Misplaced Pages

:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:57, 13 January 2022 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,558,600 edits Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/NuclearKaif← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:03, 28 December 2024 edit undoAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,558,600 edits Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Minecraft characters 
Line 7: Line 7:
==Entertainment== ==Entertainment==
<!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line --> <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Keemstar}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dennis Mukoya}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MP Xpress}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/SpongeKnob SquareNuts}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bobo Ajudua (3rd nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/All Around (web series)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oldest Doctor Who Cast Members}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Raza_Samo}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Gen_Z_Manifesto}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Indonesian_VTuber_Awards}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Indonesian_Vtuber_Awards_2024}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Patrick Bet-David (3rd nomination)}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/58 Seconds}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Kamna Pathak (2nd nomination)}}


==Categories== ==Categories==

Latest revision as of 05:03, 28 December 2024

Shortcuts
Points of interest related to Entertainment on Misplaced Pages:
Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Entertainment|~~~~}} 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 Entertainment. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Entertainment

Dennis Mukoya

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

Autobiography falling below notability guidelines. Failed attempt for a parliamentary seat does not confer notability Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

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

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. EF 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Bobo Ajudua

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

One major problem is that this creation is likely a paid contribution that is undisclosed. The citations are evaluated based on this version as follows;

Citation 1 is a paid promotional puff and also a falsehood, especially when it said Ajudua’s impact is particularly evident in his work with Davido. He played a key role as a co-writer for “NA MONEY,” a track from Davido’s Timeless album that features The Cavemen and Angelique Kidjo. There is, as a matter of fact, no credit on anyone such as Bobo Ajudua if you check any of your streaming platforms for the single "Na Money" by Davido, and this alone is ridiculous and makes this whole thing iffy.

Citation 2 does is not only a paid puff but does not provide the substantial coverage we require to pass WP:GNG.

Citation 3 is not only an unreliable source, it lacks a byline and, even if it does have a byline, does not provide the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.

Citation 4 is not only a run of the mill piece, it lacks a byline and fails WP:SIGCOV.

Citation 5 from marginally reliable Vanguard does nothing but promotes and praises the subject such that only one or two useful information is passed. Take a look at the ridiculous line breaks while scrolling through the piece.

Citation 6 is just like Citation 5 above, does nothing but praises the subject ridiculously such the nothing notable is passes as an information. Over the years, he has cultivated a reputation for his thorough understanding of corporate law, intellectual property, and entertainment law. His expertise ensures that artists, creatives, and brands are not only legally protected but also strategically positioned for sustainable growth. What is the job of an entertainment lawyer? How is this anybody's business? What's notable about ensuring his clients are strategically positioned for sustainable growth?

Citation 7 is yet another paid puff about his brands that are doing nothing but their job, and in this context, lacks the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG for this subject.

People get sacked from their jobs everyday, what is notable about the subject being sacked?

What is Misplaced Pages's business with whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not?

Every other source I skipped are just as bad as the ones I already evaluated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Striking my vote since the reliability of Nigerian news outlets, which have covered the subject in some depth, is subject to an ongoing discussion in which I don't have an opinion. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Most of the sources here are used to verify informations and not as a means of promotion. There are sources which you have discarded simply because they were worded in a way that you do not like and I wonder when Misplaced Pages started dictating the tone of sources as I am fully aware that sources are allowed to be biased if they are reliable. The mix up in the PM News articles can be corrected with a simple mail to the editor (as it is standard procedure) and not my fault that the mix up occurred. I’ll present atleast three sources plus the fact that “Hmmm” which is a single in a Grammy nominated album "11:11 (Chris Brown album)" was co-written by Ajudua. This information was definitely not available in the last discussion. Ahola .O (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages started dictating the tone of sources! since Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not.
    This is a biographies of a living person, so we need to be even more careful when it comes to writing and sourcing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    WP:YESPOV shows that articles could be non-neutral and our responsibility as editors is to present these views as neutral as possible. When it comes to being biased, I believe articles can be biased too per WP:RSBIAS; unless I’m interpreting the policies wrong.
    The article about the father being absent is a celebrity article but I used it because it gives context into the married. Ahola .O (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    You are, in fact, misunderstanding and misinterpreting them. I couldn’t even comprehend what your view of NPOV and reliable sourcing is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
    What do you not understand? Every source must not follow Misplaced Pages’s policies as each outlets has its own style of writing. Again, I ask, are we dictating that the tone of sources even when they have bylines are no evidence that they were sponsored? I think you are the one who does not understand WP:NPOV here. Also, if there are promotionals tone that I must have mistakenly added, is deletion the avenue for it? Ahola .O (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Sources show that the subject is notable.:
Jonahakuso (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. There are sources that were not available in the last discussions. This one from PM News was published in April, 2023; this from Nigerian Tribune where they called him a pioneer] was published in 2022 and contrary to Vanderwaalforces that this is just passing mentions, this has some information on him; this from TheNEWS has an in-depth coverage on his company(ies). was published in July 2023; this from The Guardian was published in November 2023; this from Daily Times was published in 2024; This from Vanguard (which has been labelled a marginal reliable) has a byline and can be used to establish some notability. I believe that these sources meet the WP:GNG because 1) they are independent of the subject 2) has indepth coverage 3) are reliable 4) has demonstrated independent coverage. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would change my mind if there are evidence and not just there words ie some citations.

Ajudua is a co-writer of a Grammy nominated album 11:11 which meets WP:NCOMPOSER #1 and #4. This information is verifiable on every music streaming platform. Ahola .O (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that most of these sources taken together can arguably count as in-depth coverage, but I'd also like to note here that the reliability of most Nigerian news outlets is the subject of an ongoing discussion above my pay grade. I'll strike my vote above since I don't have an opinion on the reliability of these sources.
I will point out though that the subject is not co-writer of a Grammy-nominated album, he is co-writer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album. Most of the co-writers listed in 11:11 (Chris Brown album) don't have articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The sources I had shown above shows that the Ajudua has coverages since 2022 or thereabout and I am sure that an extensive search will definitely show more.
I am not basing the notability here with just the single track. I am showing that amongst the sources that they meet a criteria there also, atleast #1. Ahola .O (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Oldest Doctor Who Cast Members

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

An indiscriminate list (can be considered listcruft) of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age. There is no clear relevance between the TV show and age unlike sports and age would have, so this is very trivial. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, why is it problematic? Spectritus (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
@Spectritus: My nomination states the article's problems. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Why would it be deleted just for lacking sources? In this case, articles are usually just left with a "More sources needed" notice, nothing more. Spectritus (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Also, for the ages of those actors, you can just check their Misplaced Pages/IMDb pages. Spectritus (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:IMDB is not a reliable source, and notability guidelines for lists and general topics indeed require sourcing. If you have reliable sources that discuss this subject (not individual entries on the list) by all means offer them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
This page may not be relevant enough to stay. But, the English Misplaced Pages doesn't consider many websites as "reliable", so it's difficult. And if I may add, I understand it needs to be strict, but the English Misplaced Pages is way too strict compared to other Misplaced Pages languages. And it should be understood that if a topic isn't covered by the biggest websites, it doesn't necessarily mean it's not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article. Spectritus (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
I did not nominate it for its lack of sources, despite that being an issue (albeit a fixable one). I nominated it because it is an indiscriminate list of some of the oldest actors in the Doctor Who series by age and that there is no clear relevance between the TV show and age. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of trivia, and articles that are very specific but with little relevance when connected such as "List of film actors by favorite color" or "List of celebrities with brown hair" should not be published to Misplaced Pages. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
The "relevance between the TV show and age" is that it's a show that has been ongoing for a very long time and so, some cast members have lived to a very old age. Spectritus (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Doctor Who being an old show doesn't make assessing the show's oldest in age actors any less trivial because it's still a collection of facts that aren't directly associated with the topic of the show, making it listcruft. A list of actors of the show along, or its episodes or franchised media, would be counter-examples to listcruft. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: List clearly has no real relevance. Unless the age of the actors is truly relevant to the TV show, then there is no reason why this list should exist.
Noah 23:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Could it at least be put in the draftspace instead of being deleted? Spectritus (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Putting it into draft space would be a step towards putting it back into article space. On the basis that the subject can never be encyclopaedic, I would oppose. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete It really has nothing to do with the Doctor Who canon itself as it is totally unrelated to when they were in the show or what age they were at the time. All it is is a list of long-living actors who also happened to have a part in Doctor Who during their career. Per nom, it is indiscriminate. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
You all have a point. Spectritus (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An INDISCRIMINATE list that does not meet any notability criteria. My thoughts echo those of every voter above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to maintain an archive of this list for use on Tardis Data Core, the Misplaced Pages for Doctor Who. User:Northern Hills.

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Gen Z Manifesto

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

This fails every part of WP:NFILM or the explanatory essay at WP:NTV. A cursory search doesn't bring anything useful. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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.

Indonesian VTuber Awards

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

Similar to the related page Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024, this event does not seem to meet the eligibility criteria of WP:GNG WP:EVENT. It also does not have a reliable source to verify the source of the news. Also, the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: w:id:WP:KONTENKREATOR). Ariandi Lie 06:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:38, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024

Indonesian Vtuber Awards 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm also nominated this article because This event does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Nor does it have a reliable sources to verify. Also the people who are included in the categories or winners do not meet the eligibility criteria according to WP:WikiProject YouTube/Notability (on idwiki: WP:PEMBUATKONTEN). Ariandi Lie 04:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Bet-David

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still don't see a consensus. Some editors arguing to Keep are focusing on factors like subscriber numbers of podcast guests which have nothing to do with establishing notability. While they are fewer in number, editors advocating Deletion are focusing in on sources which is how we primarily determine notability in AFD discussions. An impartial source assessment table could be very useful at this point in the discussion so there can be some agreement on which sources provide SIGCOV and which ones are only passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Strong Keep NebulaDrift (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Kamna Pathak

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see , , . Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

  • The sources are quite poor and not independent of the subject with claims and interviews. Subject fails the criteria for WP:NACTOR who did not have significant roles in "multiple" notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources are reliable, and the subject is well-researched with verifiable claims.
𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 04:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion on the sources added. Keep !votes, kindly comment based on our P&Gs and after giving a detailed analysis of the sources based on those P&Gs with a clear rationale why the article should be kept, not mere statements saying the sources are good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. No valid secondary sources to prove WP:GNG. TitCrisse (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't find anything but interviews for this lady. No independent coverage. She has acted in one TV show, and what looks like an extra(?) in a film. I have done a search (searches from the UK aren't always good these days), I would be happy to re-evaluate my vote if idependent sources can be found. At the moment, this article doesn't demonstrate it complies with WP:GNG.Knitsey (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Categories: