Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

< Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coffee (talk | contribs) at 12:27, 18 December 2019 (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Sabbagh.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 12:27, 18 December 2019 by Coffee (talk | contribs) (Listing Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Sabbagh.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Points of interest related to Women on Misplaced Pages:
Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Assessment


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

Deletion Sorting
Project

AfD: Today, Yesterday

Delsort scripts

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 {{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.
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 {{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.

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

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. Tone 09:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sabrina Sabbagh

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

After removing all unreliable sources from the article, there are no sources in this. I did a check for sources online as well, and found no published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a non-notable journalist. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2019 (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.

The result was keep. Opinions are tending towards a consensus that the article can (and should) be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 11:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Christina Linhardt

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

Subject of article is a singer that fails WP:SINGER an actor, but fails WP:NACTOR & a director that fails WP:ANYBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete none of the sources are 3rd party, reliable secondary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ unfortunately as does not yet have any prominent roles in notable productions with only minor roles or short films credits so does not pass WP:NACTOR at this stage and being a member of an orchestra is not sufficient for the music inclusion guidelines but may be notable in the future if better roles are secured, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Changed to neutral as explained in later comment Atlantic306 (talk) 03:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep John Pack Lambert , isn't the question supposed to be, "Do such sources exist?", not "Are there such sources within the article?" (did you do a Google search on her? What did you find?). And Atlantic306: Passing WP:NACTOR or any other guideline is only a measure of inclusion, not exclusion, and NOT meeting a guideline is not usually grounds for deletion. The question, as I understand it, is this: is the subject covered non-trivially in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether or not included in the actual article)? Did either of you check this? If you did, I think you might be surprised! Also: isn't the Hollywood FAME award evidence of her notability? Also, consider this article on her. A loose necktie (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment @A loose necktie: I see that you created this article. If you are aware of other reliable sources with coverage about this person, it would be useful if you could add them to the article, or at least add links here, rather than saying we might be surprised if we checked. I have been trying to check, and so far I have not found a great deal. In 1997, the Los Angeles Times said that she "made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria" in a performance called "Haunted Cabaret" ; in 2004, she was a member of a satirical anti-Bush group Billionaires for Bush . Neither of those contributes to notability. This article in International Musician is the most significant coverage I've found. I am not sure that it would count as independent, though, as the article is a "Member Profile", indicating that Linhardt is a member of the association of which this is the official journal. However, it gives some information about her education ("graduated in music and vocal arts from the University of Southern California", though with no dates), and some of the groups she has performed in, places she has appeared, etc, which could be (1) added to the article and (2) used in searches to find additional information. She has performed in Germany, so there may well be more German sources. It's not clear that Skope magazine, which has the article you linked to above, is a reliable source, and the article seems rather promotional and makes rather exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims (eg "Her “Classics To Cabaret” show is a favorite among European Royalty and diplomats"). Some of the info in it could be used to search for additional sources, though. As notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, it is not relevant to her notability to mention that she met famous people. So far I am not seeing enough coverage or enough notable performances for her to meet notability guidelines - it would be helpful if you could add more independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, what about this, this, and the multiple newspaper clippings shown here? A loose necktie (talk) 15:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi, those two links seem to be a members profile addition and a university aluminus report but the press clippings look more independent so I' m changing to neutral, but the Hollywood Fame awards don't seem to have an article assuming they are not Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Which they are not, of course! They are part of the LA Music Awards as the Hollywood Film, Art, Music, and Entertainment awards. Thank you for changing your vote. A loose necktie (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, A loose necktie. The International Musician profile I had already linked to above - it's a member profile, so not independent. The University of Southern California notice is not independent either, as she studied there. The Hollywood FAME award does not seem to be notable itself, so is not an indication of notability for her. The articles in the Press page of the Circus Sanctuary website do appear to be independent and reliable, and should be added as individual references to the article, with the information they contain. They may be enough for her either to meet WP:GNG, or to show that she meets one or more criteria of WP:MUSICBIO, but at the moment, it's not enough to show that sources exist, as there is no clear claim of notability as recognised by Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. If this AfD is not relisted, I would suggest that this article be draftified, so that the information and sources can be included. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I have now added some German language sources. Along with those in English, I believe I have now met the minimum requirements for article sourcing. I would rather not have the article moved to draft space, and would rather it simply be deleted if others do not agree that the subject meets the WP:GNG by virtue of having been the subject of non-trivial discussion in multiple reliable independent published sources (whether in the article yet or not). A loose necktie (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep for now WP:NORUSH and NEXIST (reliable sources exist even if not in the article) Here is one that a loose necktie found. Subject of a documentary. WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete ~~appearingly early(ish) career.~~ But not enough sources at present.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC). Removing a remark that appears to be inaccurate, she seems to have been performing since at least 1997 when she was damned with faint praise "Among the other performers... Christina Linhardt made a valiant reading of the difficult Menotti aria." May have been a career killer.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is that your honest opinion? Okay... Then how many sources ARE enough, NotButtigieg? Also, what is "appearingly early(ish)"? If you mean you don't think she's had a long enough career yet, isn't that basically WP:ITSTOONEW argumentation? And quickly, for Sandstein: I see you have relisted this for further discussion. Given that it had already been listed once and that a decision to delete did not appear to have community consensus while a clear decision to keep was also not there, couldn't you have called it a no-consensus keep and saved the community further discussion time? Just a thought. Thanks! A loose necktie (talk)

In response, I made a more thorough search and can see very little indication of notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep There definitely seem to be enough independent sources to qualify as notable under GNG. I don't agree that "International Musician" is not an independent source, the profile is a news article in the official journal of an 80,000 member union, this does not constitute a "close affiliation". I'll try to incorporate some of the additional sources into the article in the next day or so.

Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Elena Zarova

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

Article was essentially a resume (see history), and still is basically a now slightly shorter resume. The job titles do not guarantee notability per GNG or PROF, and the publications likewise don't suggest anything above regular stuff done by a regular academic (look in the history--it's all articles). Not a single secondary source is cited, and the awards and titles, well, they're just job titles. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete as WP:NOTCV (note: as this appears to be one of those "flyby, hasn't looked for sources" deletes please trout as approriate:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment, the article creator appears to have copied this from their creation in Russian WP see here so no help there (and forgot to include a translate notice, tsk, tsk:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Just a carelessly written CV. Fails WP:Prof#C1on citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2019 (UTC).
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Misplaced Pages is not a medium to host your own résumé. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2007, this would be forgivable, but in 2019, everyone knows we are an American charity, not a free web-host for Russians. This is clearly (based on the article history) an autobiography by the subject, who is run of the mill as academics and college administrators go. The burden for conflicts shifts to the fiduciary per Meinhard v. Salmon. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. Elected Member of the International Statistical Institute is an honorary level of membership from a scholarly society of the type described in WP:PROF#C3, but I think it is not selective enough to pass C3 by itself (as evidenced e.g. by the fact that Zarova and others have been honored despite having citation counts that would not meet C1). And nothing else here appears close to rising to the level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Ibife Alufohai

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

Not meeting WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Winning a non-notable beauty pageant is not enough to warrant a standalone article. Could not find any kind of substantial coverage on the subject. Passing mentions in reputable sources are not enough to demonstrate notability. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 06:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Being the founder of a notable event like Miss Polo International is enough to pass WP:ARCHITECT. Being discussed at length in reliable sources like Leadership Newspaper here and in Dailymail24 here is enough to pass WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BASIC to warrant a standalone article. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep After a search I feel like subject meets WP:GNG based on the articles cited by User:Nnadigoodluck.Though I couldn't access the leadership.ng source, similar sources provide similar coverage counting towards WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:RS provided by Nnadigoodluck above. Celestina007 (talk) 012:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Audrey Jones

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:NPOL as only ever elected as a local councillor. Lord Mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates between councillors and confers little additional notability. Miraclepine in de-prodding argues that Birmingham's size makes its councillors notable, but that's not been the usual interpretation of WP:NPOL in UK politics. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role and does not make one notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Lord mayor is a ceremonial role that rotates annually among the city councillors, not an inherently notable role that guarantees a Misplaced Pages article. And while Birmingham is large and important enough that its city councillors could clear the bar if their articles featured substantive content about their political importance and were well-referenced to significant press coverage, they also don't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing — but this article literally just states that she exists, the end, and references the fact to two pieces of coverage in the context of her health status, one primary source, one photograph, and zero coverage of her political career. This is not the depth of substance or the type of sourcing we require to deem a local politician notable enough for an international encyclopedia: the notability test for municipal politicians is the ability to write a substantive article, not just the ability to verify that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete rotating lord mayorships do not make one notable, and there is not enough sourcing here otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment I added some more sources and information. I wonder if the coverage on her experimental treatment here, here and here would be enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Achaea (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input to the article. Those references are something, although it looks a bit WP:ROUTINE to me. Bondegezou (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't pass the WP:GNG. If councillors in big cities are generally assumed notable (which they shouldn't be) then the encylopedia would end up with a lot of very bare articles about them. Ralbegen (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Passes WP:MUSICBIO#5 (non-admin closure) -Nahal 19:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Emily Blue

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

The sources are from mostly non notable publications and a lot of the article is unsourced. Andise1 (talk) 16:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment undecided for now. Two sources fulfill GNG requirements: , . Many other sources like Atwood are non-professional and probably unreliable. However, nom's reasoning is flawed: WP:BLP states that deletion of largely unsourced articles is only the last resort, but there is no indication of this. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 01:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC) (this user was indefinitely blocked on 18 January 2020)
Keep The subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels", with two albums on Audiotree, as clearly stated in the article. The state of sourcing in an article is not a reason for deletion, per WP:NPOSSIBLE. As for sources, as well as the Chicago Tribune profile found by UnnamedUser , there are reviews in Substream Magazine , Third Coast Review , Hooligan Magazine , PopMatters , Audiofemme , and a couple of paras at the beginning of an interview in Vents Magazine . They don't all have Misplaced Pages articles, but some of them do seem to have editorial overview. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above such as Chicago Tribune, PopMatters, Chicago Reader and others that show that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is not necessary in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Subject has WP:SIGCOV meets WP:V and meets WP:MUSICBIO#5 Wm335td (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Jessa Rhodes

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:GNG; was previously deleted and does not seem more notable now. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain 04:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep Take the industry specific blabber out of it and it’s gotta count for something that business publications CNBC and Forbes (did a whole article on her) have pointed out her success. Trillfendi (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete not enough 3rd party, indepdent coverage in reliable publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Trillfendi, she seems to have international notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
1 is dead

2 is an interview and therefore not independent

3 is also an interview in the context of a lifestyle piece about porn

4 literally says she did an AMA on Reddit and quotes from it. I

None of this is a GNG pass and no other guidelines are met. Spartaz 23:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
They are not straight interviews or straight primary sources disqualifying notability. The journalists in each article synthesizes the information and writes about the person. Journalists from more reputable sources are ethically required to do fact checking and do not just take everything the person says at face value. Sure, the feature may be based on the journalist interviewing the person but there is a reason why they did so. (noticing the person aka notability) Further connection problems is not a disqualifier of a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: sources presented are insufficient for WP:BIO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete since subject does not meet WP:NACTOR or even WP:GNG. The links proffered as "sources" above are not much help. There is a piece on Rhodes in an Italian website, caused by and focusing on a marketing gimmick ("the winner can spend a fiery night with her", etc), which brings her as close to WP:BLP1E as one can get; there's a sociologist interviewing Rhodes here, in Uproxx, the article being about the life of a typical porn actress and not Rhodes herself, as is clearly stated ("Today’s up-and-coming porn starlet is a hustler of different proportions...Take for example Jessa Rhodes") - incidentally, the text's not making us very comfortable when it ends with a promotion of its interviewee, i.e. "Visit Jessa Rhodes on Twitter and Instagram at... also buy her charitable T-shirt for Profane Clothing", etc; there's a Forbes report on the 2014 AVN Adult Entertainment Expo and AVN Awards show, with our subject name-dropped once; and a small write up in the Russian Lenta.ru about her reddit Q&A session, a typical piece of blather. One has to dig far and wide for sources but, in the end, one comes up with nothing much: The subject is simply not notable. -The Gnome (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Draft. May need time to incubate. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Yunshui _水 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sono Aibe

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

Fails GNG. Her claim to notability arises from being "Senior Program Advisor" at Pathfinder International, all other positions being run of the mill jobs in different organizations. On further inspection, PI doesn't list her in their Staff section, so in fact one could consider her role as advisor a minor one, or at least one that is not essential enough to be described online. That said, I did investigate and could not find independent sources apart from this one, which just mentions her role at PI in passing, and is a publication to which she's contributed in the past. Also found speaking engagements such as this one, which are obviously insufficient for establishing notability. Edit: for anyone wondering about her ACADEMIC credentials, she has a handful of published articles, each with 3 citations at most. PK650 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA 05:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: Just not Misplaced Pages-notable; fails WP:GNG. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. GNG notability not apparent, PROF highly unlikely. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Deor (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ela Darling

Does not meet WP:GNG, doesn't appear notable as an entrepreneur. --NL19931993 (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:GNG. A piece just on her in the Rolling Stone? Significant mentions in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal? Yeah, that's significant coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete one article in one magazine does not notability make. There is not broad enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Clear that nominator did not do WP:BEFORE given the Rolling Stones article mentioned by NatGertler, NY Times article , Wall Street Journal , and VICE article that are already cited in the article. If you can't read the articles because of the paywall, try clearing your cookies. It is also clear that she passes WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:ARTIST, as a pioneer in VR porn, consistently cited in those articles. Look at this specific quote, "As the first ever VR Cam Girl, Darling’s ambitions of bringing VR pornography to the masses is truly passion fueled and is a demonstration of “roll up your sleeves” American entrepreneurship. Darling has built her own stereoscopic camera solution with stitching software and plans to offer it at a low entry price of $250, to allow easy access to cam girls who wish to enter into the market. The repercussions of this will be felt throughout the entire VR community: a steady stream of on-demand and fresh content. It’s one of the biggest complaints about VR so far, and porn seems to have a solution." Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per sources. Spartaz 23:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak Keep ,i found only 2 sources that are reliable ,the rest are debatable ,qualifies for WP:HEY Georgiamarlins (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per WP:NCREATIVE (see here, here, etc). It is erroneous to assess the article's subject on the basis of criteria for porn entertainers: She's notable as an innovator in entertainment communication. The lead section of the article should also reflect this fact, and clearly too. -The Gnome (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak Keep it meets gng as an entertainer but depend upon her career it is too soon.. Misplaced Pages:The GNG and notability for actors (may be applicable for actress). Rocky 734 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Joan Gardner (Broadway actress)

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

Non notable actress failing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR & not satisfying WP:42 Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep seems to me to actually pass WP:GNG with coverage provided in the article. Admittedly low coverage, but it's a stub. Do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep I've added information from Newspapers.com. She was a bit of a sensation there for a while. I'm seeing some evidence of her in society pages as Mrs. Edwin T. Hall in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but there's actually a few different Mrs. Edwin T. Halls, it seems and I'm not sure which is which. Would be interesting to find out. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep as, per Paul McDonald, notability wasn't that questionable in the first place and as, per Megalibrarygirl, there was more information (and accessible online) out there. I am going to a library to access Variety and other entertainment archives in a few weeks; if this discussion is not closed as keep soon, please give me more time to find more sources on the subject. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Ritchie333 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sue Dodge

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG, WP:42 & WP:SINGER Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete non-notable -- the possiblity of redirection to Spear Famoily is nt supported by the availabel sources. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Kathy Evers

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

She is simply not notable. Sources include tweets from the campaign trail (promotional, not independent of the campaign) and passing mentions in reliable sources. First ladies of a U.S. state are not considered inherently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge to Tony Evers. Almost all relates to him. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect to the Governor of Wisconsin Tony Evers. Non-notable person. Lightburst (talk) 23:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Tony. "First lady" at the state level is not an inherently notable role that guarantees an article to every spouse of a state governor — the national first lady gets that, but state first ladies are only notable if they get over a regular notability criterion on their own activities independently of who they happen to be married to. But this features entirely too much primary and unreliable sourcing (Twitter tweets are a no-no), and not nearly enough of the reliable kind: even the real media sources mostly aren't about her, but merely mention her name in the process of being about Tony. Accordingly, a bit of content about her in Tony's article would be perfectly appropriate, but the substance and sourcing here don't rise to the level of earning her a standalone BLP separately from him. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep. There are articles about the subject in RS not currently used in the article that a WP:BEFORE turns up. See the articles in WKOW on her dementia work; Heavy for general coverage; WISN on helping children and the elderly; the Associated Press stated she was the one "who led the state’s efforts to mark the anniversary" of her state marking the 100th anniversary of adopting the 19th amendment; and she's worked with the Wisconsin Historical Society for events. --Kbabej (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Kbabej, that's all pretty weak, hence why I did BEFORE and nominated anyway. Those articles don't provide any biographical information about her, other than verifying that she is the first lady of Wisconsin. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete for now. It's possible that she will get more coverage during her term as first lady, but what she has received so far does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. Even "Kathy Evers, Tony Evers' Wife: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know", which is in the article as a source, is mostly about him, not her. I found a few other pieces of coverage, but they are minimal - she chaired the committee organising the celebration of the 100th anniversary in 2019 of Wisconsin ratifying the amendment giving women the right to vote (the first state to do so), but all that's reported of the major events is that the ceremony included "comments from first lady Kathy Evers, who led the state's efforts to mark the centenary". WAOW and WSAU (AM) did a story on her visiting schools to mark the centenary , . I found one news story about the 2018 Warren-Baldwin rally in Wisconsin that says "Kathy Evers, the wife of state Superintended Tony Evers, who is challenging Gov. Scott Walker, introduced Baldwin at the rally". Very little about her, with not even her comments reported, often. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Some of the spouses of the United States state governors are notable; Betty Cooper Hearnes was married to Missouri Governor Warren Hearnes. Betty Cooper Hearnes served in the Missouri General Assembly and would be notable. Lurleen Wallace wife of Alabama Governor George Wallace is another example; Lurleen Wallace served as Governor of Alabama and died from cancer while still in office. I agree with User:RebeccaGreen that the article about Kathy Evers would be too soon. Consequently, I wanted to give examples that some spouses of United States state governors are notable in their own right. Thank you-RFD (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Being a political spouse is not an accomplishment. What does she do outside of that, which would be considered noteworthy? Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 08:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Aram jafari

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources & fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
comment. Since it is a Persian article, it is basically found in Persian Misplaced Pages. Please search on google fa:آرام جعفری and i think get more source Persian language, According to Persian Misplaced Pages, she work multiple movie, i think she is probably notable something. So, i request to Relist-Nahal 00:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I check all of her Persian news source via translation, but i didn't find any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. Maybe it's also WP:TOOSOON.-Nahal 19:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Josie Osborne

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

WP:BLP of a smalltown mayor, not demonstrated as the subject of enough significant press coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically presumed notable just because they exist -- especially in small towns (pop. ~2K), the notability bar that the mayor has to clear is that they can be shown as significantly more notable than most other mayors of small towns, by virtue of writing and reliably sourcing a substantive article about her political importance. But this just documents that she exists, and is referenced to just three pieces of local coverage and a press release from her own political party, and that's not what it takes to make a smalltown mayor notable enough for inclusion. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete She is mayor of a place with less than 2,000 residents. If it had 10 times that many people it would still be a slam dunk deltion. If this article is kept it will open the flood gates to an uncontrolled number of articles on super hyper local political leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: This article ticks about every box required for deletion. She is a small (minute) town mayor and a local politician (Fails WP:POLITICIAN). She is not very notable and has not received enough press coverage, despite being a Green Party mayor. If she was the party's first or only mayor, that would've been an entirely different story. (Fails WP:GNG & WP:NPOL). LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:7C07:2600:F936:CC:F2B7:68A0 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete as she has not received WP:SIGCOV outside her town, so does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, and she does not meet any WP:SNG. I did find some coverage in The Globe and Mail (but that is quoting her on the topic of the article, not about her as a person/mayor,etc) and the CBC (but that is not SIGCOV, it's really only one sentence about her). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Silvia Fresco

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

No evidence of notability. A claim by the author that Fellowship of the American College of Surgeons meets criteria 3 of WP:PROF is false. FACS is a qualification open to all qualified surgeons after 12 months of successful practice in a locale and simply requires payment of the requisite fee. Without that claim, there is nothing else here to support a claim to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Velella 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella 17:07, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

If so, every organization is required some kind of payment, even AAAS. Yet, we keep those articles. If this article fails WP:PROF then every other article that lists an academic as fellow of whatever, should be deleted.--Biografer (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete There is no claim of notability here. Per this source, the American College of Surgeons has 82,000 members. WP:PROF #3 is clear that the organization needs to be "a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association", a standard that is not met here. In the absence of in-depth sources showing that Dr. Fresco is notable, the mere fact of being a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons meets no standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Alansohn: Correct me if I am wrong, but we can also say that AAAS who employs 10 million academics, is also a not so "prestigious". Our guideline at WP:PROF 3 says that: The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers). Yet, because it doesn't say only, the confusion arises as which ones are prestigious. For example, we have articles on Guggenheim Fellows, but it doesn't state in WP:PROF #3 criteria. Not to mention, majority of academics have no so notable societies and prestigious ones. We do require to list them in the awards section as long as they are not in-house awards (or fellowships) as in such case. However, I personally don't know the difference between a prestigious society, and not so much. To me, a fellowship is a fellowship.
- Returning to the FACS: Every person there is also elected as a fellow, they don't automatically appointed, which contradicts statement by @Velella: FACS is a qualification open to all qualified surgeons after 12 months of successful practice in a locale and simply requires payment of the requisite fee. The have elevated, valued, all kinds of fellowship ranks, which are no different from IEEE for example.--Biografer (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- According to one of the primary sources, the subject is also a member of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, the Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons, and the American Society of Breast Surgeons. The problem is, is that with FACS, I can retrieve the information with ease, and the source is good when it comes to birth year. The other societies that I found she is a member of, requires membership, which I don't have. So, in conclusion, she is notable, but Misplaced Pages just don't want to buy the proof. :(--Biografer (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  - Biografer, if you're trying to use Misplaced Pages:Notability (academics) as the pathway to notability, it appears that you are mistaken. The guideline refers to academics, which are defined as "someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education; academic notability refers to being known for such engagement." Dr. Fresco is a physician, not an academicCriteria 3 states that "The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers)." Dr. Fresco has not been elected to a highly selective society, a standard that the American College of Surgeons does not meet. This is intended to be a selective subgroup, while being an FACS means that you are a surgeon like virtually all surgeons.Criteria 3 doesn't apply and it's clear that none of the criteria are even close. The laundry list of memberships does little to support a claim and if the FACS is being used exclusively for the ease of access, that's a weak claim of notability. If Dr. Fresco had extensive in-depth reliable and verifiable sources talking about her as a surgeon, you'd be on far firmer ground. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Per Alansohn....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for academics. The groups she belongs to are not exclusive groups for top ranked academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Article about a non-notable surgeon that fails WP:GNG. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Aashna Chopra

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

Non notable model & actress who fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: After some researches and clean up and I believe the article meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

DeleteNot notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Campbell (talk • contribs)

Few different sources claims he notability on being the first and only Southeast Asian on a cover of a L'Officiel Europe, also a few sources were used in the article and more to be find in the internet, so it is more likely to meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 09:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Alanna Panday

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of her. A WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions but nothing indepth and she appears to be related to a notable person Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy Delete She's popularly known for being Ananya Panday's cousin. Notability is not inherited. Clear case of WP:INVALIDBIO. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Sources don't meet the WP:GNG criteria. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete not even close to being a notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Müzeyyen Dilek Özbiler

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team, despite several calls up to the training camp. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep She plays in the Turkish top-level women's league. CeeGee 08:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁ 09:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment, is the Turkish Women's First Football League (TFF), Turkey's top level football league, "a major amateur .. competion" so meeting WP:NSPORTS? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the headline text of the guideline is somewhat misleading. The full text (in the WP:SPORTCRIT section) is "a major international amateur competition". This is a domestic competition, so the subject does not meet the criteria. Number 5 7 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure; playing in the top division does not confer notability in this case. Number 5 7 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete does not meet our already overbroad inclusion criteria for footballers. It is bad enough that 50% of the articles here are on footballers, we do not need to change that to 75% as the inclusionists seek. That will just lead to twice as many unmaitiined, no depth, fluff articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Mariam Freimann

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

Not a single independent reliable source available. Clearly fails GNG. PK650 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete nothing in the article establishes notability Uhooep (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Khrystyna Pereviznyk

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No caps for senior national team. Plays in Turkish league which is not a WP:FPL league. BlameRuiner (talk) 05:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 05:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep She plays in the Turkish top-level women's league. CeeGee 08:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having played a full senior international and for not playing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). No evidence of passing WP:GNG. — MarkH₂₁ 09:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment, does this afd highlight an apparent discrepency? Pereviznyk does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having not played a full senior international or in a fully professional league, but does play in Turkish Women's First Football League (TFF), Turkey's top level football league, so appears to meet WP:NSPORTS (in a nutshell) ie. "if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition", or is the TFF not deemed "a major amateur .. competion"? just wondering. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the headline text of the guideline is somewhat misleading. The full text (in WP:SPORTCRIT) is "a major international amateur competition". This is a domestic competition, so the subject does not meet the criteria. Number 5 7 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification, delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. The fact that the league is top level is irrelevant. Number 5 7 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Tone 20:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

B. Vijayalakshmi

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

did not meet WP:PROF. Iundweartand theh uman interest of her personal story, but this is an encyclopedia, and devoted to NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: article had issues with promotional tone, which I've tried to tamp down. However, I think notability is established, as her biography was published in Lilavati's Daughters, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences. I will continue looking for other sources to shore up claims of notability, but feel that article is up-to-scratch with GNG. Enwebb (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: She is noted at least in India for her efforts in her career despite her struggle with cancer as the sources say, and has a documentary made about her by a noted media personality. I checked for more reliable sources, even in regional languages, but there are almost none other than the ones already in use. I feel the existing sources suffice to establish her notability. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: As per Enwebb's edits, I feel the NPOV has been improved. TheGreatConsultingDetective (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was speedy delete. Was deleted as G7. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Puja Sharma

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

Non notable model who allegedly won a non notable award and lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. She fails WP:GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Non-notable model winning a non-notable award. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 20:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Ethyl Smith

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

Non notable “model maker” who fails WP:GNG & WP:BIO Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete The book she was featured in only seems to mention her in the acknowledgements as far as I can verify. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Achaea (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:GNG. I found a few mentions of her as long-time and respected hobbyist, but really nothing significant. There's a writer with the same name, who isn't notable either. Bearian (talk)
Speedy Delete Should be deleted using A7 criterion of speedy deletion. Don't really see why she is important. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Detailed analysis of sources not refuted Spartaz 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hayley McLaughlin

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

I'm not seeing any independent sourcing other than unreliable sources like IMDB, Netflix, etc. This was put up for a WP:PROD which was removed more than once despite the fact there no reliable sources used as references at that time: . I'm not seeing anything else that indicates strong notability to meet WP:NACTOR. She was in The Librarians (2014 TV series), which has an article. But I'm not seeing another notable work she is in with a reliable source for it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, at present. I oppose the deletion, at present, because the issue with the article appears to be quality of sourcing, a matter that can be remedied. (Contrary to the perspective of @David Tornheim:, clicking on the link in the AfD template message brings up several reliable published sources, including for a recent appearance in Netflix's new (and clearly notable) series, Love, Death and Robots. Hence, I think a deletion is premature. I regularly attend to articles whose sourcing is even worse than this; moreover, despite the UK being part of the coverage of en.wikipedia.org, there is no gainsaying that there is a bias in perspective here in favour of U.S.-based film enterprises over professionals from the Commonwealth, even moreso over other English-speaking film professionals further afield. (I am quite sure, for instance, that there is more written about minor American directors and producers than about some preeminent Kenyan or ASEAN ones.) Given the possibility of improving the sourcing for the stub—for that is all the article claims to be—and the fact that we naturally know less and so lean away from Scots and other non-American English-speaking professionals in our writing, I will oppose this deletion. Note, I am not an inclusionist, and would see more of the plagiarised, unsourced material—in some cases, whole articles—removed from the encyclopedia. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this, Hayley McLaughlin should simply be tagged for improvement, and reevaluated later (should this Scottish actor's work not continue to develop as recent sources seem to indicate it might). Meanwhile, I will tag the article "BLP refimprove", and add a "Further reading" section, with any published articles on the subject that I can quickly find. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:7911:7D3:DBD5:9B47 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Please look at the article now. {{BLP reimprove}} was downgradedand to {{more footnotes}} after more than a half dozen reliable sources in support of several programmes were found and added to the text and to a Further reading section. All bare URL citations have been filled, and the process of extracting the listed potential sources was begun. The IMDB and other unreliable sources originally placed are all but gone from the article now (and even before, spoke more of editor practices rather than subject notability). If anything, the more than 20 appearances of the actor presented at the UK biography site, PersonBio.org and at her IMDB page are underresearched/underrepresented, so her apparent notability is clearly understated relative to the available evidence. Moreover, the Netflix appearance in the premier episode of its Love, Death and Robots drew international press overage of the programme and this actor, who played that episode's lead/protgonist. Finally, there is a current (January 2020) recurring role in an American hit series, and very ample reliable material available to source that (and all other material appearing in this UK actor's stub). Hence, in due course, one should consider withdrawing or closing the AfD. 2601:246:C700:9B0:4400:20AC:B374:431B (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this,... I actually have no problem with that. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for aspiring non-notable actors to advertise themselves. I see way too much corporate advertising on Misplaced Pages, including that from Hollywood. It needs to stop. If you want to help remove the unnecessary promotion, please do. And by the way, I am an inclusionist, but not for advertising.

If you think WP:NACTOR is too restrictive, which it may be, then I suggest you go to go that page and request a change in notability requirements for actors. I might even support that, if you have a cogent and reasonable proposed change. Certainly the requirements for actors are ridiculously high when compared with the extremely and unreasonably low bar for WP:NOLYMPICS, which causes a ridiculously high percentage of all Misplaced Pages articles to be about people whose only notability is being in the Olympics once. I consider it free advertising for the Olympics, a huge business. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The reply is disingenuous to the point of being insulting, and misrepresents the thrust of my earlier arguments. First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject. (That is certainly the case for this academic editor.) Second, it is insulting to call the recent improving work I have done on the article "advertising". WP:AGF—I removed puffery, weasel words, etc., and removed IMDB and poorer sources, replacing them with sources that comply with WP:VERIFY; as I said, I am an academic editor, and not one that writes copy for adverts, in any way or fashion. Third, no statement was made that WP:NACTOR was too restrictive, only that its application involved discretion, and that it did not necessarily apply, in as clearcut of a manner as was argued, here to the article in question, when reference to it was first made. Bottom line, this actor is doing high quality work, on highly regarded series, with highly regarded professionals (e.g., Robert Zemeckis)—see first response below, to scope_creep. People need to start working through the 20+ listed credits that are posted for this actor at the UK bio site, and see what can be supported with verifiable sources. Only then should a firm decision be made about notability. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject.

Are you sure about that? I got no reply to asking an IP editor--who seems to be particularly concerned about preserving this page--whether they have a WP:COI or not: This unanswered COI question. It seems to me based on this diff, that the editor is overly eager to have a page kept before reliable sources have reported on the actor, something the editor seems very confident will happen. Why is that? That sounds like the kind of talk you get from a WP:COI editor, like the editor is trying to promote the actor and/or works the actor is in. This IP editor is new and has worked on few articles, and shows up aggressively pushing for this one article to be saved as one of his/her biggest priorities. That's pretty typical of a WP:COI editor. But please, let's hope that IP editor answers the question and explains their COI-like editing behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete All the coverage is indicative of an actor at the beginning of her career. The librarians is a guest role. Some minor, Linlithgow Gazette is a micro newspaper and Daily Record are all local new. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep 09:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, an actor at the beginning of their career can still be notable, and the WP guidelines you state are not clearly unsupportive of an article. First, the WP:NACTOR argument presented is based on the least of this actor's accomplishments (the The Librarians episode), not the best available (the Love, Death and Robots premier with coverage from news sources in at least four countries, and the recurring role in the Zemeckis' drama, Project Blue Book, the 2020 coverage of which is just beginning). This pick-the-earliest-and-least argument would be like evaluating Harrison Ford based on his 1970 role in Getting Straight—which no one has seen—and ignoring his next role, American Graffiti. Second, using WP:SIGCOV to take a swing at Daily Record (Scotland) is a straw man argument as well—picking the least of more than a dozen valid citations to attack. Granted, the Daily Record is not the greatest source, but it is to Glasgow what the New York Daily News is to NYC (and it is more important to that nation than the News is to the U.S.). But, more critically—why are Deadline, Variety, and io9.Gizmodo all ignored—are they not valid as entertainment sources? I'm sorry, I spent an hour, and was able to find these, and dispel the IMDB-only argument (see this diff). Until someone takes the time to review the 20 entries at the UK site that presents the full filmography, then do the work to see if there is significant press on more of the works in which this UK actor has appeared, I cannot buy these fly-by rejections based on no significant effort to investigate or improve. WP:SIGCOV was misused here, and WP:NACTOR clearly involves discretion. Actors from the UK deserve a chance at WP. 2601:246:C700:9B0:10F8:DB65:ED5E:C55A (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Subject of the article is clearly notable and there are references to assert notability.--Racklever (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@~riley: As a long-term wikipedian, I have additional respect for your opinion. Can you say which WP:RS you feel is the most relevant, and how exactly she meets the standard WP:ACTOR? I have asked the IPs (who all may be the same editor) about that too. I have not seen the case made for that yet. If so, I'm willing to change my vote, but I believe it is too late to withdraw the AfD, since one other editor voted to delete. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim you probably meant to ping Racklever? all ~riley did was add the deletion sorting. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry for the error. I should have pinged Racklever as I have now done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment The article has been significantly updated, so in respect to WP:HEY, lets examine the references again.

Ref 1 is the Linlithgow gazette which is local coverage. It is a micro newspaper celebrating it's local celebratory.
Ref 2 is a good secondary source, if it was a leading part but it is guest role in the librarians.
Ref 3 is non-rs. It is IMDB
Ref 4 No mention of the subject
Ref 5 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 6 Mentioned in passing as cast member. Has a small paragraph about the character, not the person playing it
Ref 7 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 8 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 9 Quote with no context
Ref 10 Seems to be lead is low budget film Deadly Switch
Ref 11 non-rs. IMDB again
Ref 12 Second cast list in first episode. Single episode.
Ref 13 Assuming a single episode as other voice actors are getting
Ref 14 Confirms ref 13
Ref 15 Confirms ref 13 although cast list is out of order.
Ref 16 Profile page. Non-rs
Ref 17 Confirms ref 13
Ref 18 Ref 18 confirms 13
Ref 19 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 20 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 21 to 28 is non-rs and doesn't count towards notability. There are all IMDB.

Out of the 21 references, 10 are Non-RS, meaning they don't count, leaving 12. Of those 12, 5 don't mention the subject, which leaves 7. Of those 7, 4 detail a single episode of the excellent Robot series where she is a voice actor and not the star. The Robot series is mentioned in several continents due to the very high quality animators that are being used to create the series, not her. The remaining three references, two of them are local to Scotland, one of them has Scottish coverage and not much else. Linlithgow gazette is too local to count. It hyper-local. The last ref is for film Deadly Switch, where she is a lead, but a low-budget film that is indicative of the type of film that brand new actors make. The librarian role is a guest star. All indicative of an attempt to WP:PUFF the article out. scope_creep 18:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment/Reply. Your closing comment is borderline insulting. AGF. There has been no WP:PUFF from me. The Librarian piece is noteworthy as her first major gig (that I found), and it resulted in her receiving very positive mention, as a guest star (over the regular cast members), by two reviewers. That is notable. And the rest of your analysis is misdirected, and your time cataloging the sources significantly misspent. With regard to misspent: unfortunately, you waited with your analysis until the nice, short list of sources I provided in my opening hour of work became adulterated with with added IMDB sources. I do not think they should stay, and I will remove them, so your list will very quickly become obsolete. Had you done your analysis earlier, you would not have been able to draw as consistent of a negative conclusion as you did. With regard to misdirection, as repeatedly stated: (1) The original AfD report addressed the fact that there were no reliable sources, with the article relying only on IMDB. (2) I then put in the hour, drawing reliable sources using the News search link appearing in the AfD header, to make the point that the subject was indeed subject of several WP:VERIFY-compliant news reports, and so that the original AfD objection was misguided—there were available sources, the original posting editor simply had not looked hard enough. And disingenuous, significantly, because (3) there has never been an argument from me here, none whatsoever, that the task of sourcing is done, or that this set of sources are sufficient or best, simply that non-IMDB sources were available for this actor, and that they were WP:VERIFY-compliant and satisfactory for a stub-length article.

In response to the improvements I made to the original IMDB-only article, editors are now moving the goal posts, attacking the first-pass, clearly preliminary sources for a stub—sources that are clearly good enough for a stub. So I reiterate what I said in response to David Tornheim above. A firm decision about notability should not be made until the many listed entries in this actor's filmography—appearing at the UK bio site, and/or at IMDB—are researched. That is to say, our time is better spent improving the article and its sources, rather than arguing about matters not in dispute. After we know if the actor is notable, only then should people firmly decide. And we will know after the work is done on the credits this actor has posted. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I don't believe we should discount Scottish newspapers because they are local to Scotland, local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability talk page), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment/Reply. As I stated in response to scope_creep's vote, I agree with you, that disparaging a Scottish newspaper just because it a Scottish publication, e.g., from Glasgow, the most populous city in that country, displays a bias that is inconsistent with the letter and spirit of WP:VERIFY, and of this being an encyclopedia for all English speaking countries. 2601:246:C700:9B0:8DB1:30F:3466:53DA (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic306 said above "local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability". Are you sure about that? I assume you are talking about this discussion. I didn't read all of it carefully. From skimming it, I am not at all convinced that because this is being discussed at length that the result of that discussion is a definitive determination along the lines you have stated. For example, I believe from reading and participating in WP:AFDs regarding notability in sports, that a person in a high school or other junior league who is doing really well, or who made some important play, and has been covered by multiple local papers is hardly notable. I'm pretty sure I have seen those kind of articles rejected more than once.

I think part of the issue of local papers is how one satisfies the requirement of "significant coverage", as in WP:GNG. If a small community of 1,000 has a magazine of that size--one that can be demonstrated to be secondary, reliable, and verifiable--and that magazine does a long story on a local band by a local "expert" musician who saw them in town and loved their work, does that really count the same toward "significant coverage" as when BillBoard magazine has coverage with the same number of words by an expert with a similar level of expertise? I find it hard to believe that the two articles are equal in establishing "significant coverage". In that sense, I do think the size of the distribution can be a factor in notability, rather than simply reliability. Was that covered in the discussion you mentioned. If not, I might throw that in. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Atlantic306: I'm not discounting the papers in Scotland as sources. The Record Daily is a national Scotland daily. The Linlithgow Gazette isn't. It is so small I hadn't heard about it. It is worth noting that the subject has not been mentioned in the two scottish broadsheets, The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. Folk have to make up their own mind. scope_creep 08:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"KEEP" - Having 22 film and tv credits. This actress is in the main cast in the later years. I have added IMDB as a ref for each film and TV item item. However, they have been deleted by someone. SWP13 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

iMDB is not WP:RS. See WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

SWP13 I checked your Afd stats, as it clear you have no looked at it. You have completed 6, two under your own steam and you have a 0% success rate. I would rather trust the nominator. scope_creep 22:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bibigul Tulegenova

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

Non notable opera singer who doesn’t possess significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Article is promotional in tone, not encyclopedic. InvarBurke (talk) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. article is in a slightly different tone, but its not promotional--it's just the standard tone in the Russian Misplaced Pages, where biographical articles are written in a form more like an outline than we do here. . The article needs some revisions, but not deletion. As for notability , she is covered in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and we always consider that people covered in the standard national encyclopedias are notable. For some reason, this reference was not carried over into the enWP, but I added it. It can be difficult to judge the importance of Soviet era awards with those more familiar to us, but two Order of Lenin awards, plus the ero of Socialist Labor (1991). People's Artist of the USSR (1967). Laureate of the USSR State Prize (1970) are more than sufficient to confirm the notability. There was a real problem, but I fixed it--a note giving the source of the original needs to be added, as for all translations from another wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. She is a People's Artist of the USSR and a USSR State Prize winner. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Tulegenova was a deputy to the seventh through ninth convocations of the Supreme Soviet of the Kazakh SSR. She has received the Kuliash Baiseitova State Prize of the Kazakh SSR (1966) and the State Prize of the USSR (1970). She has also been awarded the Order of Lenin, the Order of the Red Banner of Labor, and various medals. --Aselhan (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)aselhan

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the above comments. Passes WP:ANYBIO with multiple state awards (1) and an entry in the The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (3). She also received widespread coverage on Kazakh press sustained over the years. --MarioGom (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep: meets ANYBIO with multiple national award. According to this source (Astana Opera), there's also a competition named after Bibigul Tulegenova: "The Queen of Opera Stage Bibigul Tulegenova Delighted Her Admirers". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Passes on the awards alone, plus numerous substantial references to her on Google books. I've added 2 English language refs to lengthy news articles, linked to the English version of the article in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and formatted and clarified the remaining refs. The article is still pretty rough around the edges, but this can be easily fixed with copyediting, wikifying. etc. Voceditenore (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep.Bibigul Tulegenova is one of the very famous singers in Kazakhstan, she received several national prizes and served as a deputy, and there is information about her in the wiki encyclopedia.Mussir Aidana (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Mussir Aidana

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Beyoncé listography

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

Also included in this nomination:

I brought this up for an informal discussion at WT:WPMU a couple weeks ago. These may be considered WP:LISTCRUFT by failing to meet WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA. The most significant accolades are already found in the awards and nominations lists. If an album by the artist is ranked one of the top ten albums of the year, that factoid can be mentioned in that album's article. If kept, there's no reason not to have similar lists for everyone from Frank Sinatra to Billie Eilish. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars 01:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete If you have to make up a fake word to describe your topic, it may not be a bright idea for a list. Are any of these actually covered in independent sources or are they all primary? Why would anyone think that being the 39th least annoying of 2012 according to amiannoying.com belongs on Misplaced Pages? If it's a notable ranking like Billboard, it should be on the respective song/album's article or her own article, as many of these are, but this is pure listcruft just for the sake of it, not because Buzzfeed ranking her music videos as the Most Incredible needs to be noted. Reywas92 02:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. A wild mishmash of rankings that nobody else would ever think of bundling together. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per Reywas92. This honestly feels ike a classic example of synthesis. It's relatively well sourced, but there's no organization or governing ethos that would group these seemingly random lists together. As Reywas92 noted, the notable honors and awards should be included (and as far as I can tell, are included) in Beyonce and Lana Del Rey. The rest are not notable enough to justify an article or do not necessarily belong grouped together under a single banner. Michepman (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete for numerous issues, mainly WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:INDISCRIMINATE (apparently no criteria for the "place") and just overall WP:OR/WP:SYNTH of sources. Does not pass WP:LISTN as no source covers the groups as a whole like this. Does not warrant a WP:SPLIT because it would be trivia in parent articles anyway. The creator appears to be single-purposely making these award/trivia lists. (Disclaimer: the related articles were on my watchlist, because I previous encountered the author who made the now-deleted rejected Draft:Awards of Angel Locsin and copied it into Angel Locsin#Awards Received and kept reverting even after being contacted, although I didn't pursue this further at the time.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete both In the current climate, with some sights (I'm death starting at BuzzFeed) thriving on creating meaningless lists all the time, being put on a list made by someone has no high value anymore. This is an indiscriminate list, that as others have mentioned violates all sorts of content and creation rules. It is a nightmare waiting to happen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong delete Incredibly unnecessary. Any important list achievements are already covered in her Good Article. Leave this to IMDb. Trillfendi (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete both per WP:LISTCRUFT. A huge indiscriminate collection of trivial media mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 22:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Helen Tootsi

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

Was thinking of doing an A7, but decided to bring to AfD to get a broader view. A WP:BEFORE gives no real RS on her outside of blogs/instagram accounts/commercial art sites (luckily, her name gives a very distinctive search term). I can't see any case for GNG here. There are claims in the article that she was a "director" on various Estonian realty tv-shows, but I can't find much on her, and I think she was probably one of several directors on these programs. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. A search found a couple of minor mentions of the subject. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. As of now, however, it fails to meet notability guidelines and does not pass WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. I found a few (minor) mentions through search, but nothing of any real substance. Agree that it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. She has written a book, with mention in Postimees, the Estonian daily newspaper. In time, a possible Wiki article, but I don't think she meets notability yet. ExRat (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Only a few sources in one publication for her book, and no RS found for her work on TV shows, etc. If she writes more books and gets more reviews of them, she may become notable, but for now, WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was redirect to Swedish Bikini Team#Members of the team. WP:ATD-R czar 22:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Peggy Trentini

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

Fails WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACTOR. None of her roles are significant, book not significant, no SIGCOV of any kind Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: No significant coverage, only provided source is IMDb. Quick search does not show any reliable sources to support notability of this actor/author. ~riley (talk) 11:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy delete The only sourcing is to IMDb. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to mirror IMDb. Beyond that, her roles and modeling nowhere comes close to rising to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect, probably, to Swedish Bikini Team. I can find some sources which include info that is not currently in the article, such as an article in the Los Angeles Times in 1982 about radio stations that describes a TV commercial for KPRI with Peggy Trentini in a cutoff Tshirt, which was ruled unsuitable for broadcast before 9pm, and then reported on in newspapers and TV news: "They made her into an instant celebrity ... we held several Peggy parties .. We printed up 5,000 full-color posters of Peggy ...". A Philadelphia Daily News article from 2012 has an article about the Swedish Bikini Team, of which she was a member, and with which she appeared on the cover of Playboy - and this article has a sub-article (I'm sure there's a proper name for that) about Peggy Trentini, how she won a part in that team, other things she appeared in, including Vampirella, Desirable Liaisons, and a Carson Art Player on The Tonight Show (they are in the article, so could be sourced). The Telegraph (UK) has a bit about her in an article called "What it's really like to be a Playboy cover girl" (though it's mostly quotes from her) and The Mirror (UK) has a bit about her in "When celebrities cash-in on their loved ones deepest, darkest secrets" . These are not quite enough for WP:SIGCOV or WP:BASIC - with a few more sources about her it might be, but for now, redirection to a notable group she was part of seems the best solution. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- As nominator, I agree with Redirect. I want to thank RebeccaGreen for all the research she did on this subject. Rogermx (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Sachini Widanalage

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS. Nothing beyond trivial mentions on the subject's appearance at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Self delete per nom. I created biographies like these in my early career in 2017 without much knowledge on WP:GNG. I joined Misplaced Pages in February 2017 and created this article on 31 October 2017. So I was not technically good at that time with policies and guidelines. Now I am fluent with the policies and it was mistake at that time to have created this buography. Abishe (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - she did make the top 8 in the Commonwealth Games - according to criteria #2 of WP:NATH an athlete is presumed notable if they- "finished top 8 in a competition at the highest level outside of the Olympic games and world championships. Individual events in these championships must contain either several heats or extended fields (e.g. European Athletics Championships, Commonwealth Games, or any of the 6 World Major Marathons)." The only aspect that isn't clear is how large the field in the Women's +78kg class actually was. Dan arndt (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete There were only eight athletes in her Commonwealth Games competition, and in any case WP:NATH only applies to track and field athletes and should not be confused with the broader WP:NSPORT. Smartyllama (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Not sure whether there's a consensus to keep, but there's certainly no consensus to delete. The broader issues related to autotranslated articles are probably best addressed outside individual AfDs. Sandstein 10:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Sandstein 10:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Katarina Žutić

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

The consensus on Misplaced Pages is that machine translations of foreign-language Misplaced Pages articles should be deleted. This is because foreign-language articles may be updated or improved in the source language and because the translation algorithms are constantly improving. Anyone can generate a machine translation with a few clicks, so it's best done in real time. Pasting a machine translation into en.wiki crystallises the version from the date of the translation. Sadly the WMF failed to see this and they made a special tool for machine translating articles. This tool was disabled on en.wiki as a result of the consensus at this discussion following which it was decided to allow a special CSD for the 3,603 articles that had been generated by the tool. That CSD was enshrined on WP:CSD as CSD X2. It applies most strictly to BLPs such as this one. However, when I tagged this biography for deletion in accordance with these discussions, my tag was removed with the comment "OKish article", which it's not. Please will the community authorise its deletion. No prejudice against a fresh article being generated on the basis of actual research by good faith editors, of course. —S Marshall T/C 02:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 02:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I think that this article should remain. She is a notable actress and more refs. should be added with some style tweaks as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 10:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
This is one of those rare cases at AfD that isn't basically about notability. This may well be a notable person, and there's no reason why a good faith editor couldn't write an article about her. We just need to delete this text in the meantime, for all the reasons I gave above.—S Marshall T/C 10:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I sympathize with your opinion, and I advocate for WP:TNT myself, however, that is not the current policy and practice. The subject is notable, the article is now reasonably sourced and in a minimum viable stub state.
By the way, The consensus on Misplaced Pages is that machine translations of foreign-language Misplaced Pages articles should be deleted is not exactly true. I participated in the WP:AN/CXT cleanup myself, and in the end, over half of the translated articles were kept (WP:CXT/PTR), and the effort ended up with a silent consensus that it was a fiasco. Heck, it was actually me who recommended TNT on WP:CXT/PTR about this very article. No such user (talk) 09:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- The AN/CXT business hasn't ended. There was a pause because I seem to be the only person still doing it and I had a Wikibreak, but a pause isn't a silent consensus that it's a fiasco! CXT/PTR has long since been superseded but the cleanup's still ongoing --- as this discussion demonstrates. :)—S Marshall T/C 14:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  - To quote Elinruby from WP:AN/CXT#The interim period ends today: I'm afraid we're going to find out that we've all done a huge amount of work to delete 30 articles that need to be deleted and 350 whose authors will will not contribute again. and The rest are... sloppy english but accurate, unclear but wikilinked, or some other intermediate or mixed level. This has not, in my opinion, been a good use of my time and I have stopped doing any translations, personally, until we get some sanity here. The whole process, it seems to me, simultaneously assumes that translation is easy and also that it is of no value. There has been quite a moral panic about automated translation, but on average that large batch was just an average collection of poor-to-mediocre-quality articles, where faithfulness of translation was very low on the list of issues. But let's leave that discussion for somewhere else.
    In my opinion, the article in its current state is poor but just above the TNT bar, and while foreign-language articles may be updated or improved in the source language and because the translation algorithms are constantly improving you propose is an interesting prospect, it needs to be seen if this will become a policy in the future. Until then, every edition of Misplaced Pages will need to maintain their articles separately. No such user (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
    - Wait, what? Misplaced Pages:Translation has said this since Jmabel added it on 24 December 2006. The consensus on raw machine translations is old and strong. Fixups of raw machine translations are OK if the editor fixing them up has dual fluency and can check that the translation is actually right... but this is a BLP. Also, I realise that Elinruby has thrown their hands up in the air, but I haven't.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

- Keep. The consensus on the undesirability of unedited machine translations is strong. The consensus about what to do with them is another matter entirely. One thing is clear, there is no longer a consensus to remove them by speedy deletion. There is no consensus that the translation must be edited by experts. Double fluency is a ridiculous requirement, considering the quality of most articles in Misplaced Pages . WP is not an reliable source, and is not intended to be. Even articles without sources altogether cannot in general be speedy deleted--proposals to do this have been rejected many times. Even unsourced BLPs must go through BLPProd, a semi-sticky process, where anyone can add a source. If a pertinent reliable source is added, the article stays. We just verify the existence of a source that confirms the existence and principal notability. We do not verify accuracy unless the article is individually challenged and has an individual discussion. The CXT process was a terrible idea from the first, spearheaded by some very good translators who were under the impression that translation is not for amateurs. But everything in WP is appropriate for amateurs, and neither expert subject knowledge nor fluency even in English is necessary.

Most of the problems with the machine translated articles is the same as for any articles--dubious notability and variable quality of the original. Some of it is from the practices of the two most reliable WPs, the French and German, which use a more informal way of citing sources even for BLPs, and though their standards--especially those of the deWP are in general higher than ours, it can be difficult to convert their sourcing to our practices.

Most errors in machine translation are obvious and easily fixed--for languages like French and Spanish and Italian, the problems with converting tense usage, especially for discussing the past, the problems of translating from languages where all nouns have gender. Sometimes the machine gives a word so absurd that any reader can know it needs checking. Sometimes, of course, there can be an important and more subtle error. But this can occur in any article, especially when it uses nonEglish sources, or even English sources that may not be carefully understood by the contributor.

The proper way to deal with these articles is to check them like any other article. (There is one special problem--it is considerably trickier to check possible copyvio from a source in a different language because of computer asisted checks are worthless here)

S Marshall, of the thousands of these articles, the best way to proceed is the same as in any area of possibly questionable material--start with the ones that look look they would not be acceptable here., and the ones that simply do not make sense as translated. There are enough of both. It takes judgment, like anythign else here. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

De.wiki has a higher bar for notability than us, but I don't agree that de.wiki has higher standards than us. I think its culture is really different. De.wiki isn't as source-focused as us. Unlike us, it does have trusted editors (which is why flagged revisions works for them) and an obsessive focus on good German style. All of these articles would have been deleted from de.wiki for poor writing.
I don't agree that fr.wiki's reliability is in any way comparable with ours. It's got no intelligible focus on trustworthy sources or editors.
I don't agree that the AN/CXT process was led or directed by good translators. There was input from some active translators, but Black Kite and Xaosflux were in the driving seat, notably supported by Iridescent. I feel that in fact the discussion was led and directed by people who were motivated by frustration with the WMF.
I note your comments there and I see that you made very similar comments at the time. I'm afraid it does very much appear to me that yours is not the consensus view on this.
We could save ourselves from discussing all these articles individually, of course, by actually draftifying all the articles in the draftification list. Or even just the BLPs. At this stage I'd settle for just the BLPs.—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think our dialog is making some progress. You and I understand the deWP in the same way. For the frWP I know mainly the academic bios--they are written differently than ours, in a much more impressionistic way, and needs editing to remove material that we do not usually include, but I have yet to find one in this field that isn't clearly notable, except 1 or 2 that are being simultaneously challenged at the frWP--other fields might be different.

I also agree that the articles on the list need review. Some have already been reviewed, and are acceptable by our usual standards. The others could well go to Draft, or be reentered in some manner in NPP. It makes sense to start with the BLPs. If they are going to get decent review without overloading an already overloaded process, we'll need to go in small batches, like 10 a day. I looked for those in my primary field, but almost all the living scientists have already been dealt with; the 2 or 3 that remain need editing, but no more so than any correctly translated article from their WPs. Most of the others are politicians, which are easy to verify, and where there is usually no doubt about notability because of their positions, popular performers where it is difficult to deal with notability from different cultures, & athletes--some of which seem clearly notable and easy to evaluate, but this is a field I avoid.

We also need to look at the ones that were deleted without being sent to AfC for review, for many of them seem quite verifiable and notable, tho some don't seem worth the effort of fixing.

For that matter, we need to look at all articles that have not been substantially revised or edited since their introduction in earlier years that were written by new editors. In some fields, I think perhaps 25% or more would not meet our current standards. I think that might be half a million articles.

But if we agree on a way of proceeding with the current problem, let's do it. DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to draftify the whole 2017 draftification list until they can be reviewed. I expect we'll be needing a bot.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 22:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Meenatchi Gopal

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

Subject is a non-notable local organiser of an art collective and a political campaigner. Article created by her husband, Selin George (see original version of the creator's user page), so a conflict of interest on his part. DavidCane (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I did not do a search, as this looks to be a GNG fail on first glance. If anyone finds anything, I am willing to be swayed.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Neither being president of a local organization nor running as a candidate in an election the person did not win is grounds for a Misplaced Pages article — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, and the notability test for presidents of organizations is passing WP:GNG on the sourcing. But this is referenced much more to primary sources rather than reliable or notability-supporting media coverage — she (and/or her husband) is the author of nearly half the footnotes here, not the subject of them, and then two more after that are the self-published websites of directly affiliated organizations. And the three remaining sources that are actually real media aren't about her either, but just glancingly mention her name in the process of being about other things. This is not how you make a person notable enough for inclusion — and even if she were notable, her husband writing the article himself still wouldn't be the way to get her in the door per WP:COI. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Don't see any evidence of being an artist. I don't like shipping my thinking out but the work has been done. scope_creep 09:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per WP:TNT. This is by far the worst case I've seen of WP:NOTINHERITED in 17 years, mixed in with for the children and poured onto a soap box. She "is currently the President of ... the founder of ... a member of ... the second daughter of India's eminent artist (K.M. Gopal who doesn't have an article although his co-op Cholamandal Artists' Village does, and "still fighting for her family membership") ... learned art from her father until his death ... worked for companies such as ... has continuously pursued art as her passion since childhood ... ... reinstated Kalaimaiyam, which was an art collective ... founded Gochi Academy ... to encourage creative arts among young audience.(sic.) ... emphasizes creativity over technique ... stood for ... has supported many social and welfare activities where a community voice is needed." (emphasis added.) Bearian (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jane Stuart (Quaker)

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

This article is not notable. It fails WP:NPEOPLE. Interstellarity (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Article could use improvement, but Stuart easily passes NPEOPLE, e.g. Wisbech Standard, BHO. Her legend is recounted at length in this online book (of which a free ebook is available.) HouseOfChange (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Seems to be reasonable decent historical article with sufficient sourcing. scope_creep 09:19, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment I am working on cleaning up the article. I already removed a link to an article that only loosely connected to her.Will vote when finished. Leaning keep.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources still being added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Notability:People. My major edits are complete, though I may play around with it further, as there seem to be more sources available. I found a surprising level of detail on her life considering it has all come about from oral histories. The article now focuses on facts of her life rather than their provenance. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment (I already voted Keep above.) The article is now in better shape thanks to DiamondRemley39 but AfD is not cleanup. The bio subject clearly passes GNG. I suggest a speedy close rather than waiting for more SNOW to fall. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 21:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Jenny Reeves

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

The source was an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate and appears to have no other notability. DavidCane (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom I attempted to have this speedy-deleted when it was created, but that was disputed. Jerry (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: no sign of notability, only a candidate in the past election, shouldn't have been allowed to stay in the encyclopedia this long. PamD 12:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. People do not get Misplaced Pages articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this does not demonstrate that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would have gotten her an article independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced to anything even remotely approaching the depth and range and volume of coverage she would have to have to make her candidacy more special than everybody else's candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete people do not become notable merely by running for public office, it is in holding public office they become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. Bkissin (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Non-notable individual. Her only claim to fame is being an unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. Once again, candidates don't get articles for only being candidates. They have to have done something more significant or have won. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Had her vote reduced by 6.5% on 69% turnout, failing to get in. Non-notable. scope_creep 09:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - run of the mill candidate who lost in a landslide. Bearian (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. czar 20:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Simonee Chichester

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

Poorly sourced article with some advertorial overtones about a filmmaker, with no strong claim to passing WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that her first film got some audience votes at a single film festival for an award it did not actually win, and otherwise this just lists her other work without attempting to demonstrate that any of it was notable at all. And the only references are that non-winning film's IMDb profile and the film festival's deadlinked primary source list of all the films that got some votes, with no evidence whatsoever of any actual reliable source coverage about the film. As always, the notability test for a filmmaker is not just that she and her work exist -- it requires evidence of her importance as a filmmaker, such as winning notable film awards and/or having critical attention paid to her work in real media. And furthermore, the article was first created by a user named "Myfriendsimonee", so there was a clear conflict of interest here. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 18:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete the article lacks even one 3rd party, secondary reliable source providing substantial coverage, let alone the multiple ones GNG calls for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Should have been speedied. Fails WP:BIO. No effective sourcing. scope_creep 09:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. While I find mentions of her in other media and a book, they are mostly identical (the release of her documentary) and the remaining ones aren't enough to establish notability. Fails WP:BASIC. LovelyLillith (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 00:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Linn Svahn

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

"A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:SPORTSPERSON She is on her 2nd season in the World cup and won her first world cup race today. JonasB (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It still needs to be source to an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to skiing results, it doesn't get more reliable than FIS. JonasB (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep as she does meet WP:SPORTSPERSON, and the sourcing is sufficient to show that. There are several other Swedish-language sources, such as this analysis, but nothing that would add any significant new information to the article, so there is no need to WP:CITEKILL it. --bonadea contributions talk 09:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

This is probably not how it should be, but there is a parallel discussion about it on my talk page for those who have an opinion about the issue. JonasB (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Won a medal at the Skiing World Cup, which is the highest level of competition short of the Olympics. Clearly notable. It is obvious the nominator didn't do any WP:BEFORE judging by their comments on JonasB's talk page that they "don't know" what the World Cup is or if it establishes notability, nor do they have any idea what the FIS is apparently. Smartyllama (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Not I looked and found precious little. World cups tend to be reported around the world. I am still finding almost nothing about this "notable" win in English. Thus my reason for thinking this is not a world cup outside a very select few. If we compare to the football word cup, even even the world series (a world cup in only one nation) we get vast international coverage of the winners.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As much as I love cross country skiing, I have to admit that it is a pretty small sport compared to football. Also, a skiing World Cup is very different from the Football WC as it is not a single event held over a month but rather a collection of races held through a season. But, it didn't take long for me to find this article about her: https://www.eurosport.com/cross-country-skiing/svahn-surges-to-surprise-gold-in-davos_sto7576425/story.shtml JonasB (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

And I note it is date and time stamped after I AFD'd this.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong Keep. As above. J 1982 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - per notable sport achievements. Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Based on comments after the relist and following the rewrite of the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Linda Seger

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

Seems to fail ANYBIO. Current sources are imdb, publisher or personal webpages and some lesser-known websites which also do not seem to have editorial control. A search gives several hits, but some are their own publications and I doubt any other sources are reliable (does not seem to have editorial control). I am not sure whether they can pass WP:AUTHOR#4d (their work being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums) or meet other criteria, given that they have identifiers in a few national libraries. 94rain 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain 14:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Is Script WP:RS (not a rhetorical question)? If so, The Great Linda Seger Has Done It Again! looks like WP:SIGCOV when combined with Kirkus and Publisher's Weekly. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
It seems that Script is a close affiliate of Writer's Digest, which seems legitimate. Therefore, keep by the argument for WP:SIGCOV above. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that Scriptmag is reliable simply by saying it is a close affiliate of Writer's Digest. I may withdraw the nomination (if no one !vote delete) if there's more evidence (like editorial control?) showing they are reliable. Before I nominated the article for deletion, an anonymous user said in the article that "it's just a blog of different people, the Script Magazine is long dead". Other two sources mainly comment on her book and I do not think they provide WP:SIGCOV.--94rain 13:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per sources above and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment "The Great Linda Seger Has Done It Again!" is not an article by a (defunct) Script magazine, but by some woman, who paid to post it to a blog-like website to promote her consulting business, similar to Seger's. This article doesn't even provide original content, but quotes Seger. Just like all other sources that praise her.

"Script consulting" means not what people believe, but merely reading a screenplay, and provide some notes. Seger lures screenwriters to pay insane fees by claiming to be a Hollywood expert (check her website). Yet, she doesn't even live there. Nor did she ever worked on anything Hollywood.

Two films are mentioned as proof. Dead Alive, on which she merely provided notes (dozens of people may do this for a script, some for free, others for a fee), is a NZ film. Universal Soldier is indie, plus Seger is credited as a Project Consultant, which means either a person, doing some minor financial stuff, or a spiritual advisor (usually this credit is given to a lover).

Her Misplaced Pages page is used as a proof that she is really a Hollywood expert, not a scam. If Wiki mentions her then she's for real. That is how I was referred to it.

Resume: all provided sources quote Seger herself, to provide credibility to her extremely overpriced business practice. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"by some woman, who paid to post it"? Is there any evidence?--94rain 04:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It's obvious, because this article promotes two businesses, providing no original content, only quotes from Seger's book, and is full of fakes.

"the industry’s matriarch — who essentially created the job of script consultant three decades ago" - There is no "script consultant" job in Hollywood. Approved credits for a person, who worked on a script, are "writer" and "story by". All her credits are for indie films that follow no rules. She's not the first to provide script notes, which is what she does. The term matriarch is not used in a business setting.

"Dr. Seger" - Unaccredited ThD (Graduate Theological Union didn't have accreditation for a ThD) shouldn't be used to provide a "Dr." credibility, especially in screenwriting.

"No screenwriter’s bookshelf is complete without at least one book by Dr. Linda Seger. That’s a given." - Given by whom?

"Thirty years of expertise" - As a self-employed script reader, nothing more.

"teaching in 30 countries on six continents" - False, she has never been a teacher, only a speaker.

"consulting on a couple thousand screenplays" - Reading scripts, and providing notes, is called a script reader, not a consultant.

"which have resulted in 40 produced films and 35 television episodes" - No reason to believe Seger's notes caused this.

"Check out her webinars, tutorials and online classes. Connect with Heather on Twitter: @HeatherJHale, Facebook and LinkedIn." - Blatant self-promotion. Not something you can see in an editorial piece.

Anyway, it is posted not in a magazine, but on a website.

https://scriptmag.com/page/advertise

ScriptMag.com and the Script Weekly e-newsletter

If a website is owned by a reputable company, it doesn't mean all of its contents are reputable. This article is endorsed by some Heather Hale only. Ideaorigin (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Just read a tab, that was left while googling Seger's credentials:

http://marchingthroughculpeper.com/meet-linda-seger/

OMFG... This scammer preys on very poor souls. And Misplaced Pages helps her. Ideaorigin (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep as there's a case for WP:NAUTHOR C3 with reviews like the one at Script, Kirkus, Publisher's Weekly, with some support from GNG (newpapers seem to call her when they someone to talk about script-fixing). Some further references could be added to the article. Comment that Ideaorigin's only edits are at this AfD. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

How can this be a keep, if her Wiki article is not about her as a book writer, but as a "Linda Seger is a screenwriting instructor and screenplay consultant", with both of these statements being false?

There is no such thing in Hollywood, as a script fixing by script consultants. If somebody works on a script, he is called a writer, not a consultant. Provide links to newspapers, that claim otherwise.

You really don't understand, that you defend a scammer? Ideaorigin (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please keep calm and do not say a living person is a scammer without sources proving it. Yet your arguments seem like own judgement without proof. --94rain 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If a person charges 10+ times the market rates for script notes by lying - this is called a scam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/Scam_(disambiguation)

A scam or confidence trick is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence.

Calling a person a fraud is not right (or legal) without a criminal charge, but scam is a different term.

I pointed to her lies:

Doctor title. False claim. She has a religious "doctorate" title, but uses it as a PhD in Drama.

Teacher. False.

Works in Hollywood. No single proof that she ever did this. No wonder almost all of her victims are outside the US, where people don't find it laughable, that a person, living in Colorado, claims to work in Hollywood.

Works as a script consultant in Hollywood. There is no such position. She has never described, what she did for whom. It's always "some producer", "some actor", "some client".

I don't see a need to proof that something doesn't exist. References on her page should proof that all claims are true. But all references quote her own words only. Everything in Google, actually.

Except for some spitting from industry professionals, such as famous screenwriters John August and Craig Mazin, who publically called her a scam:

https://johnaugust.com/2011/scriptnotes-ep-15-on-screenwriting-gurus-transcript

https://johnaugust.com/2010/those-who-cant-write-teach-seminars

The number of published books makes some believe her, yet her books are not even cited in news sections of newspapers, let alone being reviewed.

At least one of her screenwriting books (others probably too, judging by the reviews) is a total crap. A collection of quotes from 50+ years old manuals. And such a bad collection that she happens to contradict what real teachers (e.g. USC's David Howard, Aaron Sorkin) say.

I'm trully puzzled, why Misplaced Pages editors fail to see that she's a scam, and Misplaced Pages helps her perpretrate it. Misplaced Pages is the only (!) source providing credibility to her.

Compare it to references for a real teacher and his book:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Lew_Hunter Ideaorigin (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, her works have reviews, but are the works themselves significant or well-known? According to WP:NAUTHOR C3, first their works have to be significant or well-known. --94rain 14:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think they are significant and/or well-known. I found several college film classes that use the script-writing book as a textbook or as recommended reading, for example. Apparently Ron Howard recommends it (with two other books) in his masterclass, though I haven't been able to actually watch that. (See this blog for a review of that.) And the reviews themselves are signs of significance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Noticing that this has been open a week, I would suggest to admins looking to close that it would be worthwhile to relist for additional clarity. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment I've rewritten the article, focusing more on her books. Her books get reviewed and seem to be taken seriously by some. I've also linked a few more sources that I couldn't access on the article's talk page; it's possible more could be written about her other work from these. To address some comments above: I looked at the Script Mag source, and I don't see serious concerns; anyway, I don't believe that the case for notability hangs on that in any essential way. The negative review of her seminars by Jonny Elwyn actually contributes to GNG. IMDB is partly- or mostly-reliable for film credits, and I counted 30 films that looked like they'd had US theatrical releases (not including one where she's listed as uncredited). I added an education section, including her theology doctorate. @94rain:, perhaps you'd look at my edit and see if you have major concerns that I haven't addressed. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: After rewrite better consensus may emerge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 19:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Now Misplaced Pages provides even more credibility to this scammer - more content. And the content is false. "She is best-known for her books on screenwriting" - yet, they are not even mentioned by newspapers. Publisher's Weekly (reviews anything in circulation) trashed her book. Kirkus (provides paid review services) trashed it too. "She also works as a script consultant" - she doesn't have such job, only once in a while gets an order for script notes for ridiculous $750. The reference is for her own (scam) website. "ThD in Drama and Theology" - it's not a research or professional doctorate degree, but a religious title given for religious merit, misleading to reference it. IMDB credits for Indie movies mean nothing. I can get tons of such credits, even producer credits, but this wouldn't warrant an article about me. This article should be deleted, not edited. Seger is notable only as a scammer. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Ideaorigin: you appear to have a strong interest in this subject. Do you have a connection with Seger? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  - God forbid. I'm a screenwriter, nothing more. Ideaorigin (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Some of the book arepublished by regular publishers ( for example "The art of adaptation : turning fact and fiction into film" by Henry Holt , and in almost 400 Worldcat libraries; "The Collaborative Art of Filmmaking : From Script to Screen.". Routledge, and now in its 3rd edition; ) , and many have been translated into mutliple languages. The notability is as an author, not a screenwriting advisor. We're not abusiness review site,, so some of the problems mentioned above arei rrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 10:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
- Will you vote keep, if I create a Wiki article about myself, as a book author (I've got a book published, that has no value in 2019), plus stating that I work as a president's advisor, quoting my website? You should at least explain, why no newspapers and magazines mention books of a notable author. Without this I don't see her meeting notability requirements. Ideaorigin (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@Russ Woodroofe: Thanks for the improvement. With the new sources added and less-reliable sources removed, as the nominator I no longer have much concern and I am now inclined to Keep. --94rain 02:51, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - The subject's writing career includes books released by traditional publishing houses (Harcourt Brace and H. Holt, with reviews by Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews). Some of those books have been reprinted in Chinese, German and Spanish. She has created a significant body of work. Add to that the wide distribution of those books in libraries, as pointed out by DGG, and the subject clearly passes WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Necla Güngör

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

Football coach who fails GNG and NFOOTY. BlameRuiner (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 21:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Notable enough as coach of a women's national football team, and well sourced. CeeGee 09:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@CeeGee: only the youth team which does not confer notability. Giant Snowman 12:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to ignore her chaching at Turkey women's U-21 team. CeeGee 08:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY for not having managed a full senior international and for not managing in a fully professional league (list of known such leagues). This Hurriyet article would count towards WP:GNG, but I don’t see another independent reliable source with significant coverage on her. — MarkH₂₁ 10:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Sources have been presented that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Jennifer Mee

AfDs for this article:

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

I considered nominating this for CSD WP:G4, but the previous AFD was almost ten years ago, and I have no idea if the article content is substantially similar, so perhaps it's better to bring this to AFD for consideration. I essentially agree with the previous nominator, and I don't believe anything has changed since then. This is a borderline WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP fail, with the obvious caveat that she is known for two things. However, it is still really no more than a case of someone having 15 minutes of fame for one trivial curiosity, and then briefly raising to public consciousness again because an otherwise fairly unremarkable robbery-murder happened to be committed by someone who had previously been a media curiosity, and the press can never resist that. Hug 11:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep WP:GNG is easily met with multiple WP:RSs. The nominator ignores our guidelines for WP:N and WP:V and makes a vague wave at a WP:BLP1E claim which clearly does not apply...I am sure the nominator knows that WP:BLP2E does not exist. The rationale seems to be someone didn't like it before, so WP:IDONTLIKEIT now. FYI: The subject was world famous for her medical condition, and then again world famous for her crime. We keep articles which meet the heavier burden of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. See: Juli Briskman AfD which I argued against keeping - I was wrong. Jennifer Mee has been in the news more than 10 years with WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. She has received international coverage in reliable sources. This is an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
~~Keep~~ WP:GNG is easily met. Indeed, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Mee (2nd nomination) establish that yet again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
How does the 2nd nomination establish "yet again" that GNG is easily met, when the 2nd nomination ended in delete consensus? – Leviv ich 17:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I improved sourcing — no longer the article it was when first nominated for deletion — and WP:Hey applies. Given the present sourcing, WP:Notability established by multiple WP:RS. Q.E.D., WP:Before was clearly violated; you are supposed to do a search, and nominate ONLY when the article is unsalvageable. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper WP:I don't like it is no justification for this time waster. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Snow Keep for reasons set forth above. User:Hugsyrup 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Passes WP:BASIC. For example, here's another source published by the Harvard University Press. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per WP:SNOW Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep, but it's not SNOW – Pardon me for saying so, but the four keep !votes above should be tossed, and I'm happy to elaborate on that on my talk page. Here's a real keep !vote, one with sources: the article subject meets WP:BASIC per St Petersburg Times via Chicago Tribune 2007, AFP via NYT 2007, NYT 2010, The Telegraph (UK) 2010, ABA Journal 2010, ABA Journal 2013, AP via People 2013 , and One Breath Away, a 448-page true crime book written by M. William Phelps and published by Kensington Books in 2016. The 2nd nomination resulted in delete, but it was written in 2010, and we now have a number of new RSes with which to write an article, including the full-length book. – Leviv ich 18:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment User:Levivich It is nice that you voted "!keep". I appreciate your research. You proved what we knew: that there was no compliance with WP:Before.However, your gratuitous slap is unwelcome. unbecoming, unhelpful, uncivil and wrong. Keep your views about other editors's votes to yourself. I, for one, would never disparage your conduct or vote. I WP:AGF, which is something that you should reacquaint yourself.That being said, it would be nice if you actually added to the article (these sources would help), and didn't just drive by and flag wave sources at the AFD. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:10, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's a comment on the content. If, like me, you were thinking that parts of the article seemed to be copied and pasted without regard for flow, punctuation, etc, Earwig says: you're right! I've removed or rewritten the copy/pastes that I spotted, and I have placed an appropriate user warning, but if you spot more, please follow WP:C and do what's needed to keep us in line with our copyright policies. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Misplaced Pages is about fostering the community of editors and building the encyclopedia. See Misplaced Pages:Here to build an encyclopedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed 7&6=thirteen. All of us volunteering our time to build an encyclopedia ...and some here for the friction. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Sources have been found proving this passes the general notability guidelines. She got coverage for being hiccup girl, then for her crime. Dream Focus 20:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep passes the minimum requirements for WP:ANYBIO. Also thanking the nominator for bringing this here, however it turns out, as they have allowed us to establish a consensus one way or the other, an opportunity which would have been lost if they had taken the "easy option" and tagged G4. I also note that the only editors who actually (in the vernacular) "toss" !votes are the closing admin; yet, when they do, they studiously avoid using loaded, pergorative terms such as that :) ——SN 54129 20:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - passes GNG. _Talk 📧 23:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Per sourcing. Per WP:GNG. Subject has received plenty of third party media attention.BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Detailed analysis of sources not refuted Spartaz 19:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hayley McLaughlin

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, at present. I oppose the deletion, at present, because the issue with the article appears to be quality of sourcing, a matter that can be remedied. (Contrary to the perspective of @David Tornheim:, clicking on the link in the AfD template message brings up several reliable published sources, including for a recent appearance in Netflix's new (and clearly notable) series, Love, Death and Robots. Hence, I think a deletion is premature. I regularly attend to articles whose sourcing is even worse than this; moreover, despite the UK being part of the coverage of en.wikipedia.org, there is no gainsaying that there is a bias in perspective here in favour of U.S.-based film enterprises over professionals from the Commonwealth, even moreso over other English-speaking film professionals further afield. (I am quite sure, for instance, that there is more written about minor American directors and producers than about some preeminent Kenyan or ASEAN ones.) Given the possibility of improving the sourcing for the stub—for that is all the article claims to be—and the fact that we naturally know less and so lean away from Scots and other non-American English-speaking professionals in our writing, I will oppose this deletion. Note, I am not an inclusionist, and would see more of the plagiarised, unsourced material—in some cases, whole articles—removed from the encyclopedia. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and unless we want to go on a committed, very long redactive editorial spree removing the articles far worse than this, Hayley McLaughlin should simply be tagged for improvement, and reevaluated later (should this Scottish actor's work not continue to develop as recent sources seem to indicate it might). Meanwhile, I will tag the article "BLP refimprove", and add a "Further reading" section, with any published articles on the subject that I can quickly find. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:7911:7D3:DBD5:9B47 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

First, there is no evidence that this is a case of an actor... advertis themselves; all evidence is that this article is maintained by independent editors with no connection to the title subject.

Delete All the coverage is indicative of an actor at the beginning of her career. The librarians is a guest role. Some minor, Linlithgow Gazette is a micro newspaper and Daily Record are all local new. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep 09:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Subject of the article is clearly notable and there are references to assert notability.--Racklever (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

David Tornheim you probably meant to ping Racklever? all ~riley did was add the deletion sorting. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Sorry for the error. I should have pinged Racklever as I have now done here. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment The article has been significantly updated, so in respect to WP:HEY, lets examine the references again.

Ref 1 is the Linlithgow gazette which is local coverage. It is a micro newspaper celebrating it's local celebratory.
Ref 2 is a good secondary source, if it was a leading part but it is guest role in the librarians.
Ref 3 is non-rs. It is IMDB
Ref 4 No mention of the subject
Ref 5 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 6 Mentioned in passing as cast member. Has a small paragraph about the character, not the person playing it
Ref 7 Mentioned in passing as cast member
Ref 8 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 9 Quote with no context
Ref 10 Seems to be lead is low budget film Deadly Switch
Ref 11 non-rs. IMDB again
Ref 12 Second cast list in first episode. Single episode.
Ref 13 Assuming a single episode as other voice actors are getting
Ref 14 Confirms ref 13
Ref 15 Confirms ref 13 although cast list is out of order.
Ref 16 Profile page. Non-rs
Ref 17 Confirms ref 13
Ref 18 Ref 18 confirms 13
Ref 19 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 20 No mention of Hayley McLaughlin
Ref 21 to 28 is non-rs and doesn't count towards notability. There are all IMDB.

Comment. I don't believe we should discount Scottish newspapers because they are local to Scotland, local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability talk page), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Atlantic306 said above "local reliable sources references are acceptable for all topics except companies and organisations. The question is whether a source is reliable not how widely its distributed (see the discussion at WP:Notability". Are you sure about that? I assume you are talking about this discussion. I didn't read all of it carefully. From skimming it, I am not at all convinced that because this is being discussed at length that the result of that discussion is a definitive determination along the lines you have stated. For example, I believe from reading and participating in WP:AFDs regarding notability in sports, that a person in a high school or other junior league who is doing really well, or who made some important play, and has been covered by multiple local papers is hardly notable. I'm pretty sure I have seen those kind of articles rejected more than once.

"KEEP" - Having 22 film and tv credits. This actress is in the main cast in the later years. I have added IMDB as a ref for each film and TV item item. However, they have been deleted by someone. SWP13 (talk) 15:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

iMDB is not WP:RS. See WP:RS/P. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Courtney Johnston

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

Non notable museum professional failing WP:BIO. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I saw an interview in a book called Museums and Digital Culture: New Perspectives and Research, but that's not the best kind of source. Other than that the coverage seems to be announcements of someone doing their job, or announcements of how they have been selected to do a job. Nothing particularly notable here, yet.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep, director of the national museum.-gadfium 03:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep She has been the director of the Dowse Art Museum and has just been made the chief executive of the national museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. Noahe123 (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from those positions. There has to be SIGCOV in independent sources. There are hundreds of major museum directors that nobody writes about and who are not notable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - The subject is a radio correspondent for the national Radio New Zealand, an executive director of a national museum, and she has won awards. Notability has been shown via reliable sources. Easily passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@AuthorAuthor: thank you for the work on the article, but the recently added sources are all trivial coverage:

"The Earl D. Bader Award for Exceptional Creative Writing in the Augustine and Culture Seminar was awarded to Courtney Johnston ’22 CON for her essay “At First a Rushing Wind,” written for Timothy Horner, PhD."
Arts commentator Courtney Johnston to judge Rotorua Museum Art Awards is basically an event announcement, saying she will judge something. A basic PR blurb.

Comment The ref I used was as a source for other information in the article, not that she was judging something, which, as you no doubt noticed, I did not include in the article. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

yes, I see that. It's still trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I removed the source "Te Papa founding chief executive Dame Cheryll Sotheran dies after long illness" as it did not mention Courtney Johnson at all, nor did it support the claim it was used for in the article ("and she became the first woman to hold the position since its founding leader, the late Dame Cheryll Sotheran, was appointed in 1992.").
Additionally, the two awards now in the article are a "Winston Churchill Trust Scholarship" and a PHD program writing award. The first, the "Winston Churchill Shcholarship" was actually a travel grant. The trust gives out fellowships as well; their site does not list her as a fellow. These are not a big deal. The second was a school awards. Every school gives out hundreds or thousands of these a year. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I've take out the writing award, as it was given to someone who is clearly a different Courtney Johnson on a different continent.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Head of a country's national museum should be enough, and we have in-depth coverage in major national news sources to back it up. The earlier coverage for Dowse and RNZ avoids any issues with WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep, being appointed as ceo of NZ's national museum shows Johnston is "is regarded as an important figure" so meets WP:CREATIVE. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:CREATIVE is for artists, not museum directors. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

so not for people associated with the arts .... okay then WP:ANYBIO "widely recognised contribution" in the field of the arts, reflected by her appointment to one of the top jobs in NZ arts. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

If you mean "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field", then no. I believe keep !voters are confusing having a job with notability. There is nothing to say about her based on the coverage other than she had a couple of jobs. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Leading the national museum should be enough and the various sources go into enough depth. Schwede 66 17:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Without her being named chief executive of Te Papa, I would have been a bit skeptical. But now she definitely seems sufficiently notable. (Besides, I generally tend to be an 'inclusionist'.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep Director of a national museum. Was the director of the Dowse Art Museum and now the chief executive of the national museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per WP:CREATIVE, which contrary to the enthusiastic User:ThatMontrealIP's "is for artists, not museum directors" is in fact for "Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" - in to which I'd be inclined to group museum directors. Obvs, ymmv, but at least try not to mislead by very selective omissions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep as argued by the keep !votes above. XOR'easter (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - There is enough to pass notability criteria for WP:BIO and WP:GNG, possibly WP:CREATIVE - altho as pointed out above, curators and museum directors are not specifically listed, but one could interpret "creative professionals" would fit the latter. Netherzone (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per many of the above. Clearly notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Özge Arslanalp

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

Non-professional 15-year old volleyball player. Doesn't pass our notability guidelines for sportspeople. Darwinek (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 13. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. A non notable volleyball player with no major achievement. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA 13:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete we need way better sourcing to justify an article on a 15-year-old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete, the prerequisite amount of achievements might be... achieved at a later stage. Geschichte (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lucy Mae McDonald

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

Notability concerns. No references in the article, and no claims of importance or significance. An elementary school in Texas is named after her, and the school district's biography is probably where the information comes from. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, and so we cannot claim first African-American superintendent in the US without actual sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment, Jet has a mention of McDonald here but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete No effective references. scope_creep 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment Searching using her married name, Lucy McDonald Davis, reveals some additional sources such as New Ellis County black Hall of Fame capturing attention and an index entry in Black Texas Women: 150 Years of Trial and Triumph. Google Books preview doesn't show me the actual text at page 294 of the University of Texas Press book, so I am unable to evaluate how significant this particular coverage is. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately. Both Halls of Fame are strictly local - one for Ellis County, and one for Dallas County. The Jet article has a bit of info about her, but is mostly "no comment, no photo" from her. She was superintendent of one school district, which seems to have covered one town, with (according to the Jet article), 1,100 students. It seems to be the Dallas County Hall of Fame which says she was the first African-American school district superintendent in Texas - contemporary sources, like Jet and a Californian paper (which has a one para report of her appointment ), don't say that. Her obituary was published in the Dallas Morning News, so is again very local, and has info from friends, colleagues and family. I can find scraps of info in other digitised newspapers - she was a member of the Alpha Xi Omega chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority ; she had a master's degree, and was principal of Dunbar High School before being acting superintendent ; she was president of the Ellis County unit of the Texas State Teachers Association ; she started at Ferris Colored High School in 1934, and got its name changed to Dunbar School in 1935 ; she was also involved in church choirs. I've searched under "Lucy Mae McDonald", "Lucy McDonald Davis", "Mrs Tony Davis" and "Mrs Anthony Davis", and I don't find enough coverage or recognition for her to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC, or any other notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Stephanie Korey

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

Subject of the page is not notable, while there is normally a presumption under WP:NOTABLE that Significant Coverage presumes the source should have an article, it is worth noting that a lot of the content in here relates to the company Away, rather than this person. Propose moving most content to a page on the company and deleting this BLP. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Even before the recent kerfuffle, she was the founder of a widely-covered unicorn, received significant coverage in that role, and ended up on multiple notable-people lists. Now, as a poster child for the unicorn excesses and bad management, she's even more clearly notable. One of Misplaced Pages's most important functions is helping people learn about something or someone in the news, so at the very least any decision about notability should wait until we see how things settle after this current wave of press attention. William Pietri (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 04:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep She co-founded a highly-valued start up and then became subject to intense media coverage due to the workplace culture. She has quite a bit of notable news coverage and will likely continue to remain a public figure in some capacity. Seems like an easy keep. Bwabwa7 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong Keep for reasons cited above. --JumpLike23 (talk)
Weak Keep Keep for posterity because of her current and previous positions at notable companies but the state of the article atm needs much expansion if she is as widely covered as people say she is. Right now it just reads like condensed PR. -- BriefEdits (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Lena Paul

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current references are porn/adult product vendor websites, interviews and database entries. I looked for additional sources and didn't find any in-depth, reliable and independent biographical coverage. Her anti-Trump social media postings received a bit of news attention; she's also quoted in one Jezebel article on pornography and mentioned in passing in two others . She also gets a number of passing mentions because Kanye West used a picture of her in his pornography-inspired fashion collection, as well as assorted other namedrops and tabloid coverage. She won a Pornhub Award in 2018, which doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. She was also ranked #99 in a 2017 Complex listicle, "The Top 100 Hottest Porn Stars (Right Now)". Cheers, gnu 57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable pornographic entertainer. This is one profession where we are still plagued with over coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete for lack of reliable secondary source coverage. The references are junk sources like XRentDVD, interviews and press releases. An independent search for reliable sources yielded only more porn trade press releases. Sources are of too poor a quality to claim notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete I've looked at this about five times, trying to decide if she is notable. I think insufficient depth of coverage satisfies a delete. scope_creep 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete and salt. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Madison Ivy

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted twice at AfD and salted. The new version got moved in from draft space. May not be strict G4 candidate, but lack of notability was established even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. Citations are full of junk sources like The Daily Sport, self-published blogs and celebrity net worth sites. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I did some quick cleanup of unreliable sources, leaving basically nothing but interviews. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete This article failed even when we had the now destroyed notability guidelines giving special preference to pornographic performers. Now when we do not have those, we can see that such publicity driving internal industry promotionalism does not rise to the level of 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Creator of the page here. Thank you for the citation cleanup. As for the remaining references, note that not all of them are interviews. Now, I understand the effort to maintain credible journalistic practices but I am appalled by the number of articles written on other porn actresses that do not follow the same standards. Many are based heavily on interviews and poor sources. I urge all to exercise this same diligence in those cases as well.StreetSoda_talk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:WHATABOUTX is listed under articles to avoid in AfD debates. Articles stand or fall based on their own merits. As for poorly written porn articles, the PORNBIO secondary notability guideline, which protected many of these articles is no more. These articles are being culled. Madison Ivy has been deleted twice per editor consensus. The latest iteration does not solve the notability problems discussed previously. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment @Johnpacklambert: Did you just assume I am an industry insider? Before making such statements, peer into my history log to see if there's any validity to your assumptions. Cheers!StreetSoda_talk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Streetsoda: I read John's comment as referring to the porn industry's promotion machine (porn trade press, award ceremonies, and Internet flooding) and the article's low quality references, not to you personally. The problem with sources for porn have been discussed extensively since 2006. It finally came down to the consensus that WP:PORNBIO should be retired. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I must've misread. I didn't know any better. Apologies.StreetSoda_talk 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete No evidence to support an article. Fails WP:BIO. It is a pestilence on Misplaced Pages. scope_creep 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment The problem here comes down to the ever moving goal post for PORNBIO. Madison Ivy is indeed a successful pornographic actress for the past decade, yet according to Misplaced Pages even with multiple awards it wouldn’t be enough. I don’t know what SFW sources people expect to find for these people unless they magically (albeit rarely) cross over into the mainstream. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Fails GNG. She didn't even meet the standards of PORNBIO when it was in effect.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Oppose There are 21 other language versions of this page. It seems highly unlikely that the English language version is the only version that cannot pass notability guidelines when all the others appear to. I'm sure other sources could be pulled from the other language version of this page to be used on the English version. Helper201 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That rationale is circular. Other language versions of Misplaced Pages copy from one another, especially from en.Misplaced Pages, which as nearly 6 million articles, more than all the others. Interwiki efforts for completeness don't establish notability. Have you looked at the other wiki pages? I did, many are stubs with an external link to IMDb or IAFD as their source. Others have the exact same sources as the en wiki page. As I asked you on the talk page, if you can find a non-trivial WP:RELIABLE reference in those other wiki pages, please share it here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Additional comment: This article appears to have been translated back from another wiki after it was deleted twice and salted here. en.Misplaced Pages has tightened its standards for notability and quality of sources. The most recent deprecation of WP:PORNBIO was part of that evolution. Other wikis are free to accept or reject that change. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see the issue of using sources from or relating to the porn industry. Of course that is where virtually all the information about pornographic film actors is likely to come from. The industry - while popular - is not a mainstream or open phenomenon, so is reliant on sources largely or entirely devoted to the industry. You question the reliability of sources such as Brazzers, but do you have anything to suggest such a source is unreliable? At the end of the day its a business, and one that from what I have seen from the sources has signed a contract agreement with this person. I would imagine a professional business would be likely to provide accurate information about someone it is in contract with. Helper201 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

delete and salt fails everything and the keep votes have no basis in policy. Spartaz 23:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Burçin Başar

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

Non-notable artist. No sources to fulfill GNG. Of those listed, none are independent of the subject, they being just trivial listings in galleries, etc. PK650 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete in English, I can only see Saatchi, artfacts, Facebook and other trivial or wiki-style sources. WP:TOOSOON. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - The only thing of note is the award, 2019 Creative Armenia-AGBU fellowship. None of the sources are relevant: commercial gallery listings, social media, a blog. Could not find anything else online. Maybe in a few years if she gets some significant coverage, but now it's WP:TOOSOON. Netherzone (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I think she is notable but there is insufficient coverage to satisfy policy. I don't see any major museums holding her work or some really decent secondary sources are not there Her work is really good. It has that kind out of focus organic landscapes look, that is hard to get a handle on. Only a matter of time. scope_creep 15:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - run of the mill artist who hasn't exhibited in any art capital, except perhaps one exhibit at a Saachi gallery (but poorly sourced). Bearian (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Bearian, the difference between Saatchi Gallery and Saatchi Art is substantial and rather crucial when it comes to notability. Exposure on Saatchi Art is something anyone can get, and exhibition in the Saatchi Gallery on the other hand is a very big deal. Vexations (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Got it, Vexations. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

To further elaborate on the two Saatchi's, if I recall correctly Saatchi art was started by a disgruntled Saatchi Gallery employee, and the Gallery is not so happy about that. There is a world of difference, the gallery being extremely reputable, and the spinoff being a wiki-style web site.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Aliza Rajan

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

Won a non-notable beauty pageant. Has featured in films, but only in minor roles. The Daily Nation citation is a passing reference. Net Worth Post is worth as much as all such sites are, i.e. nothing. A search turned up the usual social media sites, and this interview, which is not WP:RS. Created by a near-WP:SPA. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete notable as neither an actress nor beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)*

Delete Non-notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Lots of name drops, self bios and profiles. Not a lot. scope_creep 15:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Piecuch

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

Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event She won a single contest that had like 10 people in it. NE Ent 21:29, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - at least until Miss Universe has finished. If she wins, more sources will arise for the topic. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - just realised that Miss Universe already happened, the article hadn't been updated and that is my reason for deletion. Barely current. Thanks, Thatone~~weird~~wikier Say hi 21:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete nothing more than routine coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete The usual arguments. scope_creep 15:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete as a run of the mill model. A good chunk of the article is a thinly sourced attack. She didn't place in the top 20, and I thought we got rid of such articles. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. The deletion argument is not quite established and a little more time is no bad thing in a marginal case like this. If there is no improvement in 6m time than another afd might reach a stronger conclusion. Spartaz 18:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Francesca Verones

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd nomination. As painful as it is to say, she fails WP:ACADEMIC as it stands right now. Probably too soon. Under 2,000 citations and associate professor just does not cut it. Not enough independent coverage to merit inclusion under GNG either. PK650 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep. Three publications with over 100 citations each make a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1, and the Laudise medal makes a borderline case for #C2 (borderline because although it is international and not a student award, it is aimed at younger researchers). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I lament to say her high citation number for those articles is probably due to her colleagues Mark A. J. Huijbregts and Manuele Margni. "Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators" we could consider, yes; but then again, that would be the one article. As for Laudise, how can we gauge its relevance? I think it would in fact cement the notion of TOOSOON, being for efforts by a researcher under 36 years, i.e. a sort of "nudge, keep doing this work and you might make it" sort of award. PK650 (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Even if there wasn't an issue with the citations being a bit of a WP:INHERIT issue with the co-authors, a couple 100 citations papers doesn't really satisfy WP:PROF#C1. This is pretty run of the mill, nor is there a case really made that this passing C2 either. If that award alone was going to satisfy notability requirements, it would need be a pretty solid case. What we see of that award so far doesn't really fit the guideline either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I think if it is borderline and the case cant be made and there is consensus that is probably WP:TOOSOON then it must be delete, if there is any doubt. I think it is a case of Force majeure. I think she will be back, this time next year or later, but it needs to be under her own steam and notable enough to satisfy WP:PROF with no doubt.scope_creep 15:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree she will likely become notable in the near future, with a few more journal articles under her belt and another recognition/post. PK650 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. I also agree this is likely a WP:TOOSOON case. Using citation counts is always a very weak metric for notability, though 2,000 citations in this field is decent for an assistant prof. That said, GNG should rule the roost, and not something much more arbitrary like saying 2k citations is high or low. Those metrics should instead only be used show a researcher is an outlier and obviously justified for inclusion. In terms of GNG, I'm not seeing the independent secondary coverage that would lay out the case of notability or content to support it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- WP:GNG does not have any higher priority than WP:PROF. They are both Misplaced Pages guidelines. Why do you think the one that is not about professors should take priority over the one that does? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  - I never said anything like that. This doesn't satisfy either WP:PROF where my rationale was grounded or the more GNG-related portions of it (i.e., significant secondary coverage) compared to things like citation metrics. The take-home either way without worrying about which link is used is that from an academic standpoint, this professor hasn't demonstrated significant notability. Most things discussed for this BLP have been pretty run of the mill. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak keep per David Eppstein's argument that there is a borderline case for two of the WP:PROF criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. I follow David Eppstein and XOR'easter's arguments. I'm pretty unconvinced by the early career award, however; I also note that two of the three high-citation papers have a very high number of coauthors, and that the top-cited one is a review article ~~(so not the subject's contributions to the world of ideas, per WP:NPROF)~~. Still looks WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that an influential review article is still a contribution to academic thought, just as an influential textbook would be. They codify how scholars think of the history of their subject; they help draw the line between remembered and forgotten. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I don't discount it entirely, and I'll strike out that part of what I wrote as unfair. My point is that I don't think that a review article with 17 authors and a moderate-for-a-review-article number of citations much helps demonstrate notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak keep per David Eppstein. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Large number of coauthors on published papers does not allow assessment of the independent contributions of this early career researcher in a high cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC).

The result was keep. Considering the improvements made by User:LovelyLillith, I'm hereby closing this discussion as keep. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Kate Chappell

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

Not notable outside of Tom's of Maine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge - to Tom's of Maine - subject of this article does not meet notability criteria for her own article. May be WP:TOOSOON, as I can't find significant coverage. In addition to being a business person, she is also an artist, but does not meet WP:NARTIST yet either. Netherzone (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Honorary degree meets Misplaced Pages:Notability_(people)#Any_biography "1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Deleting standalone biographies like these undermines the project's goal of presenting the sum of human knowledge. Jokestress (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: I can't believe we have reached the point where a notable female executive and philanthropist who co-founded one of America's most notable personal care brands is considered non-notable and unworthy of a standalone article. Buildings are named after her. I found 20 books and news articles discussing her in 30 seconds. Jokestress (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge Absolutely no coverage worth looking at. Fails WP:SIGCOV. There has never been any references since the getgo and if they were available they would have been in.scope_creep 12:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 08:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Jokestress. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge. to Tom's of Maine. I don't get significant coverage, Fails WP:SIGCOV.-Nahal 21:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 15:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Selected significant coverage:

Chappel, Kate, and Tom Chappel. American Environmental Leaders: From Colonial Times to the Present, Volume 1 Anne Becher, Joseph Richey, eds. 2008 ISBN 9781592371198
The World According to Tom's of Maine by Ilana DeBare San Francisco Chronicle, October 9, 2007
Kate Cheney Chappell 83 Center for Book Arts University of Southern Maine
Honorary Doctor of Laws, honoris causa Colby College 2009
Chapter on Kate Cheney Chappell in The Enterprising Woman by Mari Florence ISBN 9780759524873
Many more available if that is not enough to resolve this as keep. Jokestress (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: Article could be better, but notability is established, as per Jokestress. Lamona (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep: Searches under her full name, “Kate Cheney Chappell”, give more coverage. Also, in most references, she is jointly mentioned with her husband. If that’s notable enough to keep him standalone, it should apply to her as well. LovelyLillith (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 08:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I've made improvements on the article using some of the references supplied here, as well as others. Hopefully this will demonstrate her notability. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Adhiti Menon

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

This page does not comply with the Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines and henceforth be deemed to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneStoneDigital (talk • contribs) 11:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment Please see nominator's talk page and article talk page. Subject is client of nominator and no longer finds this article convenient.-- Deep fried okra 12:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete This person is clearly not so notable we need an article on her if she does not want an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. None of the five sources cited does much to establish the subject as notable (the best is no. 3, with two part-sentences about her). The subject's views, and those of her now-blocked agent, are irrelevant. Maproom (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. This person is a public figure who has significant coverage from what appears to be reliable sources (many of the sources are Indian, and I am not too familiar with them). The person has been mired by controversy which isn't in the article (likely whitewashing by User:OneStoneDigital). Cleanup is needed, but that's outside the purview of WP:AFD. There are many more sources that could be used that are not in the article, a quick google search will show; A kidnapping allegation from India Glitz, a brief mention regarding a trailer for a film she was in, a marriage controversy in India Times, a review from India Times for a movie she was in (breifly mentioned) --Darth Mike 14:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete India actor at the very beginning of her career. Two minor roles and some minor coverage for the current film, but nothing else. The usual standard announcements that are visible when new Bollywood film starts filming. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON.scope_creep 12:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Kind of split opinion, but I find the delete arguments more convincing since the sources are not strong. Tone 13:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sunshine Shen

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

Model and supposed businessperson with a few appearances, including a Playboy cover, but lacking the significant coverage required by WP:GNG, and no evidence of the large fanbase or innovative contributions required by WP:NMODEL. Full disclosure: there were several more sources before I stripped most of them out of the article, so I encourage you to assess the article as I found it. I think you will find, as I did, that these additional sources are largely interviews (not independent), mostly in questionable and/or self-published sources, or a photo gallery that adds nothing as a source. Hug 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hug 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hug 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hug 09:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Miter128 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep A model featured on the cover of Playboy and FHM magazine, with a feature in Maximm is notable. She is an International Playboy model Additional covers. Bsquared Magazine Passes WP:NMODEL Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.. In addition, I consider it poor form to fillet the article by deleting 5 of the 7 sources and then say it does not pass WP:GNG. The purpose of an AfD is for the participants to decide. We already know what the AfD nominator thinks and diminishing the content is poor form. I can add reliable sources to the article if the nominator can agree not to strip them out based on their preference for deletion. Lightburst (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm awfully sorry that you consider it 'poor form'. However, I started working on removing the clearly non-reliable sources before eventually accepting that the article was better off going to AFD. Reverting all of my changes first seemed a little unnecessary. I knew someone would object, which is why I explicitly called it out in my nomination statement, included a link to a version of the article before I had touched it, and added a brief explanation of what I objected to in those sources. Knowing Misplaced Pages, I should have known that someone would still manage to get upset, but I don't think I'm going to lose any sleep over it. Hug 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep Medium.com is used as a reference in 862 Misplaced Pages articles. They gave her significant coverage and said she had a notable following of 400,000 followers on Instagram. Is there high for famous people? Does it count as a large cult following? She had ample coverage in FHM She meets WP:NMODEL. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Magazine covers would be considered "other production". She did have a significant role in these notable publications. Askmen is used in 174 Misplaced Pages articles. That seems like a reliable source giving her significant coverage as well. So the WP:GNG seem to have been met as well. Dream Focus 21:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Dream Focus: While I endorse the WP:NMODEL argument, WP:RSP states that Medium is a self-published source should never be used as a secondary source for living persons. ミラ P 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to me to be stretching the definition of WP:NMODEL almost to breaking point to suggest that a magazine cover is equivalent to a film, tv show or stage performance, or that it is what is meant by 'other productions'. The other examples in this criteria are all the subject of reviews, criticism and sometimes books or academic study, much of which is sustained long after the work is complete. Magazine covers are essentially throwaway items that are very rarely the subject of any secondary coverage at all, and using them to establish notability simply because they fit a technical definition of 'productions' is, honestly, absurd. Hug 09:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dream Focus, you link to Medium and say "They" give her significant coverage. Who are "they"? Not Medium.com, surely. And are "they" a reliable source that confers notability? Anyone could log into Medium dot com and give their cat "significant coverage". ApLundell (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per Dream Focus. Also see my comment above. ミラ P 00:58, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Three sources are added to the article, magzter.com, brobible.com and voyagela.com. These sources are used in many Misplaced Pages articles. Sambroanna (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Being used in many articles does not make them reliable/independant. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete – doesn't meet GNG; even with the new sources recently added to the article, none meet GNG. Brobible is not in-depth. Magzter, FHM, Askmen, and VoyageLA are all interview transcriptions, and thus not independent. Medium.com is not an RS; it's red on WP:RSP. – Leviv ich 21:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal 00:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

~~Keep~~ She has been featured for Playboy Romania in March 2016.(Redacted) Playboy it's green on WP:RSP Sambroanna (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sambroanna: That's for the articles and interviews, says nothing about modeling. Also, ever read WP:LINKVIO? ミラ P 00:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Struck duplicate !vote. Happy Festivities! // J 947 20:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect The only logical choice here; simply redirect to the month she represented in Playboy. Other than that she is not expressly notable—be honest. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
delete the keep arguments are mostly bullshit and should be ignored.Spartaz 23:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Delete Medium is a blog site, not a publication with editorial control, and is patently unreliable. As Levivich mentions above, the remaining sources are not indepth/are interviews and thus not independant (not that brobible for one seems particularly reliable regardless). Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Karolina (painter)

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

This biographical puff piece about an unremarkable Greece-based artist qualifies for speedy deletion under CSD X2, but speedy deletion was declined on the rather curious basis that it's been cleaned up by two editors, although not, as of the time of nomination, into comprehensible English. I don't see what's notable about this person and I don't see what's reliable about the sources. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 01:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete the coverage seems to be in Mykonos guidebooks and various blogs. It does not amount to anything even approaching WP:ARTIST. From what I read, she hangs out in the harbour in Mykonos painting landscapes and selling them to tourists, so none of the traditional artist notability indicators apply (major exhibitions, critical commentary, awards, etc). I could not actually find one exhibition or independent review of her work, so using our usual artist notability criteria is pointless.

GNG-wise, it is very weak. The coverage is mostly trivial or in unimportant publications.

Example coverage from the cited source greecetraveller.com (a blog) reads: At the top of Matoyianni Street, in front of the Kessaris jewelry store, on summer evenings you may find naïf painter Carolina Wells (though she’s often down on the harbor when it’s not windy). Her paintings, which have got international acclaim of late, but have been dear to locals for decades, sell like hotcakes for around 100 Euros apiece.

Overall, I think she is mostly a sort of local celebrity. I don't think we need to cover local celebrities in the absence of good independent in-depth coverage; the guidebooks have that sort of thing covered.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Reading the story about her, it explains that Karolina sells four types of paintings: the Blue and White Painting, the Red Painting, the Restaurant Painting, and the Red Boat Painting. The Blue and White Painting sells the best, but painting all that blue is a lot of work. It's a story, so you have to allow some leeway for artistic license, but I think it's indicative of what we're discussing here. Curiocurio (talk) 16:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Just a fact: The artist is not Greek as the proposer wrote, she is an American. As for notability: She has coverage in Greek national press (Downtown magazine) and main TV channel (Skai TV, "one of the largest media groups in the country" according to the relevant article). She has been an inspiration for a short story by Peter Selgin as well as for a poem from artists which are not local to Mykonos, she is mentioned in travel guides. As far as I am concerned these are enough for a person to be considered notable. --FocalPoint (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Downtown Magazine piece is quoted in the article as "did you see the Karolines' which were hung by the entrance? And, of course, I have now learned to recognize the masterpieces of the great painter of the island..." It is trivial coverage. Being the subject of fiction or a poem is not particularly important either. What counts is in-depth SIGCOV, which is missing here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have written "Greece-based" rather than "Greek".—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete We cannot be entertaining the idea that we can uses sources like karolinasmykonos.com, which is operated by the subject's daughter , who writes "Carol Wells was unique from the beginning of her life. Born on Christmas day in 1939 into the highest strata of Boston society, she was blessed was(sic!) talent, intellect, beauty, and independence." No. Additional comments: isn't used as a source for anything except her name and education and is written by her daughter. Not an independent, reliable source is a travel guide, not accessible online, the nearest library with a copy is more than 6000 kilometers away. is the website of a travel agent, not an independent, reliable source is a dead link lists a number of local shopkeepers (none of whom appear to be notable BTW)and makes the claim that her paintings have got international acclaim of late, but provides no evidence of such acclaim or even an indication of what form it takes: exhibitions, awards? is a video on the website of Skai Group which is cited to support the claim that "The life of Karolina has been presented on Greek television". I couldn't get it to run. It seems a bit odd to mention that she's the subject of a documentary, but not use that documentary as a source for the content of the article, and instead highlight the fact that a source exists,even though we don't get to find out what it says. is fiction, and definitely not a reliable source is a poem by Zen Cowboy Poet & Freelance Philosopher Neil Meili, whose relevance to me is unclear. In summary, the sources are so poor that it is no possible to verify anything. This is not just a failure to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, it fails WP:V Vexations (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Additional coverage:

Exhibition in Mykonos 21 - 31 October 2019
Same exhibition in Athens, so moving out of local to national level

--FocalPoint (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Link one (koinignomi.gr) is a list of artists in a show: "Under the title "Contemporary Mykonos Painters", they present their works, along with the work to be printed in the diary, by Armacola Georgina, Lydia Venieris, Veronis Petros, Galatis Giannis, Karolina Woellipi..."

Link two is a derivative of the first article, with her name listed but no commentary. So both sources are trivial coverage. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Subject of article does not meet notability criteria, nor are there reliable sources in the article or online after a search. Netherzone (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Appears to be notable, and much written about, as local personality/artist, although missing the grade for notability as an artist as such. Potential to expand from the Greek wiki article (I don't read Greek, but have linked with an "expand" tag). PamD 12:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@PamD: could you point to two or three reliable sources that have more than a paragraph on her? I checked the Greek article and it has no RS that can be verified-- just blogs and the like. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

User:PamD has expressed it better than I did. Indeed, the notability of Karolina is as local personality/artist, not for notability as an artist as such. I have selected both for the Greek and the English articles easily accessible material. I have more references to add, however, they are not on line and I will add them during the next 6-7 days. --FocalPoint (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that is the point: she might be locally notable via trivial coverage in travel magazines for selling paintings at the wharf.... but we are a global encyclopedia.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing time for User:FocalPoint to add the offline sources they found to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Refs: 1. primary source (artists website) does not contribute to notability; 2. Unverifiable; 3. Non-reliable source, blurb in "Hideaways Aficiando Club" travel blog; 4. Unverifiable; 5. Unverifiable; 6. Non-reliable source - blurb in travel blog "Elizabeth Boleman-Herring's Greece"; 7. Unverifiable; 8. Travel Blog entry - human interest story; 8. Non-reliable source - mention in a poem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netherzone (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 December 2019 (UCD) (UTC) Netherzone (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Not in-depth coverage. She may be a local celebrity (a hint for notability), but this not supported by third-party reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Najma Kousri

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

Article claims subject is a journalist but subject fails WP:JOURNALIST. Article portrays subject as though she were notable but she fails WP:BIO. A WP:BEFORE shows she fails WP:GNG woefully. References provided mentions subject in passing. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. PamD 15:51, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Several of the references mention her much more than "in passing". Searching French wikipedia for her (no article) suggests that her journalism is significant - she turns up as author in a lot of references in that wiki. The Ameni ref (currently no.6) is entirely about her and her experience re her activism. The World Pride speaker bio is brief but indicates notability. Co-founder of the Tunisian equivalent of #MeToo is a notable role/achievement.Pam D 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment If by any mischance the article is deleted, the content of the EnaZeda section needs to be split off and preserved as a separate article. PamD 16:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep As per PamD. I have added stuff for Ms Kousri at commons and wikidata - refs are found. Victuallers (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. I don't see that the encyclopaedia would benefit from removing this well referenced entry about an interesting figure. I've had a look for coverage in Arabic and can't find anything substantial, but I do think that the diverse range of references cited here (to which I've added a couple) gets Najma Kousri over the line for general notability. Good point that EnaZeda deserves coverage on Misplaced Pages as meeting the general notability criteria, whether through the current redirect to Najma's entry or through an entry of its own. Alarichall (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Now adequately sourced for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Extensively referenced and likely to be of interest to researchers of equality campaigning worldwide. Seacroft (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep per other arguments presented here. -Yupik (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. She may have been part of a newsworthy story but per the discussion does not evince Misplaced Pages notability. No prejudice against recreating the article should she become notable. Avi (talk) 06:29, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Erinn Cosby

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:NOTINHERITED notability isn’t inherited. Article creator says subject of article is a photographer but she fails WP:CREATIVE Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what "presentism" means. Sorry! But I think the fact her father is a sexual assaulter who did not get the police involved when his daughter was assaulted is a part of the overall story. His refusal to take responsibility extended to people who attacked his family.

I think Erinn's backstory of sexual assault allegations against Mike Tyson and her father's response to her are newsworthy. Her father did not protect her from her assaulter and then he himselfeventually went to prison for sexual assault while Erinn defended him. Her career as a photographer could be a quiet one and not showy. Erinn went on television to talk about her assault. Thank you! Happy to debate some more! Margodono (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete The above comment illustrates a problem in reasoning. Misplaced Pages is not news. Events being newsworthy does not make them notable. Misplaced Pages is already bloated enough with presentism. Anything of note can be covered in the article on Tyson. There is no reason to have this stand alone article on Erinn Cosby.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

°I don't know what "presentism" means. Sorry! But I think the fact her father is a sexual assaulter who did not get the police involved when his daughter was sexually assaulted by a man who also went to jail for assault is a part of the overall story. Cosby's refusal to take responsibility extended to people who attacked his family. She is a part of two events, two men whose stories are featured in Wiki. Margodono (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with what's been said above. If the abuse is notable for inclusion, it could easily be incorporated into the pertinent articles, but Erinn is most certainly non-notable as there are nill sources about her, in print or online. PK650 (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable. Misplaced Pages isn't news. Reads like a story. It must satisfy WP:BASIC. Fails WP:BIO. Should have been speedied as A7. scope_creep 11:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Shirin Kanchwala

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

Subject of article fails WP:GNG and as per WP:NACTOR she doesn’t scale through as well. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I have found more sources and added additional verifiable information. I live in Chennai, India and she is one of the upcoming actresses with high fan followers. I believe this article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. warlordlaw —Preceding undated comment added 16:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Played the lead in a major film. As usual it is the Deccan Chronicle and the Times of India that reports early new stars in Bollywood films. Some decent coverage, all to do with early career, but I think sufficient for WP:THREE. scope_creep 16:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep has at least three prominent roles in notable films and tv series backed up by multiple reliable sources coverage as detailed above and therefore passes WP:NACTOR so deletion is not needed in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sssniperwolf

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

Non-notable Youtube personality. One brief description by Forbes on a top internet influencers list, but the article is totally unsourced and doesn't demonstrate notability. The Forbes reference isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete- Non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - I've done a quick Google News search and come up with the following: , , , , . That seems like significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to me, unless there's something I'm missing. The article definitely needs a rewrite and maybe moving to her real name (I don't know what the convention here is) but I'm not seeing any reasons to delete. WJ94 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - The article is in bad shape but there are reliable sources covering it. I think there's enough here to qualify as notable. Michepman (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep, I added some sources as per WJ94, the article still needs a rewrite but at least it has a reference list now, there are enough sources out there that it passes WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. While there was a delete vote alongside two keeps, the delete was practically a WP:PERX and fails WP:ATA, and a second relist failed to generate any more votes, so I'm closing this as no consensus default to keep. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Aimee Winder Newton

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

WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, people do not get Misplaced Pages articles just for standing as candidates in elections they have not yet won — the notability test at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, so the fact that she's a candidate in a future gubernatorial primary is not a notability claim in and of itself. The only political office she has held is at the county council level, which is not an "inherently" notable level of political office — it's a level at which a person only gets into Misplaced Pages if they can show nationalizing coverage which demonstrates a reason why they could be considered much more notable than the norm. But this is referenced to a mix of primary sources (her council profile on the council's own self-published website, and two newspaper op-eds where she's the bylined author and not the subject) that aren't support for notability at all, glancing namechecks of her existence in articles about the deaths of other family members, and a small smattering of purely local coverage of the type that every local politician everywhere can always show, none of which is how you demonstrate that a county councillor is notable enough for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November 2020 if she wins the gubernatorial election, but nothing here is grounds for her to already have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete unless she gets elected governor she will not be notable. Politicians get routine coverage and that is all she has. The straining at finding a sign of notability here is just too much.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Salt Lake County together with Salt Lake City form a major metropolitan area with two very reliable newspapers, The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News. With about 10 articles referenced from those two sources, it's pretty obvious she's notable. Being Chairwoman of the County Council is likely a very big deal. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:47, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
County councillors are not automatically accepted as notable just because they have local coverage in the local media. Every county councillor in every county always has that, so if the existence of some local media coverage were all it took to hand a local politician a GNG-based exemption from having to clear NPOL, then NPOL would literally never apply to anybody anymore because every local politician would always get that exemption. Rather, we have a longstanding consensus that politicians at the local level (municipal, county, school board, etc.) clear the notability bar only if their coverage expands far beyond where it's merely expected to exist, to the point that they have a credible claim to being much more nationally significant than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Smallbones. SL Tribune and Deseret News are regional media for the Mountain West states , not local, which gives their coverage sufficient weight to meet NBIO. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
The question of whether a media outlet is "local" or "regional", for the purposes of making a county councillor more special than other county councillors, is determined by its location of publication, not its distribution range. If a newspaper is published in Salt Lake City, then its coverage of a municipal politician in Salt Lake City is local coverage that falls below the bar — the fact that it might happen to have supplementary readership beyond Salt Lake City alone does not turn its local coverage into notability-making "regional" coverage that would make her more special than other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Numbers of followers is not a notability standard and no real argument that this isn't TOOSOON recreation when things change is encouraged. Spartaz 19:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mery Racauchi (Singer)

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

Fails WP:SINGER. Andrew Base (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I think she has only recently started a career with an EP, like yesterday it feels like, so it fails there. But, she does have more than 370K followers on Facebook, which makes her notable. There is some coverage, sufficient for a seed article per WP:THREE. scope_creep 16:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, I think the article should be deleted for now and it may be recreated when the subject becomes more notable and when it meets WP:SINGER. Andrew Base (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Andrew Base: I did come into the Afd thinking it was a waste of my breath looking at the article and was planning going forward with a delete, but 370k follower isn't insignificant and well past the guidelines. I'd wait until the Afd is complete. Its early days. scope_creep 12:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Lightburst (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Tone 13:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Melissa Monet

Does not meet WP:GNG. --NL19931993 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 08:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Has received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. I added more refs to the article and the one in the The Gazette suggests notability, saying she "was a major blue-movie star until she moved behind the camera and started directing.".Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete All that was added by the above user were citations to confirm early life details, and a short interview by a German Vice contributor about his masturbatory predilections. Said contributor is anonymous, not even an actual journalist. Zaathras (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was delete. Spartaz 11:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Jess Davidson

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

Many problems with this article, including almost no notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. J 947 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. J 947 21:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Further comment: Out of the references used, the only headlines that she is mentioned in is the university of denver magazine and a student magazine from the university of denver (duclarion). It seems she attended the university of denver at the time of publication. This is obviously very insignificant coverage. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep - a person does not need to be named in the headline for significant coverage, which this person has: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." For example, in the Time article, Davidson is quoted three times; similar material is in several of the other reliable sources. There are certainly things I'd edit in the article, but AfD is not for fixing such trifles.Bearian (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Being quoted can't increase ~~his~~ her notability - it would be inherently non-independent, unless there's actually accompanying content about the individual directly. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Her* Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Reply - you get your name in a newspaper and you get a wikipedia article? No way. I think myself and every person i know has got their name into a 'reliable source' at some point in their lives. WP: GNG stipulates that "significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail". The time magazine article isn't even about her, nor does it address her in detail. This should be a snowball delete, i dont even see how it's an edge case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This should be an easy delete, there are no sources in the world (that i know of) that address the individual "directly and in detail"...Except for the university of denver magazine and the university of denver student magazine...and as she attended the university of denver, that's kind of insignificant (school magazines write about their students all of the time). Perhaps the organization she represents deserves a page, but the case for her having her own page is very thin. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nom. An easy call. There's no significant coverage of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal 20:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak Delete - She has passing mention in several high quality RS's, but is only given direct coverage in a couple university rags. Not quite sure that cuts mustard. NickCT (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete the only coverage is by university publications o fher own university. Such publications are usually indiscriminate, and therefore not RSs for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The result was keep. Special thanks to the people who gave out the sources. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 23:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

April O'Neil (actress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/April O'Neil (actress) (2nd nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG.--NL19931993 (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 08:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

FYI. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/April O'Neil (pornographic actress). Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Weak delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable pornographic entertainer. This is one of the types of categories we need to clean out a lot of articles on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep I'm not sure why this is tagged for bands and musicians (which is my expertise) but I'll weigh in anyway. Reliable source (Rolling Stone, LA Weekly, etc) mentions in lists are trivial so don't add up to mainstream notability, but the subject's nominations/wins of a major industry awards plus extensive IMDB credits seems to meet WP:ENT criteria, especially with five-years worth of additions (not in article but confirmed by Googling) since the previous "no consensus" AfD debate from 2014. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete: does not meet WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Passes the GNG with these articles about her and her works. and passes WP:CREATIVE as director/writer given her collective body of work receiving coverage Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Per above and WP:BASIC, that If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Subject gets plenty of non-trivial mentions in good quality RS per the article (like Rolling Stone), and Morbidthoughts above, and in RS such as Vice. It is actually tricky to get RS on porn actresses as you have to wade through the multitude of porn-sites on google. Britishfinance (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Move to draft. It has been suggested that new sources exist beyond those in the article. If so, let those be added, and the article can be submitted through the AFC process. BD2412 T 04:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
~~Delete since subject fails WP:ENT. (We should remember that WP:PORNBIO is no more. See here.)~~

The only criterion of WP:ENT that our subject could possibly meet is #1 (significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions), since she evidently does not qualify on the basis of the others, i.e. #2 & #3 (large fan base or a significant "cult" following & unique, prolific or innovative contributions, respectively).

How would the films in which our subject has participated could qualify as "notable"? The only criterion of WP:NFILM that her films could possibly meet is #3 (i.e. received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking) but, according to the available, reliable sources, her films never won an AVN or an XBIZ, the so-called "Oscars" and "Golden Globes" of the porn industry respectively (even when the cited source that labels those awards as such is a defunct one). Ergo, we have no notability of which to speak. -The Gnome (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Changing suggestion to Keep on the basis of subject's notability about activities not directly related to porn, e.g. here, here, etc. On porn alone she does not cut it, but there's indeed more. -The Gnome (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Per the sources identified by Morbidthoughts and Britishfinance I think this article has sufficient notability. It would be good to see the article get expanded though... — Hunter Kahn 18:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep, Per all the sources identified pass subject to GNG. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete There is just no evidence of achieved notability. Simple as that. The LA Weekly thing is speculative at best. Trillfendi (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean "speculative"? It appears to be a full profile about her in a verifiable, reliable secondary source... one of several sources available about her (both shared in this AFD and otherwise) that seem to contradict your claim of "no evidence of achieved notability"... — Hunter Kahn 23:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I’m definitely talking about the article where they claim she and 9 others can be the “next” Sasha Grey, if that wasn’t obvious. That’s not an accomplishment. And clearly it hasn’t actually happened that she will have reached Grey’s popularity and mainstream success.... This is exactly why PORNBIO was depreciated and awards aren’t enough anymore. Trillfendi (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to this LA Weekly article, which is a full profile entirely dedicated to her and discusses her past, how she began in the adult film industry, how she came to establish her name and unique niche in the industry, and a great deal of other content. I think by focusing on the "next Sasha Gray" thing you are highlighting only one brief sentence/headline in a single article and ignoring the rest of a body of work that helps establish her notability. And even the article you reference includes more than just the "next Sasha Gray" thing, including information about her past, her social media influence, etc. — Hunter Kahn 17:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article itself only says how she got her stage name then lists a smattering of awards/nominations. While it’s good she has a real article on her—that’s more you can say for most adult actresses these days—I don’t demonstrably see a noteworthy career here, in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that if we were going by the content on the Misplaced Pages article as it stands right now, that might not be enough. But this AFD discussion has identified a number of reliable sources that provide more information about her and establish notability. The article should and likely will be expanded to include this new info; I'll happily add it myself once things get a little less busy due to the holidays... — Hunter Kahn 14:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Weak Keep - I can see her winning a non notable award and see her winning a notable award. Per WP:ANYBIO winning just one notable award should suffice or show evidence of notability. Am I missing something? Please correct me and I’d promptly change my vote to a delete if not then a Keep is most applicable here. Celestina007 (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, Celestina007. It should be clear that porn awards no longer qualify as significant, not since WP:PORNBIO was deprecated - which is why the link to it redirects us to WP:ENTERTAINER. Achievements in the porn industry are not on their own or on the basis of mostly porn-related sources considered elementarily notable. But our subject is Wikinotable for endeavors not strictly related to porn, as shown above (e.g. here). Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Gnome ah! that explains a lot. Thanks for the clarification. Celestina007 (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review

Categories: