Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Lucy Connolly

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

I think WP:BLP1E applies. Suggest this page returns to being a redirect to 2024 United Kingdom riots. Paul W (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, target article already has small section that mostly duplicates this article. This is not a notable person, this is a single minor incident that cannot be separated from the greater context resulting from the stabbings. WP:BLP1E definitely applies. Schazjmd (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 19:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Kašová

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

This is an athlete who competed in a single Olympic games as part of a larger team (1988 Women's Basketball). The Czech team finished 8th. WP:BEFORE search yields no WP:SIGCOV, and the only source in the article is a Sports Reference entry - considered trivial per WP:SPORTCRIT. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Olympics, and Czech Republic. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czechoslovakia at the 1988 Summer Olympics as WP:ATD, due to the absence of SIGCOV. C 679 16:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Basketball is an extensively-covered sport and as such, nearly every basketball Olympian meets GNG. A search of Hungarian newspaper Arcanum brings up SIGCOV such as this 400-word story on her. There's also this, regarding her being named the number one basketball player in Slovakia, and other coverage is available, both under her married name Kašová and her prior name Bardoňová. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently,

- WP:NBASKETBALL presumes SIGCOV likely exists only if the athlete was selected in the first two rounds of the NBA Draft or has won an award or led the league in a major statistical category of the CBA or NBA G League.

- WP:NOLYMPICS only presumes notability if if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games.

Anyways, I am unable to access either of those articles: database access requires a subscription. Arcanum is also not a newspaper; it is a "database of digitized content". Arcanum itself is not a valid secondary source, but the original publisher of this article might be. Can you provide more information? Who wrote this, what newspaper or organization is it, are the articles about her specifically or is it only a passing mention, etc? Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT is utterly useless and broken, so NBASKETBALL/NOLYMPICS should not be used as a reason to delete (Wayne Gretzky, the greatest hockey player ever, is a failure of WP:NHOCKEY). I meant to say "Hungarian newspaper archive Arcanum". The main article I mentioned is a half-page story on her and Eva Berková in Nedeľná Pravda; specifically, and excluding quotes, there's around 400 words on her about her selection to the national team and her prior career. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I agree that is WP:SIGCOV, and I will take your word for it and withdraw the nomination. It would be great if you'd be willing to add it to the article, but of course, no obligation to do so. Cheers, Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 19:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Wei (basketball)

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

This athlete was a member of the Chinese Olympic Basketball team in 1988. Her team placed 6th. She did not compete again, and quite logically has no WP:SIGCOV. The only source in the article is a Sports Reference entry, which is trivial coverage per WP:SPORTCRIT. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Basketball, Olympics, and China. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 15:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helina Daimary

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. The article is promotional, and the sources are not reliable Cinder painter (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FC St. Louis

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

Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League as I am unable to find much of any coverage of this team after searches on Google and Newspapers.com, let alone enough to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found a huge article about them on ProQuest, searching for "FC St. Louis" and then "soccer". (Log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library first and link should work.) Don't have time right now but looks like there is more. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Davis

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

Delete or Redirect to Bernie Mac Show. The subject notability guideline #1 for entertainers state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Subject does not have notable roles plural. Her only non-guest role/non-appearance as self is the Bernie Mac Show. Her portfolio of guest roles is also small. She otherwise on IMDB has three guest roles. I will also note that while IMDB is considered generally unreliable (per Wikipedia:IMDB), the roles mentioned in the article do not show up there. A redirect would be a similar outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Clarke who had a similar noted for one thing situation of a filmography of one recurring role as a child over a decade ago and no roles since. Mpen320 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appeared in over 100 episodes of a network TV show. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Contino

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

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is tied to a two incidents, not enough for lasting notability—see WP:BLP1E. Sources are mostly local news or advocacy stuff, not deep or independent enough per WP:RS. Her gaming and social media gigs don’t get serious attention in solid outlets. Delete or redirect. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.

Comment not that I'm moved one way or the other yet, but surely Coverage is tied to a couple incidents (emphasis added; nom changed 'couple' to 'two' after I posted this comment) and WP:BLP1E are contradictory, no? (see WP:BLP2E) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully — no. That’s exactly the point. WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP2E exist to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a permanent record for individuals only known due to a small number of controversies or viral moments. The subject of this article is not independently notable — the “coverage” amounts to reactionary media commentary about the incidents, not about her as a person in any substantive or sustained way.

We’re not talking about someone with a career, long-term recognition, or encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about fleeting media attention tied to drama. “A couple incidents” is literally the textbook definition of BLP1E, and trying to twist that into a justification for notability is a dangerous precedent.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It’s not a diary of internet virality. And it sure as hell isn’t here to eternally memorialize people for 15 minutes of controversial fame. If the coverage dies with the event, so should the article. Per policy, this should be deleted.

— End of story. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in 2022, 2023 and this in 2025 [1]. Some analysis here [2], so another coverage found in 2025. Not so notable for the various "issues", but being a streamer, of which we have ample confirmation. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Toronto Sun article cited (“NO LONGER FEEL SAFE”) is another incident-focused tabloid-style piece. It doesn’t provide in-depth or sustained coverage of Contino’s career. The academic analysis cited (a speech acts paper) is not journalistic coverage and is hosted on ResearchGate, which is user-contributed and generally not considered a reliable secondary source for establishing notability.

There is no significant, independent, and reliable secondary source coverage that discusses the subject in detail beyond viral moments. Lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The rule has a number as its middle name: BLP1E, not BLP2E nor BLP3E. Life is now a series of viral moments, and it might have been always this way. We have never deleted an article, as far as I can recall in the tens of thousands that I've participated in, where a person who was known for two separate events to be deleted, with the exception of political candidates being held to a higher standard, to screen out all but perennial candidates. The consensus might be faulty but hasn't changed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, that interpretation stretches WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG beyond their intent. This isn’t about counting events — the core issue is quality and depth of coverage, not just quantity.

The Toronto Sun piece is incident-driven, reactive, and tabloid-style — it doesn’t offer any sustained analysis of Contino as a public figure. The ResearchGate article is academic, not independent journalistic coverage, and is hosted on a user-upload platform, not a recognized mainstream publisher. Neither source meets the standard for significant, independent, and reliable secondary coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

While “life is now a series of viral moments,” Wikipedia’s inclusion standards haven’t changed: viral ≠ notable. Two viral events with no in-depth profile or sustained coverage don’t override WP:BLP1E — which still applies where coverage is narrowly event-focused and fails to establish enduring notability.

We’re not here to build permanent encyclopedic entries from fleeting internet controversies. If a subject’s only enduring relevance is through misgendering incidents that go viral, that’s precisely the kind of situation WP:BLP1E warns against.

Additionally, viral incidents—even when notable events—do not automatically justify an independent article. Often, these topics are better suited to be covered within broader articles or merged elsewhere, to avoid creating pages based primarily on fleeting internet attention.

Redirect or delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. After reviewing all sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either incident-only (triggering WP:BLP1E), promotional, or do not meet reliability standards. Here's a breakdown:

WeWork.com – Corporate blog; not independent, not reliable, no significant coverage.
PocketGamer.biz – Interview published while subject worked at Ryu Games; borderline source, promotional tone, fails independence.
GameDeveloper.com – Author profile, not coverage about the subject. Not independent or significant.
48 Hills – Local alternative outlet; mildly reliable but not in-depth or sustained coverage. Does not establish notability.
CBS News, The Hill, Advocate, KRON4, Daily Dot, LGBTQ Nation – All focus on one of two viral incidents (either the Cheesecake Factory confrontation or the Crown & Crumpet livestream hoax). These are WP:BLP1E events and do not provide broader notability or career-spanning coverage.

In short, there is no meaningful coverage establishing lasting notability beyond two viral moments. Subject does not meet inclusion criteria under notability guidelines. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by User:Willthacheerleader18, who has created a number of similar articles on internet personalities. A current example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald, which is also under AfD discussion due to concerns related to WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The pattern of creating biographies based on recent or viral incidents — rather than long-term, significant coverage in reliable sources — raises questions about whether these articles meet inclusion standards. This does not reflect on the subjects themselves, but highlights the need to apply Wikipedia’s notability criteria consistently. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I created the article (and was surprised to find I was not given notice about it's nomination for deletion.. so thank you for mentioning me here!). I have written a number of articles on TikTokers, as a member of the WikiProject TikTok. I created MacDonald's article this year, and Contino's article last year, while participating in LGBTQ+ edit-a-thons created by WikiProject Women in Red. I do not have a strong opinion either way whether or not this article is deleted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Response: Thank you for clarifying your role and intentions. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion standards must be applied impartially, regardless of how an article was created or the good-faith motivations behind edit-a-thons. Here are the critical points:
  1. 1. Intentions Don’t Override Notability Policy
  Participation in WikiProject TikTok or Women in Red and enthusiasm for representation are commendable, but they cannot bypass WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. An article’s merit rests entirely on whether independent, reliable sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject beyond fleeting viral moments.
  1. 2. Coverage Remains Event-Driven and Shallow
  As previously noted, nearly all reliable coverage of Lilly Contino is tied to two similar viral incidents (Cheesecake Factory misgendering, Crown & Crumpet prank). These produce short news briefs or opinion-style blog posts, not long-form journalistic profiles or analytical features that treat Contino as a figure of lasting significance. This pattern fails the “substantial coverage” threshold required by WP:NPERSON and WP:SIGCOV.
  1. 3. BLP1E Applies Squarely
  WP:BLP1E exists to prevent standalone biographies based solely on a small number of events. Even if multiple events occurred, they are of the same nature—viral controversies without broader context or ongoing achievements. Creating multiple similar articles in edit-a-thons magnifies this issue rather than resolving it. The policy warns precisely against this: a subject known only for episodic viral attention does not warrant a permanent entry.
  1. 4. Independence and Reliability of Sources
  Many sources are local or advocacy-leaning, or retell the same incidents across outlets. There is no evidence of independent, investigative coverage of Contino’s career (e.g., video game writing, lasting impact as a critic). Academic papers on speech acts do not count as independent journalistic coverage establishing notability. Promotional interviews and author profiles likewise fail to establish notability under WP:RS.
  1. 5. Precedent and Consistency
  Allowing this article to remain simply because it was created via an edit-a-thon sets a dangerous precedent: any viral figure with minimal coverage could be added en masse during events, swelling Wikipedia with entries lacking true encyclopedic value. Consistency demands that we apply notability criteria uniformly, regardless of how articles originate.
  1. 6. Neutrality and Good Faith
  This response is not an attack on contributors or on efforts to improve representation. It is a strict application of policy: if the topic doesn’t meet the standards, the article should be deleted or redirected. Good faith editing still requires adherence to notability and reliable sourcing.
  Conclusion: Despite the effort and intentions behind its creation, the Lilly Contino article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. The sources reflect fleeting viral incidents rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of lasting impact. Therefore, the article must be deleted (or at most redirected into a broader topic). Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A reminder that follower counts and social media popularity do not, on their own, establish notability per WP:NUMBERG. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, while the subject has over 400k followers on TikTok, the sources largely revolve around two incidents and do not reflect the kind of in-depth, career-spanning coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to be clear that I fully support and respect all genders and sexual orientations—trans, gay, lesbian, straight, and everyone else. My position here isn’t biased against anyone’s identity. Personally, one of my favorite trans media stars is Dylan Mulvaney, who I think has made a strong impact. However, after reviewing the coverage, I believe that Lilly Contino, sadly, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards to have a dedicated article at this time. Momentoftrue (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing this pass WP:NPERSON. If events are notable, an article should be made about those specific events rather than necessarily the people involved in them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst a lot of the articles about her are quite opinionated, together they demonstrate broad coverage and meet WP:NPERSON. Similarly, this coverage is over a number of events, meaning the article meets WP:BLP1E. With respect, it appears that Nom is incorrectly applying BLE1E to individual sources instead of to the subject as a whole. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 14:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: This argument completely misrepresents what constitutes notability under WP:NPERSON and misapplies WP:BLP1E in a way that ignores the spirit of both policies.
Let’s rip this open properly:

1. “Broad Coverage” Is a Mirage — It's the Same Story, Copy-Pasted

Multiple articles parroting the same two viral moments (Crown & Crumpet, Cheesecake Factory) isn’t breadth — it’s repetition. Nearly all coverage is just variations of "Internet reacts to viral TikTok." It’s event-based noise, not significant secondary analysis. This is textbook WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS territory.

2. NPERSON? Absolutely Not.

WP:NPERSON requires significant (i.e., in-depth), independent, and sustained coverage. There are no long-form profiles. No editorial insights. No coverage of her game dev career. No notable accolades. Just TikTok recaps and callouts. This fails the bar miserably. You could swap in any influencer’s name and the articles wouldn’t change.

3. BLP1E Was Written For Situations Like This

Contino’s notability is entirely derived from two misgendering incidents — and the "multiple events" defense fails because those events are nearly identical in nature and covered the same way. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E warns about: temporary notoriety from viral outrage cycles, not lasting, encyclopedic significance. She is known because of the reaction, not for enduring achievements.

4. This Is a Manufactured Biographical Article

Let’s not pretend this is organic coverage. It was created during an edit-a-thon tied to a political initiative (as admitted by the article’s creator). That’s not a neutral reason for inclusion — that’s a Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY violation waiting to happen. The project goals are noble, but the sources must still pass GNG and SIGCOV, and this one simply doesn’t.

5. This Article's Existence Undermines Wikipedia’s Standards

If we keep this, we send the message that anyone who goes viral twice—regardless of depth, career, or recognition—gets a Wikipedia page. That’s a dangerous precedent, and it floods the project with bios that hinge entirely on fleeting controversy, violating WP:NOT and weakening trust in the platform.

Bottom Line: DELETE.

- Not significant coverage.

- Not broad.

- Not lasting.

- Entirely event-driven.

- Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and absolutely meets WP:BLP1E criteria.

Wikipedia is not a mirror for TikTok trends. This subject can be mentioned in coverage of the incidents themselves, but does not merit a standalone article. Delete.

– Momentoftrue (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong enough opinions about keeping or deleting, but I would like to gently draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your point, repeatedly dissecting every keep vote isn't helpful. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence Momentoftrue (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should be capable of responding to any new points raised without the WP:WALLOFTEXT mainly restating points that you have already made, several times over, because what you posted above does also seem WP:BLUDGEONy to me too. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The responses are pretty clearly AI generated, which is frowned on. @Momentoftrue, AI tends to be excessively verbose, consider summarizing its points in your own words instead. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that’s a reach. Just because something is thorough, well-formatted, and cites policy accurately doesn’t mean it’s AI-generated — it means it’s serious about deletion. The issue shouldn’t be how points are delivered, but whether they’re grounded in policy — and mine are.

If clarity and consistency are getting mistaken for AI, maybe the bar for deletion arguments needs to be raised — not dismissed.

Let’s focus on the content, not the style. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you — but reiterating policy isn’t WP:BLUDGEON when editors continue misapplying it. This isn’t about “restating” for the sake of it — it’s clarifying misuse of notability guidelines that risk setting a precedent for hosting articles built on temporary outrage and media flares, not long-term significance.

If multiple keep !votes continue to ignore WP:BLP1E by conflating coverage of incidents with coverage of the person, then yes — it deserves correction, every time.

You say don’t post walls? Cool. Then let’s be real clear:

She’s known because of the incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E. This article doesn’t belong.

Clean. Sharp. Policy-backed. No apologies. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you've made your case and we all pretty much understand your interpretation of policy. Something important to remember is that people can reasonably disagree with you on questions of policy, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're misapplying it. Nor, if your right, does it mean its helpful to your case to to keep stating your point of view in response to each keep comment. If their arguments are so obviously fallacious and yours so obviously enlightened, the closer will be able to figure that out.

And because I can't help my self: incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E No, incidents (emphasis added) would suggest more than one event i.e. not covered by WP:BLP1E. There's no such thing as WP:BLP2E. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the reminder, but let’s not act like a firm stance is the same thing as being disruptive. I’m not here to hand-hold every Keep vote when many are restating the same vague rationale or ignoring core notability policy. This isn’t about ego — it’s about consistency in applying WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, which are being stretched to fit a narrative here.

And to your “can’t help myself” moment: no one said WP:BLP2E exists — that’s your strawman. What was actually pointed out is that coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E when those incidents are minor, viral bursts lacking lasting, independent significance. That’s a textbook misunderstanding of what WP:BLP1E protects against — superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance.

I’m not here to bludgeon — I’m here to make sure deletion-worthy articles don’t slip through because folks got too comfortable confusing press coverage with policy-based notability. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E If they are covered for more than one event, as far as I can see based on what is written at WP:BLP1E, then they definitionally do pass WP:BLP1E. Of course, passing BLP1E says absolutely nothing about passing GNG/NOPAGE but it's actually not BLP1E primary job to to protect against [...] superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re treating multiple incidents as an automatic override of WP:BLP1E, but that’s not what BLP1E says — nor how it’s historically applied. BLP1E is fundamentally about protecting living subjects from being reduced to a series of isolated or tabloid-level events that do not, individually or collectively, constitute lasting encyclopedic notability. The bar isn’t just more than one event — it’s about the depth, independence, and enduring relevance of those events.

We don’t carve out encyclopedia pages just because a subject had two viral moments. That’s not notability — that’s noise. And that’s exactly what BLP1E safeguards against.

Even if you technically satisfy the “more than one incident” phrasing, if those incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist by nature, then you’re still within the spirit of what BLP1E aims to exclude. That’s why this clause exists: to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a digital scrapbook of controversies.

And yes, while WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP support the same principle, BLP1E goes further — it’s not just about editorial discretion; it’s a living person safeguard. We’re talking about reputation protection, not just notability enforcement.

So to clarify:

BLP1E does not get invalidated simply because two events happened — not when those events are closely tied in theme, source, or moment (i.e., coverage collapsing into a single notability arc).

The presence of multiple news stories doesn’t automatically form a valid GNG case if they stem from echo chambers of non-independent, event-centric reporting.

Applying BLP1E is about the spirit of policy, not just a literal count of media incidents.

Wikipedia is not a viral hall of fame, and not every name trending for a month deserves to be canonized in an encyclopedia. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so when you previously said you were reiterating policy with arguments that were Clean[,] Sharp [and] Policy-backed, while accusing others of continue misapplying it and parroting vague rationale, you weren't referring to the policies as they are actually written but instead the spirit of policy and what you recon it's aims should be. See I was going off what these PaGs actually said, my mistake. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising this point. Wikipedia policy interpretation involves reading the literal text of guidelines and also considering the broader intent and context in which they are applied. Policy pages often give concise criteria, but explanations, examples, and precedents clarify how those criteria work in practice.

For instance, BLP1E warns against standalone biographies based on a few events without deeper coverage. It mentions more than one event, but it must be understood in context: the events need to reflect lasting, independent significance. Treating any count above one as sufficient ignores explanatory guidance and how BLP1E has been applied in deletion discussions.

Literal reading of policy requires awareness of examples and precedents. In practice, multiple brief news items covering essentially the same controversy do not amount to the substantial coverage envisioned by GNG or BLP1E. Saying that coverage across multiple incidents does not automatically sidestep BLP1E reflects established application, not a subjective override.

The key issue is distinguishing between a literal count of events and substantive coverage. If multiple incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist, they do not collectively support lasting notability. This interpretation aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a scrapbook of controversies rather than an encyclopedia of enduring significance.

Referring to the purpose of policy helps avoid misapplication. Every guideline aims to ensure Wikipedia covers subjects of lasting interest, not ephemeral trends. Understanding that purpose is standard practice: policy interpretation relies on literal text, linked guidance, community consensus, and documented rationale.

AfD discussions exist precisely for detailed scrutiny. Addressing misunderstandings of policy is appropriate to clarify for new editors and the closer. It is not WP:BLUDGEON if each reply corrects a misreading or adds nuance. This ensures that GNG, NPERSON, and BLP1E are applied correctly as measures of substantive, independent, and lasting coverage, not merely a count of mentions. Treating any “more than one” mention as sufficient would undermine policy intent. Therefore, it is necessary to address each misinterpretation to maintain proper application of guidelines.

Momentoftrue (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider stating the points of your argument in the nomination itself, instead of waiting for people to reply and dropping your argument directly below theirs. At this point, you have made more than half of the comments on this page, making it hard to read and resulting in points being restated again and again. There's nothing wrong with editing the nomination to update your argument, and it's much more helpful for people joining the discussion later. See also WP:TLDR. Thank you. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern, but let’s not conflate participation with disruption. This is a contentious AfD — not a vote count — and each “Keep” rationale that misrepresents policy warrants a precise, context-aware reply. That’s not WP:BLUDGEON — that’s due diligence. I’m engaging substantively and specifically, not restating or padding. If multiple editors make parallel policy misreadings, it’s entirely valid to address each one in turn.

As for the nomination: AfD is not static. WP:AFDPURPOSE encourages iterative debate, and policy consensus often sharpens in response to how arguments evolve — not in a vacuum. I’ve expanded on the rationale through replies, just like others have clarified theirs across multiple comments. This isn’t TL;DR — it’s transparency.

And let’s be honest: if an article’s survival hinges on misapplied BLP1E logic, misunderstood GNG claims, or event-linked echo-chamber sourcing, it deserves thorough scrutiny — not a polished summary followed by silence.

If clarity is the goal, I’d be happy to consolidate and annotate key points. But I won’t step back from challenging flawed keep rationales when policy is on the line — especially with a living subject. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suhr Chae-yeon

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

"Focusing on her facial expressions"? Wow, that's amazing! Seriously... fails WP:NSKATE, fails WP:GNG, fails everything. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails SPORTCRIT. The Newsen source is WP:PASSING. Geschichte (talk) 07:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 11:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

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

Badly formatted, is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page. Scientelensia (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, Canada, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan-Claire Green

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, as she's only had a major role in one notable film, and also fails WP:GNG. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Portugal, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Read

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

No, not the Massachusetts woman on trial for murder (although I will admit, searching for her lead me to this stub). This article is about an Australian former cricketer. Although criteria #1 of WP:NCRICKET is technically passed because she has played at the international level for a Test-playing nation, NSPORT is clear that there must always be independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual athlete. Neither player profiles on sports aggregation websites, nor an article from 1982 that talks about the entire Australian Cricket team, qualify. WP:BEFORE search did not yield any eligible coverage. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given this article's high page views (41,193 at this writing) compared to other members of the 1982 Australian women's cricket team, I don't think it's a stretch that most of those views are looking for Death of John O'Keefe instead. Should this discussion lead to deletion, creating a redirect to that article at this title might be wise, but I offer no opinion on the current article and subject (which has been on Wikipedia for about a decade before the Massachusetts murder trial even began) or its notability and sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, yes. I am quite certain that thousands of people have stumbled upon this article inadvertently. If this AfD is not successful, I will likely start a discussion on the article talk page proposing to move it to "Karen Read (cricketer)" and have the current title replaced by a redirect which leads to Death of John O'Keefe. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 14:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that she played in a team that won the Women's Cricket World Cup, and was given an Order of Australia award for services to cricket, I would expect there will be more sources out there, once filtering through the ones about current person of same name. Because achievements like these tend to garner non-trivial coverage. Will have a look in the next few days on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you say that, because intuitively, I would not think so. I don't see why reliable secondary sources would have indepth coverage about a person just because they were on a winning rugby team in 1982 - not just about the team, but about her specifically. The same goes for the Order of Australia, as nearly 50,000 people have received it (and I highly doubt that all 50,000 of them have WP:SIGCOV). With this being said, I will gladly withdraw the nomination if someone can produce two examples of significant independent coverage. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources: "Captain of Western Australia's only winning Australian Championship team"

Flipandflopped: She was just "on" the team
It's pretty usual for the captain of a championship team to get interviewed and profiled in the sports news, because the captain isn't just some random player. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In addition to what Joseph2302 has noted above, she is in the Western Australian cricket Gallery of Greats and the Karen Read Medal is awarded each year to the best A Grade player in the state. I would be utterly astounded if SIGCOV of her does not exist. But unfortunately most digitised Australian newspaper archives are very spotty between around the mid-1950s and early 1990s, and I haven't been able to find anything in any of the databases I have access to. Hoping someone else has better luck, otherwise regretfully redirect to List of Australia women Test cricketers. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no move Sources have been added to the article, and it's once again time to remind everyone that though this is the English-language Wikipedia and the servers are hosted in Florida, that doesn't mean American subjects gain primacy in article naming. The MA woman may be getting more attention now, but she has no article, and the hatnote is fulfilling the purpose as it does, and there should be no change at all and I would oppose any rename for this article just because 'MA Karen currently gets more attention'. In three years, she will likely be forgotten as most overcovered trial subjects in the States are once true crime media finds another woman's case to track. Nathannah • 📮 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nathannah, what two independent secondary sources that were added to the article pass WP:SIGCOV? There is:
- "Player Profile: Karen Read". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 26 January 2023. - Just a summary of her stats, exists for every cricket athlete ever. Clearly not WP:SIGCOV.
- "Player Profile: Karen Read". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 January 2023. - Per above.
- "Cricket Australia congratulates 2025 Australia Day Honours recipients". Cricket Australia. 27 January 2025. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - Not independent of the subject, fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Even if it was independent of the subject, it is a passing mention that she won an award. There is no indepth or substantive coverage of Read.
- "Australian women win final". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. 8 February 1982. Retrieved 25 April 2014 - Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual besides mentioning once that she scored in a game, fails WP:SIGCOV.
- "Karen Read Medal". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - A list of people who have won her medal. Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual beyond a single sentence. It is also not independent of the subject. It fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV.
- "WACA Honorary Life Members". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - A list of people that she is on, does not discuss her and does not pass WP:SIGCOV.
- "Karen Read". Western Australian Secondary School Executives Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - Not independent of the subject, not WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:BIO.
- "Dr Karen Ann READ". Australian Honours Search Facility. Retrieved 25 January 2025 - Primary sources which contains no significant coverage; it is her C.V. posted on a government website.
Respectfully, all of the above objectively fail WP:SIGCOV, and you would know that if you had read the article or even bothered to open them. Even the user who added them to the article, Joseph, acknowledged they were insufficient to pass WP:GNG as-is. I understand you resent the implication that the other Karen Read is a more notable subject, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM and I would ask you focus future contributions on whether *this article* passes WP:GNG. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 16:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources and WP:HEY. The article has doubled in size, and the number of cited sources has doubled, since the nomination was made. Someone with access to the Trove might be able to find even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I’ve checked Trove and unfortunately it doesn’t help in this case. For copyright reasons, Trove generally only contains newspapers up to 1954. The only major newspaper for which Trove covers the relevant period is The Canberra Times, where she appears in about half a dozen match reports but doesn’t get any SIGCOV. The best bet for finding SIGCOV would probably be the archives of The West Australian, but as far as I can tell only their pre-1954 and post-1995 articles have been digitised. MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing Again, I would just like to politely ask which two sources, specifically, pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBIO. "The article has doubled" is not a policy-based rationale with regards to whether the subject matter is notable. I really hope whoever reviews this can sympathize with my frustration... none of these !votes are addressing the question of notability... "Does the subject pass WP:GNG"? Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Flipandflopped, I would just like to politely ask that you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and then stop arguing with every editor who doesn't !vote your way. Four editors have expressed an opinion about whether to keep, delete, or redirect this article, and you have argued with three of us so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize - not my intention to bludgeon, I realize it may have come off that way. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Awad

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

Clear fail of GNG. Lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nehme1499 Are there not more sources? From her stats she looks like she should be an important part of the history of the Lebanon national woman's team. Govvy (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see [3]], [4]. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Per sources in Arabic. Svartner (talk) 23:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (apparently - AGF) show notability. Giant Snowman 18:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are various sources to show GNG. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Mutheu

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

Putting this up for deletion because it looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The subject is a likely non-notable child actress and the article seems to have been written either from a fan's perspective or possibly by someone with a conflict of interest. There is just not enough here in terms of coverage. All the sources in the article and everything I could find online focus only on her tragic and heartbreaking death. There is no in-depth or significant coverage about her acting career, especially nothing that predates her passing. If someone can bring reliable, independent sources that cover her life or career in detail before her death, I'll gladly withdraw this nomination. But right now, it doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Junbeesh (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kenya. Junbeesh (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No evidence of notability beyond BLP1E, unless Her death has led to widespread discussions on child safety, domestic violence, and the responsibilities of guardians and caregivers. can be supported from WP:RS. A quick Google showed sources unanimous that she was 5, not born 2018, so I've changed that, with a source, in the interest of accuracy. PamD 11:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chen Yanran

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

Not notable; no serious sources. Ponazzi (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sourcing is very weak for this emerging artist, three sources are what seem to be puff pieces in China Daily, which was nearly determined to be a deprecated source per WP:CHINADAILY. The other sources are thin as well, and two seem to be blogs (SICKY), (COMPLEX) neither of which have a byline so they might be churnalism. I'm not sure about the Sina Fujian piece, it also looks like churnalism. This leaves one decent source the ELLE China piece, which is not enough for GNG nor NRTIST. I'm holding off on !Voting for now to do a BEFORE search to see what might be found. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Netherzone: The ELLE China piece is quite promotional; it is a paid press release (the piece says "photo credit: Chen Yanran [陈嫣冉]"). The Sina Fujian piece is a more promotional paid press release. Ponazzi (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your insight on this, I'll have a deeper read when I find a moment in the next day or two. What would help is to find a copy of the original press release(s) that were marked as such, or the PR firm. You might want to look for those and post it here. Netherzone (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Elle China source is good, and there are these as well: Vogue HK, L'Officiel, Luxuo. I'd say that was enough to establish notability and write a decent encyclopedia article. There are others (e.g. Nasty Magazine, 1833 Magazine) but I am a bit less sure myself of their reliability. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog: The Elle China source is a quite promotional paid press release (it says "photo credit: Chen Yanran"). The Vogue HK source is also a promotional paid piece (it says "Photo: Courtesy of the artist [a.k.a. Chen Yanran]"). The L'Officiel and Luxuo sources are what seem to be puff pieces. The Vogue HK source is the best source, but it is a paid press release. Most of the sources listed here are not independent of the subject. WP:NRVE says "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason." Ponazzi (talk) 10:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my keep; you are of course entitled to your opinion. That the artist provided photos of their work does not, for me, necessarily make it a "paid press release" or "promotional paid piece". Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the images provided by the subject herself, the content of both ELLE China and Vogue HK sources is promotional in nature. Ponazzi (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog: Since the photos in ELLE China and Vogue HK sources were provided by the subject herself, the two sources are clearly not independent of the subject. Ponazzi (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted to include this Harper's Bazaar Vietnam source in my earlier list. It's from 2022, so indicative of sustained coverage. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- 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 is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Bartek, Marek (2024-12-16). "In Conversation with Yanran Chen". Numéro Netherlands. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Yanran Chen is a rising star in the art world. She made a striking debut at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas, unveiling six sculptures from her latest project in collaboration with Liu Cixin, the Hugo Award-winning author of The Three-Body Problem. Yanran's artistic vision reflects profound introspection and a keen awareness of the complexities of the external world. Her work is deeply influenced by the bold storytelling of Japanese manga and the avant-garde aesthetics of experimental French cinema. She has also collaborated with renowned global brands and media outlets, including Balenciaga, Songmont, and R13."
2. David, Fito (2023-02-13). "Yanran Chen: Exploring the Dream W". Vanity Teen.
  I cannot link this article because it is on the global backlist at meta:Spam blacklist. See meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2024-11#vanityteen.com. I see no evidence that the magazine is unreliable. The article notes: "Yanran Chen @yanran_chen_ is a Chinese artist known for her surrealist illustrations that explore the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. She is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with Balenciaga, Issey Miyake, and Moleskin. Her colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror, and is influenced by old Japanese horror comic artists Kazuo Umezu, Shintaro Kago, and Suehiro Maruo. Her art reflects her worldview as a teenager and artist in the 21st century, mixing beautiful and ugly, bizarre and real, and opposing forces and concepts that coexist in her work."
3. "Chinese teen's sci-fi art series showcased in Las Vegas". China Daily. 2024-11-21. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "The Playpower Collection, an innovative art series by 19-year-old Chinese artist Chen Yanran and her studio Accro Studio, was presented at ComplexCon 2024 in Las Vegas over the weekend. ... Chen, born in 2005, serves as the lead designer for the Playpower Collection. Her distinctive, postmodern sci-fi aesthetic aligns seamlessly with the themes of Supernova Era."
4. Patidar, Natasha (2025-06-12). ""Neon Dreamland": A Journey Into Yanran Chen's Surreal World". The Beijinger. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Last weekend, I stepped into a space that felt like stepping into someone else's subconscious – a neon-hued, oddly tender and strangely futuristic dreamscape. Yanran Chen's first solo exhibition, “Neon Dreamland,” housed in the newly opened ART FOCUS space in Beijing's vibrant 798 Art District, is less of an art show and more of a portal into an alternate dimension. At only 20 years old, Chen has already established a distinct visual language: rooted in surrealism but infused with the glossy, fast-moving energy of anime, science fiction, and digital culture. Walking through the exhibition, I found myself repeatedly stopping, not just to admire the technical detail, but to process the emotional tension in the works. It's a world where innocence and eeriness coexist – where childhood nostalgia meets artificial intelligence."
5. Wilson, Abbie (2025-05-28). "Artifice as Emotion: The Posthuman Aesthetics of Yanran Chen". Our Culture Mag. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s Neon Dreamland, her first solo exhibition in China, isn’t a debut — it’s a simulation of one. Hosted in the new immersive art space ART FOCUS, nestled in Beijing’s 798 Art District like a glowing node in the city’s nervous system, the show feels less like stepping into a gallery and more like logging into someone else’s subconscious — someone raised on anime, speculative fiction, and the ambient dread of being terminally online. Chen, born in 2005, doesn’t make work that suggests influence — her sculptures, installations, and illustrated avatars breathe the language of the posthuman without needing translation. She doesn’t channel the digital age — she excretes it. The exhibition opens with her personal work — The Mechanical Lifeform, Dinner, pieces that first turned heads at ComplexCon LA, though even that setting now feels quaint compared to the eerily calm, ultra-designed zone in which they’re currently housed. These works don’t explain themselves — they glisten."
6. Payos, Alyanna Raissa J. (2025-05-28). "Yanran Chen's First Solo Exhibition In China Is Out Of This World". Vogue Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Yanran Chen’s artistic universe is a world without borders. Cyberpunk chimeras, peculiar female figures, and surrealist scenes beyond imagination are brought to life in her latest exhibition. Titled “Neon Dreamland”, it marks the 20-year-old artist’s first ever solo show in China and is also the opening exhibition of the newly launched ART FOCUS space by Tang Contemporary Art."
7. Hu, Denni (2025-03-28). "Gucci's Bamboo Universe Unveiled in Shanghai Exhibition". Women's Wear Daily. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Also included in the exhibition are four figurines created by Yanran Chen, the 19-year-old Chinese sculptor known for her work that blends body horror and surrealism. Marrying fashion and fantasy, Chen’s dolls, perhaps her alter egos, are seen carrying miniature bamboo bags and modeling looks from recent collections. "
8. Trang, Quỳnh (2022-10-06). "Discuss with Chloe Chen, the young artist, on her amazing surrealistic illustrations". Harper's Bazaar Vietnam. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "Emerging illustrator Chloe Chen (Yanran) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist drawings have already led to collaborations with brands like Moleskine and Balenciaga. Studying in Japan, the young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at three. By 13, she had started to create extraordinary illustrations rich with imagination and creativity. Most of her work excavates the dream world, where time and space have no limitations. At first glance, Chen’s artistic universe might seem playful and light, often featuring girls submerged in the intangible space between childhood innocence and jaded adolescence. But lean closer to the canvas and you’ll plunge headlong into a quizzical realm where nightmares and mysteries swirl alongside soul-deep ruminations on the self. Chen’s colorful, modern, manga-leaning style is entirely infused with feelings of anxiety, fear, and horror."
9. "陈嫣冉的超现实主义插画，来自于漫画、梦境、人与时间的灵感交集" [Yanran Chen's Surrealist Illustrations Draw Inspiration from Comics, Dreams, Humanity, and Time]. Elle China (in Chinese). 2022-09-19. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "新锐插画师陈嫣冉（又名Chloe Chen）只有17岁，但她的超现实主义画作已经促成了与Moleskin、巴黎世家等品牌的合作。这位年轻的中国艺术家3岁时第一次拿起画笔，13岁就可以创作出充满想象力与创造力的插画作品，而如今，她正于日本深造。她的大部分作品挖掘了不受时间与空间限制的梦境世界。"
  From Google Translate: "Emerging illustrator Chen Yanran (also known as Chloe Chen) is only 17 years old, but her surrealist paintings have already led to collaborations with brands such as Moleskin and Balenciaga. This young Chinese artist first picked up a paintbrush at the age of 3, and was able to create imaginative and creative illustrations at the age of 13. Now, she is studying in Japan. Most of her works explore the dream world that is not restricted by time and space."
10. Dai, Xiaoli 戴小橦 (2024-03-23). "国际潮流文化盛事ComplexCon来港点燃时尚消费新热度" [Global Street Culture Event ComplexCon Comes to Hong Kong, Igniting a New Wave of Fashion Consumption] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2025-06-15. Retrieved 2025-06-15.
  The article notes: "除了潮流品牌，展区内还有来自世界各地的艺术家们携最新作品亲临现场与公众交流。来自北京的05后新锐艺术家陈嫣冉的作品展位成了不少参观者打卡的热门点，她这次特别带来了新作品“梦魇机器人”。记者注意到，她作品的主人公大都是留着短发的少女，陈嫣冉表示，少女的想象一定程度上源自于她对于本我的追溯，“部分是我艺术人格的视觉化呈现，但并不是说这些角色完全代表我自己。”这次的“梦魇机器人”则是希望通过赛朋博克的机械外壳，探索敏感纤细的人心变化。"
  From Google Translate: In addition to trendy brands, artists from all over the world also visited the exhibition area with their latest works to communicate with the public. The booth of Chen Yanran, a post-05 emerging artist from Beijing, became a popular spot for many visitors to check in. This time, she brought a new work "Nightmare Robot". The reporter noticed that the protagonists of her works are mostly girls with short hair. Chen Yanran said that the imagination of girls to a certain extent comes from her tracing back to her true self. "Part of it is the visual presentation of my artistic personality, but it does not mean that these characters completely represent myself." This time, the "Nightmare Robot" hopes to explore the sensitive and delicate changes in people's hearts through the mechanical shell of Cyberpunk."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Chen Yanran (simplified Chinese: 陈嫣冉; traditional Chinese: 陳嫣冉), also known as Chloe Chen, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by @Cunard. Madeleine (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Hey as new relialbe sources with significant coverage have been added. --Cinder painter (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the sources found by Cunard's excellent research. Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lyn Ray

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

Subject requests deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE in ticket:2025061110007843 VRT ticket. Identity has been verified. Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case. I think we can consider the subject's request for deletion, since they have not been highly covered in reliable independent sources. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:18, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arkansas and Louisiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Sources are also too less for WP:NAUTHOR in any case" is not true, neither is "not been highly covered in reliable independent sources". Since I refuted the claims in the deprod statement, I hadn't expected to see them repeated here. My reasoning was that Ray has a whopping 23 reviews on Kirkus Reviews alone, [5] inferring that there are more via other outlets. This is coverage in reliable independent sources. Seems like a prolific, widely read and indeed profiled author. Perhaps we can omit the biographical details and listify it as a bibliography. The works/body of work are unquestionably notable. Geschichte (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte inferring that there are more via other outlets: I do not think that is a great argument though. As far as I know, that is one of the very few websites that have these in depth significant reviews. (please ping on reply) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:04, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bunnypranav's statements above are misleading and I question the effort that was made in reaching the conclusions. There are also several reviews here, at least five more in Publishers' Weekly, some in New York Times, made an appearance on the NYT top 10 bestseller list for children etc. The author has a homepage with an autobiographical account, etc. Geschichte (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the subject's request. If they are notable, they're not so notable that we have to keep the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:29, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy McGrath

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN, Individual lost both of their election races, they do not currently plan to reattempt an election bid, and their military service history is not notable enough to warrant keeping this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opama420 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (that are already cited in the article): CNN, New York Times, Mother Jones, as a few examples. Liu1126 (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. References concerning McGath's military career that demonstrate notability include The Cincinnati Enquirer, Aviation Museum of Kentucky, New York Times, and, most impressively, the book "Band of Sisters: American Women at War in Iraq". Thiesen (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Military, Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Just because someone fails WP:NPOL#1 because they weren't elected does not necessarily mean they are not notable. McGrath clearly meets the Christine O'Donnell standard of a well-covered political candidate with coverage beyond simply routine political articles. Curbon7 (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, political candidates are generally held to a higher standard of WP:GNG because it is expected they will receive routine coverage as part of the election. A full profile in the New York Times ([6]) is certainly not routine coverage. Curbon7 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Curbon. She's notable as a talking head now, although she got there by spending $90 million. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reasons as cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy McGrath. Djflem (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Lt. Col. McGrath was a Marine fighter pilot, which in and of itself is notable. She is indeed a politician; the fact that she lost races is irrelevant. Her role as an analyst on various news programs is on-point, thoughtful, and easily comprehended by virtually any audience. She is abundantly worthy of a wiki page. 2601:4C3:8101:4E20:E98:3A51:D6F0:3752 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although she lost, Ms. McGrath got more attention than most losing Senate candidates. As Bearian pointed out, $90 million worth. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While she got on the map due to her two candidacies, her career is far more than simply candidate for office. The article may require edits to better balance her life against her 2018 and 2020 candidacies, but I think this article can be retained.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine Yang

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

Non-notable person. IMDB and Twitter are not reliable sources. I found a couple sources online, but none of them seem reliable. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Comics and animation, and Australia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Mostly unsourced, and also incoherent - what does "Yang backed up by stating that she forgot to notify Celeste Notley-Smith when she claimed that she was not made aware of this change." mean? Looks like something lifted from another source, as "this change" is undefined. PamD 10:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not convinced that the Columbia Business School ref is for the same person - no mention of graduating from New South Wales. PamD 11:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhmani Kaur Saggu

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

Very recent grad (bachelor’s in 2024) who has co-authored 3 papers and appears to have a run-of-the-mill research job. I don't see how she could pass any criteria of WP:NPROF even with the broadest possible interpretation, and as for WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE in google/bing news, google books, newspapers.com, and PressReader did not turn up any mentions. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Canada. Zzz plant (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from WP:PROF notability and none of the sources support WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Vegantics (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you look at the version that was accepted at AfC it is noticeably worse. Some poor quality control there, it should never have been passed to main. I do not see any reasonable chance of repair, so a full delete is more appropriate than draftification. Ldm1954 (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dratify. Needs to be shortened significantly. Three peer-reviewed journal publications show potential. Wisdom2025 (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- three peer-reviewed publications are nowhere close to passing WP:PROF notability in this very highly cited and published field. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from WP: PROF (does not pass notability).

Dratify. aligns with WP:ACADEMIC. Per Ldm1954, needs repair. Salvageable with dratification. Wisdom2025 (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Lamere

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

Lack of independant notability. Most refs are about Alan Vega. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Liz Lamere was and is a major creator of music over the past twenty years as well as a key producer of her own work as well as Alan Vega's work. She has been a part of and mentor in a critical movement in music since the mid-1980s. Laurakdcwiki (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no sources that talk about her beyond brief mentions, your statement is not supported by the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Liz Lamere clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards as a musician, producer, and author with significant, sustained coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Pitchfork, and Magnet Magazine. Her career spans over three decades, during which she co-produced three posthumous Alan Vega albums — It, Mutator, and Insurrection — all covered in major media outlets. Lamere has released two solo albums on In The Red Records and co-authored Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, a professionally published biography featuring a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her work has received independent attention beyond her association with Vega, and the article is supported by 17 citations from high-quality sources. This is clearly more than trivial or incidental notability. Cannery Row (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that all the reliable sources are about Alan Vega?TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of the sources are more than trivial, as the only mention her name in passing. You'll need more than these to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage on her own accord to set her apart from Alan Vega connection--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that two of the above opinions are of very new editors and the third, also a new editor, is the page creator. Call me suspicious, but....I'm suspicious,TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone Why do you say "the third, also a new editor, is the page creator"? The page was created by Cannery Row (talk · contribs), who has been creating and editing music articles since 2010. PamD 08:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe you're assuming that a red-linked editor is always new. No, some just prefer to keep a low profile. PamD 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 4 are interviews with Liz, the rest are about her spouse. None of these are extensive coverage, most only mention her in passing. None of these are helpful. I don't see coverage about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the cited coverage is indeed in the context of Alan Vega, however this reliable source is very clear that Lamere was not simply his spouse, but rather "his frequent collaborator" so provided creative input in her own right. Another example in Pitchfork magazine where the subject clearly has co-recording credit on Mutator. The subject has released two solo albums which have received coverage in independent sources, such as Gale A810819644. Furthermore the book she co-authored has received reliable critical attention, for example [7]. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject and her works; enough in my view for a WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO pass. ResonantDis_tortion 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sourcing about her albums and book. An article like this (ref 17 at the moment) is about her and her album, not him, even though he gets a mention in the title ("Liz Lamere Alan Vega's Longtime Collaborator Announces Debut Album"). PamD 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment These so-called reliable sources lok pretty niche to me.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources may be debatable/unassessed; but Record Collector, BrooklynVegan, and Pitchfork (magazine) are all listed reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. And certainly the Library Journal appears to meet RS criteria. ResonantDis_tortion 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: — Liz Lamere meets notability criteria based on her own professional achievements. She has released two solo albums on the respected label *In The Red Records*, both of which received independent press coverage. In 2024, she co-authored a professionally published biography, *Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega*, which received critical attention and a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her solo work and authorship have been covered in major media outlets including *Rolling Stone*, and she was personally interviewed by *The New York Times* in both 2017 and 2023. This establishes significant independent coverage beyond her association with Alan Vega. Additionally, her three-decade collaboration with Vega — during which she performed most of the electronic instrumentation on his albums, co-wrote songs, co-produced, toured extensively, and managed his career — is itself notable and should not be dismissed simply because many articles focus on Vega. Her creative contributions were integral to their joint work and form part of a documented career spanning more than 30 years. --99.42.1.246 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Liz Lamere’s co-authorship of the approximately 400-page hardcover biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, constitutes a significant literary achievement that deepens historical understanding of one of underground music’s most influential figures. Professionally published and introduced by Bruce Springsteen, the book offers rare primary insight into Vega’s legacy while highlighting Lamere’s own role as a cultural documentarian and creative peer. Her position as biographer and archivist is distinct from, yet informed by, her decades of musical collaboration with Vega. The book has received critical attention in national outlets, including an interview with The New York Times, reinforcing her notability beyond association. Lamere has also performed on numerous albums throughout the 1990s and released two internationally distributed solo records in 2022 and 2024, available both digitally and on vinyl. These were supported by solo tours in the U.S. and Europe, along with media appearances on radio and podcasts focused on her original work. Lamere’s combined contributions as a musician, author, and public voice underscore her notability, as does her enduring influence as a role model for emerging women artists in music. --2A0D:E487:118F:661A:3939:96C1:D3D6:1590 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Jones (entrepreneur)

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

An orphan article. Most of the sources are small mentions like confirming she sat on boards and some dead links. Trivia like "Jones donated £100,000 to the Conservative Party in September 2019" doesn't add to notability. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and England. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to redirect to Lawrence Jones (businessman) or UKFast, with a preference for the latter, since that's where she gets her notability from. There's some sources, but they do not describe her outside of these contexts, and the'y certainly aren't GNG qualifying. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose redirect as an unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UKFast no longer exists, merged with ANS in 2022. Inasmuch as that is her claim to notability, maybe just delete. Her husband Lawrence Nigel Jones is a convicted rapist serving 15 years in prison for multiple criminal offences. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes not sure if Gail Jones would want her article to be redirected to her criminal husband. LibStar (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom; passing or trivial coverage and notability (if any) is a few sources are through her husband. Not sufficient to meet WP:BIO WeWake (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Buried under the anthill of poor sourcing is not so much "trivia": a BLP violation connecting her with her husband's crimes and a possible campaign contribution that hints at bribery. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rupali Kalita

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

Heavily promotional and very resume-like Amigao (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Finance, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to show WP:ANYBIO, general notability guidelines and significant coverage and didn't found significant coverage in mentioned references. Fade258 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom it is a promotional article. And cited references do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG.CresiaBilli (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Support nom; no lasting or significant coverage about the individual; notability is thin WeWake (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only non-incidental coverage is the single interview in question-answer format (not independent of the subject). There is therefore no secondary coverage that meets notability guidelines. Crmccull000 (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Fairweather

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

That the subject is a published journalist and author of a book is easily demonstrated, but the question is, is she notable? Doing a WP:BEFORE, I'm not really seeing anything to indicate notability. Her book (which handily had an amazon link included) ranks outside the top 3,000 'home and garden' books. There is passing mention in articles covering her husband (who appears to have a possible COI on the article). Apart from that, it's largely articles she has written. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : Plenty of articles written by this person, nothing about them. I tried looking for book reviews, nothing comes up rather than where to buy the books. The Harper's Bazaar article is a primary source, so not helpful... Rest aren't of much use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: in a quick ProQuest / EBSCO search, I found two reviews of a book (added to Catherine Fairweather#Career), but it seems the bulk of her career (and the focus of RS) has been magazine / newspaper writing. I don't think WP:NAUTHOR is the way to go. Bridget (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the book reviews as discussed above and added to the article are about a travel book, that directly relates to the individual's career. That seems to show notability, I suppose AUTHOR is met. She's not primarily known as an author of books, but it all relates to her travel writings in mass media. Oaktree b (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - definitely more of a borderline situation. I've added some critical reception of her book and podcast and a bit of news coverage on her travel writing work for magazines. Bridget (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Caruana

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

Declined prod. The added source is a 1 line mention. Insufficient coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Malta. LibStar (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a mention saying she was the Maltese Sportsperson of the Year as selected by the Malta Sportswriters Association – the winners all receive a SIGCOV article from the Times of Malta for winning the honor. So, it means that SIGCOV exists (WP:NEXIST). BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please link the Times of Malta article. LibStar (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s offline. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Flip-flopping back and forth between “keep” and “redirect”, but probably favouring redirect

On the one hand, I think Beanie is probably right here - it’s reasonable to think that the winner of a press prize like this will have received at least some coverage from that self-same press.

However, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, we should not have any article without any sourcing on which a substantial article can be based.

Are there any Malta-based editors who might be able to help here? FOARP (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE is about whether to create new articles, not about whether to keep existing articles. That's an important distinction. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAGEDECIDE also governs whether what to do with insufficiently sourced topics, which at present this is - but I'm happy to hold off whilst we see if any copy of the Malta coverage can be surfaced. FOARP (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in pagedecide that supports deleting notable topics simply because the sources that exist haven't been located by a group of three editors. We're unlikely to find offline Maltese newspapers in a week. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why my vote is leaning redirect, not delete, and why I'm saying let's take a bite more time on this? FOARP (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete are basically the same outcome. What part of PAGEDECIDE supports deleting or redirecting an article like this when we know significant coverage exists? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per these I found when searching under Deirdre Farrugia [8], [9], [10]. Pinging @BeanieFan11, @FOARP, @Habst Shrug02 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrug02 - interviews and stories where the subject is mentioned in passing aren’t IRS SIGCOV. Like I said, I’m happy to believe they’re out there somewhere per the press award, and I think they can be found, but that ain’t it. FOARP (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP Ok. I'm still sticking to my keep vote. If there is an article where her breaking the national 200 metres record is covered then there would definitely have been coverage for her Olympic participation, it simply hasn't been put online. This reminded me of one of the main reasons why I scaled back my participation in AFD a few months ago. It is a sorry state of affairs when Wikipedia has no room for articles on the first Maltese sprinter at an Olympics but is rammed full of American minor sportspeople who happen to have a shed load of online coverage because that is the way of the American media to churn it out. I'll leave you all to it. Thanks for the reply and at least looking at the sources. Shrug02 (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the Indulge and Times of Malta coverage above, which is sufficient to meet SPORTCRIT. Per discussions previously and WP:IV, interviews can be both independent and secondary depending on context, and the second Times of Malta story is more than a passing mention. --Habst (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the coverage presented and that we know, almost for certain, that further SIGCOV exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What is the independence of the Times of Malta to the award? And as Q&A interviews unambiguously fail independence and are primary, the Indulge piece contributes nothing toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay, Q&A interviews can still be both secondary and independent depending on context. An example of a primary interview would be a police interrogation transcript published by a government as part of an official report. An example of a secondary interview would be a celebrity selectively quoted and analyzed by a news organization. Most interviews fall somewhere in between those two extremes. --Habst (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no secondary analysis in that Q&A interview. Quotes from the subject about the subject are unambiguously non-independent and primary. As explained to you in at least two other active AfDs, the essay you keep linking includes black-and-white examples like
The general rule is that any statements made by interviewees about themselves, their activities, or anything they are connected to is considered to have come from a primary source.
[...] Alice Expert says she was thrilled to win the Big History Prize last week: primary source for her feelings.
[...] To be secondary, the source has to contain transformative thoughts, which an uncritical parroting of what someone else said lacks.
[...] Alice Expert talks about herself, her actions, or her ideas: non-independent source.
so it is inexplicable how you still struggle to understand this very simple concept. JoelleJay (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is inexplicable how you still struggle to understand this very simple concept – You don't need to be insulting Habst's intelligence every time you disagree with him. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn MacDonald

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

This article seems to be a classic WP:BLP1E; this individual received a burst of viral notability over a couple days in June 2024 for the bell-ringing video. I can't find any independent coverage since that burst of coverage; the only coverage I can find at all is an article from Duke, which is a non-independent source since the subject is an employee of the university chapel. Given that all three provisions of BLP1E are met (the reliable sources cover the person only in relation to a single event, the event itself is non-notable, and the subject remains a low-profile individual), this subject fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and North Carolina. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Duke Memorial United Methodist Church#Building. Since the viral bell ringing is more interesting as a part of the church history, and the notability standards are not so high, I propose a merge and redirect. A condensed version of the lead as a standalone paragraph at the end of the section and a single source will suffice. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - striking my earlier vote. Agreed that notability is not met. If coverage is sustained, the article can be recreated. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this one-time viral video incident is WP:DUE on that page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete not every viral video needs its own article, see WP:BLP1E. --hroest 20:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most viral tiktoks get a burst of attention and then are swiftly forgotten, it's too soon to say if this will have any lasting significance. Imo !merging and/or !redirecting would be undue weight. Zzz plant (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[11]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[12].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aminata Kamissoko

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

Subject does not meet the WP:SPORTSCRIT due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. PROD was removed by an IP with the explanation "record holder", but that does not equate to meeting any of the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Sport of athletics. Let'srun (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SPORTSCRIT, only database sources have been provided. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are not provided in the article; doesn’t mean the sources doesn’t exist. It seems like nobody has done yet a proper WP:Before. 95.98.65.177 (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the records are not marks that can be expected by an adult. That's the reason why there is no coverage. Geschichte (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Mack

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

AI generated article, with only one source (an obituary). Could not find any other sources that aren't obituaries. LR.127 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and Nevada. LR.127 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen 5 AI-generated article related AFDS in the past month alone. Prior to that, I had not seen one. Honestly kind of scary if you ask me. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Without any other sources this is just a rephrasing of an obituary. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. ChatGPT makes terrible articles. I only use AI for spell-checking. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't AI be avoided at all costs? If we keep using AI, WP's credibility would sink like a battleship, as if there werent enough credibility problems. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purge AI with extreme prejudice, and no compelling reason to "start over" cf. WP:TNT. Geschichte (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ithamar Romanos

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

Clear fail of GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources (such as [13]) are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Just one is too little for WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose the one source in the comment above is fine, but that's all we have .I can't find any about this individual, so this fails notability requirements by not having enough coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers as WP:ATD. C 679 07:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Roberts

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

Primary sourced promotion for non notableacademic / actress. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No good roles for nactor. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Arguably notable as a scholar. What do folks think? Bearian (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be her most likely claim to notability. Some decent citation numbers but also down in a cast of many for the best of them. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if she is notable as a scholar, the entire article is about her acting (which I will not evaluate). DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete softly per WP:TNT, or Draftify, per above discussion. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rahmah Pinky

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

No evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. The references are either dead links or reports of minor details such as changing the company that manages her work, not substantial coverage of her. Searching for better sources was a total failure; it turned up this Wikipedia article, her Facebook account, a site offering downloads of her music, etc, no reliable independent sources. (PROD contested with no reason given. ) JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. JBW (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No RS for notability.Littenberg (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christelle Bedran

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

Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, contested prod. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources (such as [14]) are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese Football Association is a primary website. One source is not enough to demonstrate notability, even if it contains IRS SIGCOV. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:48, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FA Lebanon is not the Lebanese Football Association. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 14:07, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:21, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:24, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep—Although I recognize that FA Lebanon is not the Lebanese Football Association, and thus I believe the above source is valid, I'm not sure it's enough to bring this article fully into WP:SIGCOV compliance. That said, if we take the policy exactly by its letter, I think this article creeps barely over the line. Anwegmann (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women

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

Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was the first feminist organization in Thailand, and played a significant part in the development of the organized women's movement in Thailand. It plays an important role for women's rights in Thailand at present, and have significant coverage, content and references. I am suprised that it is questioned to begin with. --Aciram (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See the multiple references shown by {{Find sources}} news and newspapers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously has independent sources confirming its impact and importance as a women's organisation in Thailand. Here's some more sources 1. Emergency Home: Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women. In: By Women, For Women: A Study of Five Women’s Organizations in Thailand. Research Notes and Discussion Papers. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute; 1991:77-91. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/by-women-for-women/emergency-home-association-for-the-promotion-of-the-status-of-women/5C8BA1BD7DB46354FE7B05C5601CC273?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=bookmark ; International Journal of Social Science And Human Research ISSN(print): 2644-0679, ISSN(online): 2644-0695 Volume 04 Issue 08 August 2021 DOI: 10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i8-42, Impact factor-5.586 Page No: 2257-2259, https://ijsshr.in/v4i8/Doc/42.pdf LPascal (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I’ve added independent sources from the BBC, UN Women, and Cambridge University Press. These support APSW’s lasting role in women’s rights in Thailand. The article passes WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC) Revised !vote HerBauhaus (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's query was SIRS, not the existence of sourcing. Relist for those sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: BBC, UN Women, and CUP are strong WP:SIRS. Combined, they meet WP:THREE and support WP:GNG. HerBauhaus (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Gondoly

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

While reviewing, I did not find anything close to good reliable or significant coverage of the person (CEO of the company which does not have its own Wikipedia page). 50% or more of the sources are from the company Cinder painter (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback.

I’ve added multiple new references and included the achievement of completing 50 marathons. I believe this page offers valuable content and would appreciate its consideration for retention. MITDanceFloor (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:01, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaynab El Bernoussi

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

Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. And does not appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:NSCHOLAR, meager citation count, some minor awards. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.74.228.91 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some older sources that list assistant professor, but they are outdated and old. The admission to the Weatherhead Center for Interntational Affairs and lecture at the Harvard law school were notable achievements. Another notable event was organizing the International Prayer for Peace in 2006. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The selection for a doctoral fellowship at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill under the mentorship of Charles Kurzman in 2014 was also another significant achievment for a scholar born and raised in Morocco. 196.75.253.199 (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

She was recently names Recipient of the 2025 Global South Award [15] [16] (does this satisfy "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level."? WP:NACADEMIC

I found some of her work published on reputable publications, does that contribute to her notability as an academic in any way? for example Oxford Columbia Uni

She was appointed Interim Chair of the Department of Humanities at The Africa Institute [17] (does this satisfy "The person has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." or "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society."? WP:NACADEMIC Rap no Davinci (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Global South award is not notable enough to satisfy NACADEMIC. Having worked published in and of itself is not indicative of passing WP notability standards. Rather, how many others have cited her work? In this case, the answer is not many. Interim chairs also do not count as notable. Sorry. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you taking the time to address all the 3 questions I had.

unfortunately I am not familiar with her work, so I can't help with much as I don't know if she has " significant impact in their scholarly discipline". but one last attempt:

she has been cited by quite a number of scholars, Scholar books now if they're reviewing one of her works, that could be something I believe, maybe WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, but I don't have much time to dig that deep, the creator of the article might be better familiar with her work and can help with this part!

She's won few other prizes like the Arab Prize, but probably still not notable enough: "Ms. Zaynab El Bernoussi from Morocco won the third prize of 5,000 USD for her paper published in English, “The Postcolonial Politics of Dignity: From the 1956 Suez Nationalization to the 2011 Revolution in Egypt”." [18]

She sits at the Editorial Board of Cambridge, not sure if that in itself is enough, but might add something! [19]

cheers! Rap no Davinci (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if possible. The author was reviewed by the notable Aili Mari Tripp (who visited Morocco), Jan Nederveen Pieterse (as he invited her to UC Santa Barbara), Joseph Nye and Herbert Kelman (during her program at Harvard University). She also contributed with a piece at the notable Project Syndicate. 196.75.127.190 (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The work is notable on the Arab Spring, especially from a Moroccan woman. There is also significant work in decolonizing international political economy, critical security studies, and a unique theorization of the concept of dignity. 196.65.226.219 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:34, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The scholar is recognized as a distinguished professor which is notable based on her origin/gender/age group (for representation) and her pioneering research in dignity politics (coining the concept of dignition=dignity+recognition) during the 2011 Arab Spring. Her scholarship is uniquely interdisciplinary and varied (including in several languages). She has notable editorial contributions and was reviewed by major scholars. In addition to academia, she has been referenced in the press as her work deals with protests around the world. The sources are reliable, independent, and verifiable. 196.75.109.181 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assile Toufaily

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

Fails GNG; lacks WP:SIGCOV. Contested prod Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Middle East, and Lebanon. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are enough to demonstrate notability of the subject. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Football. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nehme, appears to have enough sources to show notability. Giant Snowman 09:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' passes WP:NSPORT per the career stats. Patre23 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can pass any guideline through stats. Geschichte (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I prepared a source analysis to aid the discussion. Almost all of the sources appear to be primary in their nature.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cloudz679
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://globalsportsarchive.com/people/soccer/assile-toufaily/291294/			The source contains stats only	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20150721102948/http://www.the-afc.com/afcasfeeds?fixtureid=8457&stageid=337&tMode=C&view=ajax&show=matchsummary	Confederation has a direct relationship with the player		The source contains stats only	✘ No
https://rdsfootball.wordpress.com/2022/07/17/enquete-le-chemin-vers-la-professionnalisation-au-liban/	The source suggests that the work is based on a discussion with the subject	The source is a personal blog hosted on WordPress		✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa1CV4oE8M	The source is a video interview with the subject			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20200724041555/http://arabia.eurosport.com/article/كرة-القدم/الدوري-اللبناني/كرة-القدم-النسائية-تجتاز-الحواجز-وتتسلق-القمة	The source appears to include quotes directly from the player herself, which is primary			✘ No
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bya6GG2JCq0/	Primary source - club has a direct relationship with the player		routine announcement	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20170425070405/http://www.netmedyouth.org/highlights/assile-toufaily-yes-women-can-play-football	Interview with the player - primary source			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

C 679 07:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers as WP:ATD based on the source analysis above. C 679 08:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Redirect to List of Lebanon women's international footballers - per the above source analysis. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants Nehme1499 — GiantSnowman — Patre23 — Geschichte: to share review of source analysis. C 679 17:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy for a redirect, if not kept. Giant Snowman 18:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Tye McKenzie

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

Biography of an artist, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NARTIST. As always, artists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on significant coverage and analysis about their work in sources independent of themselves -- but the strongest notability claim attempted here is that she was exhibited at the local art gallery in her own hometown, which is not an instant notability pass in and of itself if there's no evidence of any wider more-than-local attention, and the article is referenced mainly to primary sources that aren't support for notability, such as her paid-inclusion obituary in the newspaper classifieds and the exhibition catalogues self-published by the directly affiliated gallery.
The only third-party source shown here at all is a single article in the local media about the local art supply store she owned, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly vault her over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source she's got. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references from an article in a peer-reviewed historical journal, as well as more information about permanent collections and an award. I hope that helps to support notability in this case. Diving into newspapers will need to wait for a couple of weeks.

I'm curious about your references to more-than-local attention: this may make the case for notability more difficult for people working in more rural & remote areas, as references to success in bigger cities are less likely to be seen as local only. Maybe this is an issue that's been discussed before, but I feel like it's worth thinking about. Skjanes tbay (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The subject fails WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. The article relies on the catalog from the posthumous retrospective exhibition at local Thunder Bay Art Gallery. Other sources are local to Thunder Bay. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The discussion of her work in a peer reviewed historical journal (which I unfortunately cannot access) together with the award and some coverage in local newspapers is enough to keep this per GNG and WP:HEY - there is no requirement to be well known on a national or global level as long as there is independent coverage. --hroest 18:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jingyi Jessica Li

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

Promotional biography. Article author has moved this to mainspace after several declines at AFC, and has resisted re-drafticiation, so here we are at AFD. The only independent reliable source cited is for a listing on Innovators Under 35's regional China sublist. The rest of the citations are written by the article subject. I have looked and not been able to find better sourcing. One source is not enough to hang WP:GNG on, and they do not appear to meet any of the criteria in WP:NPROFESSOR, so I think this one ought to be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Biology, Medicine, China, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her citation record (h-index over 30, 13 publications with 100+ citations) looks OK for WP:NPROF#1 (maybe a bit borderline) but I would say that her Overton Prize and recent Guggenheim Fellowship (I just added that information to the article) count for WP:NPROF#2. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Overton Prize and the Guggenheim Fellowship both contribute to WP:PROF #2 ("highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"). After receiving the Overton Prize, there was an extended article on her in the journal Bioinformatics [20], which also contributes to notability. I did a little tidying up to make this less resume-like and more appropriate for Wikipedia. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. While the awards are relevant, they are all early career to at most mid-career, so not the type of major peer awards for WP:NPROF#C2 IMO. When I look at her citations, I think we need to ignore the first (consortium) source. With just the others she has an h-factor of 33, which by comparison to some of her co-authors such as Peter J. Bickel, Steven E. Brenner or Kai-Wai_Chang is not that impressive, it is not a low citation area. (The first two are more senior, but Chang is not.) I am not impressed by just having a few articles with > 100 cites, my benchmark is more > 1000. Perhaps I am harder to impress... Ldm1954 (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:NPROF#2a; the Guggenheim Fellowship is limited to mid-career (and later) academics (not students, even postgrads) and is even listed as an example for prestigious awards. ミラP@Miraclepine 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Dahl

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is pure puffery - all notability inherited from Roald Dahl or Ruby Rose Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Molikog (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. All but one source mentions relations to another famous Dahl or Ruby Rose, about 3/4 of place an extreme focus on them. Almost surely not notable in her own right. I can do stuff! (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the sources in the article, there is also coverage in The Cut [21], Women's Wear Daily [22], Cool Hunting [23], Racked again [24], Maxim and Curve [25]. Some of those include interviews, but also have biographical info and/or coverage of her fashion label. Many of them do mention her relatives, but just in passing, with half a sentence or so - the bulk is about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. I am satisfied with the coverage presented by RebeccaGreen and believe Phoebe Dahl is notable enough in her own right, and sufficiently to have an article.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Speedy decline. Last deletion end of 2024 and nothing has happened since that time to show notability. Sources are promotional, non-bylined (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise reliable. CNMall41 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging previous voters @Wikibear47:, @Star Mississippi:, @Mushy Yank:, @Saqib:, @GrabUp: --CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
acknowledging the ping, and thanks @CNMall41

Unfortunately I do not have the on wiki time to do sufficient research to cast an opinion here and don't anticipate that changing in the next week. Will weigh in if I can and appreciate the heads up. Star Mississippi 01:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)m[reply]

Keep. Aina Asif meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR based on new coverage since the 2024 deletion. Her lead roles in Mayi Ri, Pinjra and Judwaa have received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources like The Express Tribune and The News International. The article has been rewritten with a neutral tone and now includes bylined, non-promotional references that address the original deletion rationale. As creater, i have of the article written the article in neutral tone. Behappyyar (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out said sources? I find a few bylined articles that verify a role, but nothing about her. WP:NACTOR is not guaranteed for having roles as there is NO inherent notability.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR clear says The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There is significant sources about her acting in notable dramas. Behappyyar (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the entire thread as it is misleading not to do so - "Such a person may be considered notable if:" (my emphasis added). So....notability is not inherent here. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: Thank you for the clarification. I understand WP:NACTOR is not automatic notability. However, Aina Asif has received significant coverage in major Pakistani media outlets — not just for her roles, but for her rising status in the industry.

For example:

The Express Tribune published a feature on her Mayi Ri role and social impact: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2434576/mayi-ri-is-a-step-in-the-right-direction
The News International highlighted her performance in Pinjra in an article discussing child-centric storytelling: https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1002289-raising-questions
Reviews and interviews on platforms like Galaxy Lollywood and Dawn Images also cover her work in detail.

These are independent, bylined, and show non-trivial coverage, meeting the threshold for WP:GNG . I’m happy to continue improving the article if you feel more sourcing or clarification is needed.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links you provided are either broken or lead to the homepage so I cannot review. Reviews and interviews are not considered significant for purposes of establishing notability. Interviews are not independent and the reviews must be of the actor, not just mentioning the actor with a review of the work. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the error. Here you go

[26] as rising star, [27] as a cast, [28] for his early drama roles, [29] for her controversy. Behappyyar (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref 1 - Intervew, Ref 2 through Ref 4 - unbylined paid-for and/or churnalism which is the same as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. None of this can be used. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Not even remotely notable. This article has been deleted twice yet somehow different users mange to restore the same version again and again. Clearly fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because someone acted in two more drama serials doesn't mean that they are now notable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibear47: I understand your concern about repeated recreations. However, this is not a re-post of the previously deleted versions. The article has been significantly improved with 'reliable, secondary, and bylined sources'. It now documents Aina Asif's lead roles in critically discussed serials like Mayi Ri, Pinjra, and Judwaa, with extensive media coverage that was not available at the time of earlier deletions.

The current version avoids promotional tone, uses a neutral narrative, and cites national publications like The News, Express Tribune, and Dawn. This supports a claim of notability under WP:GNG and shows growth since her earlier career stage.

I'm open to feedback and improvements but believe this version no longer qualifies for speedy deletion or a G4 tag.

Behappyyar (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the current version, how do you know what the deleted version looks(ed) like?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the references—because when the page was deleted, those references weren’t available at that time. Behappyyar (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show the sources that support either?--CNMall41 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. There is some coverage from reliable sources that establish notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask what I have been asking everyone (which still has not been answered with the exception of one use providing unreliable sources)......what "coverage from reliable sources" are you referring to that "establish notability?" Note WP:ATA. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Sorry, I was being lazy before.

Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News: [1] Khan, Asif. "Aina Asif: a rising star". www.thenews.com.pk. Archived from the original on 2025-06-06. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This was incorrectly cited, so I have fixed it. It is a reasonably sized interview with the subject in a national newspaper, reliable source.

[3] "Aina Asif clocks four 'incredible years' of acting with gratitude note". jang.com.pk. 2024-11-18. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

Another important national newspaper, minor article about the subject.

[11] "Tuba and Aina Asif reunite". Daily Times. 2023-09-15. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

This is a space filler but in a minor national newspaper.

Then we have 2 articles in the Middle East press about the series, but do mention Aina Asif as a star of the serial.

[6] "'Highest form of abuse': Pakistani drama 'Mayi Ri' shines light on child marriage and beyond". Arab News. 2023-08-02. Retrieved 2025-06-02.

[13] Radhakrishnan, Manjusha (2025-03-04). "All about Pakistani drama Judwaa starring Aina Asif". Gulf News:

Further the subject has 4 notable series ( Hum Tum , Pinjra , Baby Baji & Mayi Ri ) credited to her in the article, that alone justifies notability.

Dualpendel (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) this is an interview, not independent. 3) Unbylined churnalism crap (similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA. 6) She is listed in the caption of an image in the article, nothing in the article itself about her. 11) Another ubylined article which is basically a short about something she said on Instagram. 13) Interview, again not independent, and only mentions her as having the role - nothing "about" her so just verification. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have no thoughts about this, but considering that this AfD will be relisted soon rather than being closed as keep/delete, I will leave some thoughts on this topic. Pakistani-based outlets often have dubious reputations as sources to be used on Wikipedia so I might !vote soon if time allows, but there is a number of sources here that could interest some users. But I suspect that these sources would fall under the "no byline, promotional, mentions, unreliable etc..." category. ToadetteEdit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToadetteEdit:, You are correct about the sourcing. I looked at a lot of these before giving up as you can see here and here that the bylines and promotional tone would fall under the same policy as WP:NEWSORGINDIA which I would argue applies to the entire subcontinent, not just a country. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was what I expect the sources to come up with. I am concerned though with the two WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote from some random users. The sourcing brought up by the first user speaks for itself; the sources often look exactly the same as the other "byline" articles as you claim. I am not am expert in determining the validation of the Indian/Pakistani sources, as they tend to masquerade promotion into their own articles. I will probably make my last decision tomorrow. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple significant roles in notable films and enough media coverage is available as sources. Zuck28 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR says "may" be notable. Having multiple roles does grant inherent notability. As far as sources, many have already been discussed. Can you point out which sources (outside NEWSORGINDIA) that would show notability under GNG?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some more media coverage which, I found with a simple Google search.

1 2, 3, 4, 5. Zuck28 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep. Aina Asif plays significant roles in many notable television shows. Also this actress is famous and meeting WP:GNG. Deriu And (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG 5536B 22:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Houston

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. Lots of search results for "Jessica Houston", but none appear to be this person. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Skating, and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sourcing found for this figure skater; the other AfD appears to be about a singer, which could be this person I suppose... Either way, there isn't enough to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That singer was apparently a contestant on Germany's version of Idol, which I guess could be the same person, since Jessica Houston is not a native German name... Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:02, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María José Estupiñán Sánchez

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

This person doesn't appear to be notable other than the WP:SINGLEEVENT of their death being covered news outlets at the time. No WP:SIGCOV prior to that indicating any inherent notability. The facts in the article are sourced, but only because of details of her life being reported in the stories about her death. The death itself has been covered in many sources, but I am unable to determine if all of these different citations are truly WP:SIGCOV or just outlets retelling basically the same story (syndicated, chasing clicks, etc?). I don't think our notability guidelines suggest that every killing that happens to make the papers the next day are notable. This only happened a few weeks ago so hard to establish any long-term impact. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Duran) ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename Encyclopedic in the same way as Valeria Márquez. Encyclopedic as an emerging influencer, entrepreneur. The same sources on the latter's page (Valeria Márquez) were written after her death. María José Estupiñán Sànchez presents, as visible, a much broader entrepreneurial history than Marquez. A case of femicide that turned out to be very covered by the media in an international way, an emerging character like others before her who are present here on the platform. Submitting a deletion request for the article after a few hours of its creation is disrespectful to say the least.-MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERSTUFF is important to remember, I'd suggest that Valeria Márquez (influencer)'s death received broader notice due to it being live-streamed and coverage. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is no excuse to judge her more encyclopedic than Estupiñán. As you can see, María José's career is much more documented and longer than Marquez's and I don't think the fact that she died live makes her more encyclopedic than the other. María José's death was also partly caught on camera, but this reasoning and justification make no sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly having a hard time following your arguement, but please remember this isn't a comparative exercise. Either the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez meets our notability guilelines or it doesn't. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And let me tell you that it follows all the rules. And also the reason why you asked for the deletion of the page makes no sense nor the justification you gave about being killed live. These are not valid reasons nor should they be taken into consideration. Marquez's being killed live does not detract from being killed, partially filmed by Estupiñán's cameras. That makes no sense and is not a justification. I believe that one is encyclopedic regardless of the way one is killed, and the fact that one girl was killed live is not a justification to diminish the encyclopedicity of the other, nor to justify that of the first. Instead of resorting to these page deletions, which somehow diminish the work of those who deal with these things, just insert a notice of "source needed" or look for these extra sources, avoiding resorting to these drastic and (at least on this page) very inappropriate and meaningless methods. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Person appears to have had no coverage before the death... Not that I can find. There is lots of discussion around the death itself, that might be an article. The person appears non-notable before passing away. Oaktree b (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same. Maybe change the title to "death of María José Estupiñán Sànchez" as the author of the deletion process did with Valeria Márquez who is in the same situation as her. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: I would suggest a title change as for Valeria Márquez's page, so "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez".
María José Estupiñán Sànchez → Killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez. I quote your statement: Person is only notable as a result of their death and WP:BLP1E applies and so this also applies to this page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for this title change instead of unnecessary deletion of the page:

Valeria Márquez was a social media influencer, and entrepreneur. She collaborated with brands. I think you are wrong in stating that she is more encyclopedic because she died live.
María José Estupiñán Sànchez was a social media influencer at the same way, and entrepreneur. Unlike Marquez, he owned 3 businesses, not just 1. She also collaborated with brands as Marquez. Her death was partially filmed, since you apparently base your beliefs partly on this. The moment of death does not determine its encyclopedicity, but indeed Estupiñán's page is much more compact and with more information than Marquez's. Given the situation, a title change is fairer, as is being done with Marquez herself who is in the same situation as her, even if for her there was no talk of elimination, but of title change, which here was not even taken into consideration before asking for deletion, in fact not caring about the contributions of those who created the page in question, or this one. So I am for title change and not elimination. If you delete this, then you also delete that of Marquez, because they are in the same situation.

MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation of the page and the unwillingness to cooperate from those who asked for the deletion of the page, I ask for a WP:3O, so that it is visible to everyone that the page Valeria Márquez has nothing more than this one, and that the deletion is incorrect, and it would be fairer to change the title to "killing of María José Estupiñán Sànchez". Let's see what the difference between these two influences would be. Both entrepreneurs (she from three businesses, Marquez 1, both influencers, both content creators, both with ties to brands and promotions, both models and emerging artists. The only difference is that one died online in front of so many people, the other is partially dead in front of so many people, you can't see the exact moment. Thanks. - MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you are suggesting here (seeking a third opinion) is inappropriate. This is an ongoing WP:AFD discussion that follows a particular process. I suggest you read through that page to get a better understanding. Further, this particular discussion is about the article María José Estupiñán Sánchez; discussion of other articles belong elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Your motivation for deleting the article and the fact that you don't understand that there is no difference with the article on Marquez and the fact that you evidently don't care about contributing adequately are useless, inappropriate and futile reasons. The request for elimination itself is useless, it makes no sense to have proposed it when the article on Marquez is here. The fact that we have asked for a meaningless deletion when there is an IDENTICAL page is shameful. Unfortunately, I am forced to talk about Marquez because it is the only way to make people understand the uselessness of this discussion. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you submitted the request for elimination without considering anyone else and without thinking of less drastic solutions. This says a lot about respect for others. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to WP:AGF, and don't tread into WP:NPA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before asking for deletion, it is checked. And the request is useless as long as there are articles like Marquez's. So yes, it is not a legitimate nor correct elimination. Name change is correct and your reasons are very unfollowable and arguable. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, ~~nine~~ (now) ten of your comments here have compared this article to the one about Marquez. Comments at AfD should address the article under discussion, not compare it to other articles. All that matters here is whether the Sanchez article meets our notability criteria. Whether the article is similar to Marquez's article is irrelevant. Perhaps the Marquez article should be deleted too. Continuing to harp on the Marquez article just weakens your case, as it may suggest to people evaluating this discussion that the article does not satisfy notability, and arguments based on analogy with other articles are all that you can come up with.

I would also agree with ZimZalaBim that your comments here are unnecessarily hostile and personalized. Discuss the article under discussion, and do not speculate on the motives of other editors. Everyone here is trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if they disagree with you. CodeTalker (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question justifies the presence of one article on another without providing adequate explanations and without having consulted anyone. The same person has no interest in improving the article and the same person treats me as IGNORANT by continuing to report rules and apparent laws, this is a very inappropriate behavior. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I talk so much about Marquez, it is because the user in question justified the presence of her article by talking about the way she died. This is not a motivation and the guidelines establish it, and the same person has always been pointed out by other users that his ways are not right or correct. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't know how to argue without citing rules says a lot. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this explains a lot of how you react - this isn't about arguing, but about properly applying our WP:POLICIES. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which you are evidently not able to follow given the inappropriate, useless request for deletion when you yourself justified the presence of Marquez's article as having been killed live, which is irrelevant. I think I will pursue the request for a name change, given the inability to guarantee adequate explanations. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: this is clearly a BLP1E case. The subject has no notability apart from her murder. The murder itself has some coverage and may warrant an article, although only about 1/3 of the current article is about the murder so it would require some restructuring. Almost all of the sources are in Spanish which I am not qualified to evaluate, so I won't offer a firm opinion on whether an article about the murder is warranted. (Also two of the five English sources are unreliable.) CodeTalker (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are a multitude of articles on Wikipedia that mainly talk about murder cases but have a section on the subject's biography, although it is not the main focus. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CodeTalker: I added some other English sources that I think are reliable and good. Obviously I didn't add all the sources, but internet is literally full of news regarding Estupiñán Sànchez. I added the statement by Human Rights Watch and news-related as I think are reliable and important for the article. Personally I think her notoriety cames from this. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Creating Killing of María José Estupiñán per COMMONNAME, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Killing of María José Estupiñán, as it is the (horrific) event that is notable and got widespread media coverage as well as global condemnation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. So I suppose it's Keep but to rename the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Also, it's time to hear from some new voices, please. Maria, please don't WP:BLUDGEON this discussion any further.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who renamed the page. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, this article is a clear case of WP:SINGLEEVENT. @MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma, I think we need to apply the Wikipedia: Avoid other stuff exists argument in this case. All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And for this reason, like many other pages, it must be renamed under another title as happened to other pages, which had nothing of notoriety apart from death. Making comparisons is necessary, because this reasoning is not very correct: articles that arouse notoriety due to the death of a subject are many. And this is one of those cases. The biography of the subject may not have been treated before death, which is very common usually even for articles present here, but this does not diminish its value, when the person dies and his death generates notoriety. It's a normal thing. And it is normal and right that I cite other examples on this encyclopedia that are accepted and maintained in pages under titles such as "killing of...", because otherwise it would make no sense to discuss or even carry out this deletion procedure. Other users have reported the need to keep the page but change the title. Which is much more correct and respectful than an elimination that does not make much sense. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"All the coverage seems to point to the subject's untimely death, and there's very little to establish notability prior to that event." I take this statement of yours into consideration. Very often notoriety is brought after death, although the person before it was not known exponentially. This does not change its encyclopedicity, if the tragic event for which the subject passed away is the reason for such encyclopedicity, and the same event generated a wave of protests in a state, generating indignation, international coverage from the most authoritative newspapers. Encyclopedicity is not dictated by what one necessarily does in life, but also by other factors, and among others, the Estupiñán Sànchez case, by death. MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to write this article today but I saw it written. This article is very similar to Killing of Valeria Márquez, which has been mentioned by users on social media and even the media. Human Right Wiki (talk) 13:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. Her murder seems notable and numerous reliable sources in various languages cover it (and some indicate she was a notable personality anyway). Wikipedia:Notability (events) states that to assess a page about an event "the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage" are important factors. In terms of geographical scope (Brazil, France, US, UK, India, Pakistan, etc), diversity, reliability and depth of coverage, the existing sources seem to be enough to retain a page about her/her murder.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 23:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tiana Ringer

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable, independent wrestler. Sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE results, lack of in-deep third party sources about her. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV here for this WP:BLP. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Abbott

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

Non-notable person, article is rife with unsubstantiated claims. Being inducted into the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame seems impressive; however, hundreds of people have been inducted into it. Yuchitown (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame. Yuchitown (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The subject has recieved a well-known and signficiant honor thus is suitable under WP:ANYBIO thus fullfilling WP:GNG. Contrary to nominator's assertion that the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame includes "hundreds of people", nominataor's claim is incorrect. The institution adds less than five honorees per year since inception in 1985. For 2025, only four women were included, including Abbott. The Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honors Maryland women who have "made unique and lasting contributions to the economic, political, cultural, and social life of the state and to provide visible models of achievement for tomorrow's female leaders" and all fullfill WP:GNG.

Yuchitown, can you please give specific examples of your contention that the "article is rife with unsubstantiated claims"? All sources used and cited in the article are from reliable sources independent of the subject -- daily newspapers, magazines and otherwise.

It appears the objection by the nominator stems from the fact that this woman's "tribal affiliation" is self-identified (given Yuchitown's editing of the article). This is irrelevant for the notability discussion - as the individual fulfills WP:ANYBIO and there are reliable and independent sources substantiating them with coverage. Nayyn (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honest question: does every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? That is her primary claim to fame. Her organization is not even state-recognized as a tribe by Maryland, so that doesn't contribution. The organization itself would have a difficult time establishing notability in Wikipedia, so being the first woman lead of it wouldn't automatically be considered notable. Yuchitown (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up, is every every woman who ever been inducted into a state women's hall of fame qualify as notable? Is inclusion a "well-known and significant honor"? Yuchitown (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Her inclusion in the Hall of Fame is not because of her role in the organization. It is in recognition of her work to share tribal history of the Eastern Shore in schools and promote it in the community. As well as her work on environmental issues. There are plenty of other Self Identified tribes on Wikipedia so I don't understand your justification of why it would not be notable enough for the encyclopedia.

Maryland did not have a process for formally recognizing tribes until 2012. The state identified and serves this "Tribe" in the Department of Indian Affairs and has done so since the 1980s. You will understand that because of the history of the US many native peoples of the Eastern shore have not been able to maintain continuity in the ways that Western tribes have done so. The reason why they are not "formally recognized" is due to the lack of continuity. But the state does recognize them and they are included as with other self identified tribes in legislation and elsewhere.

And yes, inclusion in a state women's hall of fame does qualify as notable under WP:GNG as it is a specific and rather limited honor. Nayyn (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for Donna Abbott hinges on *her* actions and significant individual recognition in published sources. Not every leader of every organization is automatically notable. Any Wikipedia policy affirming that inclusion in a state women's hall of fame automatically qualifying an individual would be helpful. Yuchitown (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separare comment, since this is a separate conversation: The notability of Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians could take place if that article were created. It's OR to state that the Nause-Waiwash Band of Indians is a "tribe." Organizations that self-identify as Native American tribes run the gamut from large organizations with long histories and notability established from their activities being written about extensively in books and the press to organizations that barely have any published mentions at all; so some are notable as organizations; others not. I'm fairly well-versed on Indigenous peoples of the Northeastern Woodlands and their histories, including coastal tribes. The Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs is comprised on people from unrecognized organizations and works with these organizations but that is not the same as state-recognition. Maryland is clear about who their three state-recognized tribes are. Yuchitown (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I think the article makes it clear that this "Band" is not a state recognized tribe. It doesn't hide that. I know there are many different arguments about self identification and I don't deny your extensive experience on this fact. But as you say it is a separate discussion and would be relevant for a discussion of the organization, not the person. This AfD is on the person Nayyn (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Abbott meets WP:GNG with broad coverage in the news and recognition at the state-wide level in Maryland. There are reliable sources supporting aspects of her work as chief, though I note that the article could use some tidying up (but that is *not* a criteria for deletion).DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't want to wade into this too much, but being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable. Native American sovereignty is important, but only having that a reason for your article here seems non-notable. There isn't a ton of sourcing anyway, so nothing helpful Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's described as a non-profit/charity as well, so this person is the "boss" of a barely recognized non-profit group... You'll need a ton of sourcing to show notability, I don't see that. Oaktree b (talk) 12:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- your "delete" is wading into the conversation. An important distinction-- Abbott is not "notable" for being the chief. She is notable for the work that she has done in the community towards raising awareness of the tribal history of Maryland's Eastern Shore tribes that has been largely lost, and for her environmental advocacy. This is why she was awarded the Maryland Women's Hall of Fame honor. So your argument that "being the "Chief" of a non-recognized native tribe/band doesn't seem notable" doesn't really apply here. Nayyn (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A few years ago, WikiProject Women in Red did a "Halls of Fame" editing drive to turn redlinks blue of women in Halls of Fame. The guidelines there stated that entries listed of women without articles may well not be suitable as the basis for an article. All new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria with reliable independent sources. I think it may be useful to this discussion to analyze the sources per WP:POL, the guideline for notable politicians, which states that there needs to be significant press coverage for major local political figures (she is not a state political figure, but a local figure), and it does not seem that she is a "major" figure either. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand this, I saw the red link, and I saw that this person had more than ten years of coverage in independent news sources, including interviews in national publications (USA Today) about their educational advocacy and environmental activities (not centering on their tribal affiliation, the crux of the nomination's argument for sending here) and felt I could do a decent article with the material. Yes she is a local/ state level person who runs a charity, but the coverage I felt more than covered the requirements for WP:BIO as it is enduring, independent, etc. and focused on her, unlike some of the arguments made for coverage of local/state politicians whose coverage is usually contained to election resultsNayyn (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vineeta Rastogi

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

Declined prod. For an American person, a complete lack of coverage, only 1 hit in google news, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Health and fitness, United States of America, and Maryland. LibStar (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neither she nor her organization, the Vineeta Foundation , is notable. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a memorial service. Many of my peers and contemporaries died of AIDS and don't have Wikipedia "pages". Bearian (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom - don't see much coverage - fails WP:BASIC Asteramellus (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With a 3 column obituary in the Washington Post (republished in papers in Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa and Florida), and an article 15 years after her death in Hyphen (magazine) (currently an External Link, but should be a reference), that is easily enough for WP:BIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Added the Hyphen as a reference. Also, note that the author of her WaPo obituary was Colman McCarthy. — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple reliable sources identified by RebeccaGreen. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen and multiple significant coverage cited in the article. See this [30], [31]. CresiaBilli (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. The article in the Washington Post is the only one with WP:SIGCOV, but it is an opinion piece. The subject seems non-notable, unfortunately.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' the best element of SIGCOV is the WaPo op-ed, which was not independent (written by a former teacher and a friend), and I think, unfortunately, the main point these sources make was that it was WP:TOOSOON for her to achieve notability. Her early death is quite sad, but I don't think there's enough to build an article here. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable in practically any way. Agnieszka653 (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as N/C. Per TP requests, relisting.
Please add new comments below this noetice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per @RebeccaGreen; also her legacy foundation has coverage as sponsor of an Obama inaugural ball. — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC) Addendum: She also has a ~~NYT~~ Washington Post obituary, which gives details about her life. — ERcheck (talk) 23:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her legacy foundation article was deleted. LibStar (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your ‘NYT’ link goes to the Washington post? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Inadvertedly misspoke - it is WaPo. (Too many windows open. :-( ) — ERcheck (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Annu Patel (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Deletion review