ocean again, and @ SnowFire - but think that she is clearly notable to the extent we can't simply delete the article. We have sustained coverage over years detailing how she was a rising star for the greens and held prominent positions, engaged in advocacy, and her career was very publicly derailed following her father's conviction. I believe we should focus on making sure everything there is due and the BLP issues are handled sensitively rather than deleting it. I pinged y'all to see if my edits fixing the ostentatious BLP issues persuade you the article is salvagable, no worries if not. Best, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
- I'm not sure this is an improvement. By removing that the protest was related to her father's crimes, you've made the Reddit protest make no sense in your version as coming from seemingly out of nowhere. If she's going to have an article at all, it's going to need to include when her father was relevant to her biography in all of the parts it is relevant (which is unfortunately quite a lot of it), which is why I'd rather just delete entirely. Additionally, there are still aspects that are only questionably relevant - like why are we listing exactly all of her psychological conditions? Obviously autism is a bit of a special case as many people consider that a core part of their identity, but I'm not so sure Knight considers it that, and then that leaves why the others anyway (which are implicitly equated with the autism spectrum)? Your version has also added in more commentary from Knight (e.g. including the IMO fairly meaningless "she condemns the tweets" - of course she does, or including a long quote from her on resigning from the Green Party rather than simply saying it was due to transphobia). If we set aside her father's actions... what distinguishes Knight from any other activist? Not much, as best I can tell. This is not something article editing can really fix. This is an odd version of Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, where she's borderline notable but that notability is tied up in a non-notable person's negative coverage. SnowFire ( talk) 02:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  I'd concur. I was struggling to understand why this article stood out to me amongst the dozens of political articles I've read at AfD, but notability isn't inherited. If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself - in short, the type of local activist that wouldn't normally be eligible for an article. SportingFlyer T· C 12:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes - The articles that are indirectly about his crimes are directly about her. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 19:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  The indirect articles are just the local political articles I was referring to. Apart from an interview, she's not really notable outside the incident. SportingFlyer T· C 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

SportingFlyer suggests that If you remove all of the articles in the article that aren't directly or indirectly about her father's crimes, you're left with only a few local political articles, and a couple articles or posts on social media that she wrote herself. Looking at the current references, there are several about her father's crimes and several that are local political articles, but other references are not that. I would pick out the following. 7 is a significant interview with a national newspaper unrelated to her father. 5 is a short interview with the same national newspaper a year earlier, unrelated to her father. 4 is not related to her father and, while a minor publication, isn't a local political article. 9, 10 are less significant publications, but national and not local, about another smaller issue involving Knight (not related to her father). 39 is about her and about her partner's behaviour, not her father's crimes, and is a national newspaper. There is then her departure from Reddit, most notably national newspaper coverage in 40. This was related to her father's crimes, but only indirectly and is broader than that (as it also relates to her partner's behaviour). Bondegezou ( talk) 22:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The first is a Society interview, where people who aren't normally famous or notable get an interview in the Guardian. The second might be okay but again is an interview and would be considered primary. The third is a blog. 9 and 10 she is simply quoted as a spokesperson, the article is not about her at all. 39 and 40 has the same problem as I mentioned - even if it wasn't her father it was her partner. There's simply not a lot here. SportingFlyer T· C 09:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep: she clearly passes WP:GNG. There are multiple in-depth and independent reports about her. Bondegezou ( talk) 06:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I've just looked at the first 10 references in the article (and there are plenty more). These are:

[65] Substantial piece about her and her father about event 1
[66] Substantial piece about her about event 2
[67] Substantial piece about her (event 2)
[68] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[69] Shorter piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[70] Substantial piece about her (event 1)
[71] Substantial piece about her, unconnected to events 1 or 2
[72] Shorter piece about her (event 1)
[73] Shorter piece mentioning her (event 3)
[74] Short piece mentioning her (event 3)

There is coverage of multiple different events/stages of her life, with several substantial articles about her. As I said, this clearly passes WP:GNG. If the article needs work, fix it. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete per Rhododendrites. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maxisediting, may I ask if you have any relation to Knight at all, even if it is being something such as an acquaintance? Considering the past history of the subject of the article (especially the brief tenure at Reddit) and this deletion page is your only edit right after you signed up, at least some suspicions are harboured. Pyraminxsolver ( talk) 01:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
hi, no relation to knight. have made anonymous edits before but stumbled across this page and just found it strange that such a minor figure had such an article, had some concerns about what the real purpose of the article was. worthwhile discussion on both sides though Maxisediting ( talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Say ocean again and Rhododendrite explained it best. The in-depth coverage precludes an encyclopedic article, and the incompatibility with BLP guidelines also means it doesn't need its present editing history. If this subject is notable, start all over with better coverage of claims as reported in reliable sources... JFHJr ( ㊟) 05:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Just be aware that this discussion has also been linked to by Kiwi Farms and so there may be some interference ran by users from that site. Digestive Biscuit ( talk) 13:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: While as a queer person myself, I am very sympathetic to the subject as a victim of crime, I have real concerns that I share with others who have written about this. My biggest concerns are BLP and TNT. The main claims to notability are the same as those that contribute to violations of our BLP rules. It’s such a mess that it could be deleted for that reason alone. Sorry. Bearian ( talk) 00:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete Non-chosen local politician. The rest is mostly voluntary work. Looks like puffery. The sources are not specifically about her. The Banner talk 10:18, 13 July 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.

Isha Malviya

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

The article heavily relies on unreliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Single significant role in Udaariyaan. Does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:N. Editingmylove ( talk) 08:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Beauty pageants, Fashion, and Madhya Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: At least one significant award won and 3 significant award nominations have her meet WP:ANYBIO imv. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - Eye raising nomination, but that aside, I think this is close. There is a lot of fancruft references, interviews, general announcements, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, etc. And, winning an award or appearing on a television show does not give inherent notability (I think the Indian Telly Awards individual categories may not meet notability either). However, there are at least two references that are bylined and not just routine announcements here and here. I'll reserve a !vote at the moment in hopes someone can point out coverage that isn't routine. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
weak delete: most coverage is about the TV show Big Boss [75], I wouldn't call it extensive coverage. This is a RS, but what's used in the article are all marginal reliability sources per Cite Highlighter, so I'm not sure we have enough to keep the article. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: The user who has nominated the page for deletion is a new account created solely to ensure the page is deleted. The previous two nominations have also been a result of fandom war. As for the notability, it has been established the last 2 times as well. She has done 2 lead roles, one major reality, show, numerous music videos, a web series in post production, notable award nominations and wins. [FYI, Indian Telly Awards and Indian Television Academy Awards are two of the most notable ITV Awards regardless of whether the pages are well updated on Wikipedia or not.] The actress has sufficient coverage, apart from all her work and has more on the way. Hasty deletion to fulfill online fan wars makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.39.32.83 ( talk) 10:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Looking at your contibutions which is only this comment and anyone can say that you are the account created to this comment only. Columbidae5 ( talk) 15:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 24. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 09:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: The article is looking like fan made article who is doing undo removed content. Neutral point of view is also missing in the article. It looks like promotional content. Columbidae5 ( talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Notable personality. Filmography with different credits. Nominations and wins in terms of two known awards. Additionally, this seems to be another potential attempt by online supporters of other actors. The previous deletion discussion of this page was quite similar and was started by a fan of another ITV actress. This seems to be yet another example of social media hate propaganda. OCDD ( talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep as she is a notable actress and model who has gained significant recognition for her role in the popular television series "Udaariyaan," contributing to her widespread popularity. Additionally, her career achievements and public interest make her a relevant figure in the entertainment industry -- RodrigoIPacce ( talk) 17:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page ( here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan ( talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan ( talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan ( talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle ( talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? Pam D 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 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, Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 ( talk) 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Calabar Chic

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

Fails WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There’s in short, no piece that is independent of the subject to establish notability. BEFORE does not provide anything different. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List_of_Nigerian_actors#Actresses: she has some credits in films and coverage, although including a lot of interviews (but a lot, and in various media), allow to verify she's a Nigerian actress who might have a certain notoriety. Hence this WP:ATD - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC) reply

-->Changing to Keep per WP:HEY thanks to the work of User:Ahola .O since nomination, including sources showing a certain notability as comedian.

Delete Limited coverage, no evidence she meets the guidelines. Not in favour of redirection, per WP:LISTPURP and no point redirecting to a page where she isn't mentioned. Mdann52 ( talk) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep From my search, subject seems notable and has significant coverage. She has featured in some films and has some level of notability in comedy. I made some improvements on the page as well. I hope it helps Mevoelo ( talk) 20:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Redirect: I agree with moving the article about Calabar Chic to the List of Nigerian Actresses, which is a more general page. Due to a lack of coverage, the article doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG guidelines. Redirecting will put her mentions in the right place. It will keep helpful content while following Wikipedia's guidelines. It also links the subject to a relevant, broader topic.-- AstridMitch ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: I also agree to keep the page because she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines, she has roles in notable films, television shows, stage performances, and other productions, some are listed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahola .O ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply
I was not going to reply specifically to anyone in this discussion, but I have to now since I think you’re misinterpreting NACTOR. One thing is for the films they starred in to be notable, another thing is for their roles in the films to be significant. This is not the case here even in the tiniest bit. Her roles in these films was a significant role, she clearly doesn’t pass the guideline. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 08:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Aside from some interviews and passing mentions, there is not enough to fulfill WP:GNG. As she only had minor roles, WP:NACTOR is not fulfilled either. A redirect to List of Nigerian actors#Actresses as mentioned above is not feasible per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Non-notable subjects should not be included in lists of people. Hence my recommendation to Delete, perhaps just a case of WP:TOOSOON. Broc ( talk) 08:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak delete. A Google search of the subject shows several newspaper sources that interviewed her. These type of sources are primary sources and cannot be used to establish notability. She has starred in multiple films that are notable, but as someone else pointed out, she did not have a major role in any of those films. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has the potential of being notable within a year or two. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep: sourcing is fine, [76] as well. Most is celebrity coverage articles, but they give background and some context into tragic and not-so-tragic events in this person's life as of late. Oaktree b ( talk) 14:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet, just arguments to Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 04:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete: Sourcing is fine but they’re mostly interviews (save for this one here). She has featured in some movie but not in a major role. Probably too early for an entry. Best, Reading Beans 09:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: Lots of interviews by reliable sources, which is a potential indication of (future) notability, but they don't offer enough secondary journalistic coverage outside of the transcript to meet GNG. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. I imagine the subject will be notable in a year or two. C F A 💬 21:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions ( WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Women

Proposed deletions ( WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Women

Proposed deletions ( WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook