Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

[edit]

Barbora Polcarová

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

Article fails WP:GNG. All references listed are primary and I can't find significant coverage in reliable, secondary ones. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Raney

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

Fails WP:BIO. Her husband established a library in her honor after she died suddenly. That's it. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Willoughby

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

I could not found any book talking about her alone. His father is notable but looks like a violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tawny Taylor

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

There doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I am also nominating the following related page because it is the only work by this author with an article, and appears similarly non-notable:

Sex and the Single Ghost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) toweli (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Morgan

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

WP:BLP with no secondary sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Passing mentions. Book is notable and notability is not inherited. scope_creepTalk 21:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caidy Nelson

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this amateur soccer player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Danon

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

Article without notoriety, and very poor encyclopedic failure in musical coverage, it only stood out for participating in a talent show Alon9393 (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Villapando

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this youth footballer to meet WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Draftification is an option. JTtheOG (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jael-Marie Guy

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

I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV for this youth footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Draftification is an option. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Chow Wang

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

Promotional article that doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gabrielle Baker

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

Draftify until better sourcing is found. I am not seeing anything close to WP:SIGCOV here. Fails WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources address Baker in significant detail? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.topdrawersoccer.com/club-player-profile/gabrielle-baker/pid-1030179 - This website includes several articles under her name
https://archive.md/w7rMK - More details about her varsity team
https://sports.tribune.net.ph/2024/04/01/filipinas-thrilled-to-face-koreans/ - An article when she was called up to senior national team
https://voi.id/en/sports/379103 - An article how she kept the goal well as they won the match 6-1 Medforlife (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are not WP:SIGCOV. If there are WP:RS that is primarily about her (and not her team), please add that in the article. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's primarily about her as she was named All-State First Team awardee and her contributions to her team Medforlife (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four sentences about her high school career is far from the significant coverage required. The sources need to cover the subject directly and in detail. JTtheOG (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's one of the members of Philippine women's national football team and she's a public figure. I think there are enough sources to warrant a wikipedia page. Medforlife (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's a member of the U17 team, not the fully adult version. Please read and understand WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV; she mwy be notable in the future, but not now. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puput Novel

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

Lack of notability Sxg169 (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep there are enough sources out three to show notability. Im working on more sources. Besides, she is on one other language, which says to me that she is notable. Jeanette Coca Cola girl Martin (salut?) 06:38, 10 September, 2024 (UTC)

Public image of Mother Teresa

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:
Public image of Mother Teresa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Started as a WP:POVFORK [2] and since then it has changed quite a bit but it never really improved. This article is not about her public image, which is overwhelmingly positive, (and not a notable topic which does not pass WP:GNG), it is about certain criticisms of her. For some reason the article got moved [3]. Criticism should be in the main article and this POVFORK should be removed. Polygnotus (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: COI users are allowed to have an opinion (even those who disagree with me ). See WP:COIEDIT and WP:COIADVICE. Do you know any reliable sources that are about her public image and not her as a person? Do you think it is a good idea that all criticism was removed from the article about her and moved to this, far more obscure, article? And that, possibly as a result of the move from Criticism of... to Public image of..., the criticism got hidden even further down the page? Polygnotus (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement to discussion! Perusing JSTOR, I'm finding some pieces like this. Generally, they come from the late 1990s and are heaving on the sociology (not necessarily bad, especially in a subjective subject). I have objections over centering criticisms like Hitchens's on her biographical article—one of a few significant marks against his legacy—but generally agree that we need to exercise caution in any diminishment of sustained and impactful criticism. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to see how some people are overly cautious with anything approaching COI while others... are not. ;-) Of course, the criticism comes not just from Hitchens. People like Aroup Chatterjee and Tariq Ali and Mihir Bose and even people who worked for her like Hemley Gonzalez and Susan Shields et cetera have famously criticized her work. There are a lot of very important people who said very positive things about her; let's be fair and balance that out with some of the criticism. MLK jr got a criticism section. You can probably write a criticism section for Ghandi. I am quoting myself, and when I wrote that the Mother Teresa article still had a criticism section. No matter what happens here, the criticism will return anyway. It never left, despite attempts to hide it. Polygnotus (talk) 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: sorry I forgot to ping. Polygnotus (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Critics say grossly inadequate medical care was given to the sick and dying. Syringes were reused without sterilisation, pain relief was non-existent or negligible, and conditions were unhygienic. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa spent much of her time travelling around the world in a private plane to meet political leaders. -- The Guardian. Polygnotus (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at WP:SIZESPLIT, over 9000 words means "Probably should be divided or trimmed". The main article currently got only 5000 words. I flipped it around. If it would be fair then that shouldn't matter, right? But it does cause it isn't.
Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit, I could not judge the power of the spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.' Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet from 1990 to 1995. PMID: 7818649 DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(94)92353-1 Polygnotus (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: I still feel too COI to formally !vote, but you've convinced me. I now favor deletion. Thanks for your comments. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article was previously nominated for deletion on August 2023. The article's current title came as a result of that discussion. I was the one who removed the criticism section but I retained the criticism against her since it would be a violation of NPOV to remove it. You do not need such a section to include criticism about a person. The NPOV policy discourages such sections anyway. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edie Rodriguez

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

Non notable business woman. Article has been an orphan for 7 years, sources are all trade press puff. Golikom (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2024 (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. Golden, Fran (2015-01-15). "Cruise Exec Spotlight: Edie Rodriguez". Porthole Cruise Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

      The article notes: "Edie Rodriguez (née Edie Bornstein), president and chief operating office of Los Angeles–based luxury line Crystal Cruises, is a 53-year-old Type-A personality who sleeps four hours a night, likes fast cars, and never met a Neiman Marcus she didn’t like. And she’s obsessed — with Rod Stewart. ... Travel got into her soul as a child growing up in New York, when she decided her quest was to see the world. But there was the slight issue that she had no money, she laughs. So she went to work as a travel consultant, relocated to…"

    2. Sampson, Hannah (2013-10-05). "Edie Bornstein to lead Crystal Cruises". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

      The article notes: "Edie Bornstein, who left Azamara on Sept. 30, will become president and chief operating officer of Los Angeles-based Crystal Cruises effective Oct. 16. She replaces Gregg Michel, whose resignation was announced Friday. Bornstein joined Azamara, the upscale two-ship brand owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises, in 2009. Before that, she was vice president of business development and strategic partnerships at Carnival Cruise Lines and also had stints at Cunard and Seabourn. Before working for cruise lines, she focused on the cruise industry at Amadeus, the global travel technology company."

    3. Herrera, Chabeli (2017-10-20). "You may not know of French line Ponant yet — but a Miami cruise expert plans to change that". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

      The article notes: "Rodriguez joined Crystal after holding several senior sales, marketing and business development positions at Royal Caribbean Cruises and Carnival Corporation. She served as Crystal's president and chief operating officer from 2013-14 before being promoted to president and CEO in 2015, when the cruise line was acquired by Genting Hong Kong."

    4. Herrera, Chabeli (2017-09-15). "Crystal Cruises' president and CEO Edie Rodriguez resigns". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2021-02-12. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

      The article notes: "Since Rodriguez took the helm as president and CEO, Crystal has launched two river vessels, with a third forthcoming, an expedition yacht, and an ultra luxury, private Boeing 777. The three brands, Crystal Yachts, Crystal River Cruises and Crystal Air, have been instrumental in growing Crystal’s footprint in the luxury travel market."

    5. Becken, Bill (Spring–Summer 2014). "The new face of Crystal Cruises". International Cruise & Ferry Review. No. 44. pp. 82–83. ISSN 0957-7696. EBSCOhost 113549718.

      The article notes: "Whether regaling travel agents at an elegant seaside resort in southeast Florida, or holding court for a retinue of luxury travel media aboard the Crystal Serenity on the West Coast in Los Angeles, Edie Bornstein, Crystal Cruises' new president and chief operating officer, is understandably busy. Appointed in October 2013, she previously served as SVP, sales and marketing for Azamara Club Cruises, based in Miami. There is a logical progression from Azamara's upmarket offering with its two, roughly 700-passenger ships, to Crystal's ultra-luxury brand, deploying two ships of around 1,000-passenger capacity. Consequently, even as a presidential newcomer at Crystal, Bornstein exudes the same confident manner and zeal as she was known for in her earlier career."

    6. Snyder, Benjamin (2016-01-21). "Meet the Only Woman to Lead a Luxury Cruise Line". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

      The article notes: "For Crystal Cruises CEO Edie Rodriguez, travel isn’t just a hobby—it’s a way of life. In fact, Rodriguez has traveled to nearly 200 countries so far. Chances are, she’s nowhere near finished. Since starting with the luxury cruise line in 2013, the travel industry veteran has been all business. Indeed, she’s been working to transform the line’s culture—and even the way people vacation, as Fortune recently reported. Rodriguez is building out the brand to not only include excursions by sea, but also by river on a yacht and even by airplane. And, as the only female CEO of a luxury cruise line, she’s also blazing a new path in industry where the top ranks are dominated by men. Rodriguez began her career as a travel consultant and has worked for Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and Azamara Club Cruises over the years."

    7. Less significant coverage:
      1. Sampson, Hannah (2019-09-21). "Christine Duffy named new Carnival Cruise Line president". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-09-21. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

        The article notes: "Late last year, Crystal Cruises chose Edie Rodriguez (then Edie Bornstein) as president and chief operating officer"

      2. Vora, Shivani (2015-10-13). "Why Crystal Cruises Is Adding a Plane and Submarine to Its Fleet". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

        The article notes: "Crystal Cruises is on something of a tear. The Los Angeles-based luxury cruise line currently sails to all seven continents on itineraries ranging from five to 128 days, but the chief executive, Edie Rodriguez, 54, recently announced an aggressive expansion plan for its 25th anniversary this year. It started with her commissioning three new vessels to be built for Crystal's core fleet, bringing the total to five. ... Ms. Rodriguez has visited more than 75 countries through cruising."

      3. Kickham, Debbi K. (2014-09-20). "Cruising her way to the top: Edie Rodriguez". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-09-10. Retrieved 2024-09-10.

        The article notes: "Edie Rodriguez is a type-A born-and-bred New Yorker and last year was made president and chief operating officer at Crystal Cruises. We checked in with her to see if her business life is all smooth sailing."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Edie Rodriguez to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Morse

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

Non-notable congressional candidate and state government official. Page previously created and deleted back in 2018 (though that was before her state government service). Of the 24 sources cited on the page: 5 are WP:ROTM coverage of her campaigns, 3 are press releases, 6 are articles about wildfires that quotes her a few times, 3 only mention her in passing, 2 are pages on government websites, 2 are recordings of state legislative committee hearings, 1 doesn't even mention her at all, and only 3 are actual in-depth interviews or profiles with local outlets. Someone is not inherently notable just because they ran for Congress and held a relatively minor position in state government, and the coverage I'm seeing here doesn't convince me she meets GNG. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're right that running by itself does not make one notable. However, she's still notable for her work regarding wildfires which came after the page was deleted originally, and as I see it she definitely meets GNG. First there's this Sacramento Bee story, which despite being "local" as you say, is still 27th largest paper in the U.S., so it's not exactly a small town paper. This is also, though local, still notable enough to help with GNG I think. Then of course there's this profile which is not local at all. There are also things like this, which while they aren't profiles, are more than just passing mentions or quotes, and treat her as notable. If that wasn't enough though I've found a few other things as well via a quick Google search: this 2022 interview on KQED (second half turns into an interview of her background and life after talking about wildfires), this is a Dailykos profile, which although about the election still goes into detail about her; and finally here is another Sac Bee story, this one on her getting the Deputy Secretary job. There's more, but I think with the things I've already mentioned she safely passes GNG. Relinus (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not her first run for office, and most likely will not be her last. What makes her notable, are her public services, within California as well as on a national level. — Maile (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with @Relinus, easily passes GNG Filmforme (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted this article via the AfC process even though I didn't have to, and it was quickly approved. Why re-litigate?
I will respond to the substance of your comments later today or tomorrow. Thiesen (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that running for Congress does not make Morse notable, but her work in wildfire resilience, having attracted sufficient new coverage, does. As an expert on wildfire resilience, Morse is often quoted and invited to speak on the subject.
I had nothing to do with the 2018 article that @BottleOfChocolateMilk mentions. IMO deleting it was correct because Morse was not notable enough at the time.
I chose the sources for verifiability. Here are some that, IMO, also support notability. Other editors may disagree on some of these, and if you disagree I welcome your feedback, but I think GNG is quite clear:
I will add at least one of the sources suggested by @Relinus.
I believe that Morse's work in wildfire resilience has saved lives and helped California homeowners to afford fire insurance. Coverage in the news media recognizes the importance of her work. Thiesen (talk) 00:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Schad

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

Subject fails WP:GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. COI history doesn't help either. Gheus (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Alam

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

No significant coverage from multiple reliable source about this subject. The award the article claimed she won, the source ain’t reliable to be verified. But still doesn’t meet GNG. Gabriel (……?) 18:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doddodo

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

No references, seems to fail GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainab Mohammed

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muna Al Gurg

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Majida Al Azazi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability.-- فيصل (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Al Moosawi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, and I haven't found reliable sources that confirm her notability. فيصل (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anikka Albrite

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

Fails GNG and ENT. Not opposed to a redirect to the AVM performer of the year but otherwise there is not enough independent reliably sourced information to build a proper article. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Paul-Enenche

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

A ministry's creative director provides no inherent notability nor grounds for a redirect thereto, and she was covered for some passing stories around her wedding, but sourcing is mostly unsubstantial and inappropriate for a BLP. Should this close as a redirect, suggest protection as it will only be re-created. Star Mississippi 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moza Sultan Al Kaabi

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

I don't believe she meets the notability criteria, as almost all sources only mention her death in a car accident. And the page was created three days after her death. فيصل (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 VFL Women's season

[edit]
2016 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am bundle-nominating all league season pages of the VFL Women's competition for deletion. This bundle incorporates eight articles.

On balance, these articles fail WP:GNG, and this competition does not garner the level of coverage or references to justify having season-by-season articles. Existing references across all nine articles are almost exclusively non-independent sources (from the league's website, clubs' websites and scores databases), occasionally with a brief WP:ROUTINE article about the grand final result; in particular, although the recent articles have healthy-looking reference counts, it's largely padded by short non-independent, routine articles from club websites which fill out the tables of coaches, captains and best-and-fairest winners. WP:BEFORE searches for "VFL Women's" and "VFL Women's season", Google-filtered for news and excluding afl.com.au results, and the results are a very thin collection of local newspaper clippings which are closer to human interest stories than sports WP:SIGCOV.

I see no valid alternative to deletion, and that all content worth saving is already found on VFL Women's and List of VFL Women's premiers.

I am also nominating the following related pages under the bundle:

2017 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2021 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2023 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2024 VFL Women's season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Aspirex (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: Competition receives WP:SIGCOV from what is left of the News Corporation legacy media, both at the statewide and local level. ProQuest has approx 400 keyword filtered references (there was 804 on my first pass through) for "VFL women" for the 2016 season alone, with spikes around the Grand Final and VFL/W Awards; across News, Fairfax/Nine and other Australian news sources. I find this AfD to be WP:POINTY and disingenuous. Merging these forks back into VFL Women's would result in an unweildy mess of an article. If the state-level competition of a women's Australian football competition does not warrant the little amount of referenced information currently present, are we WP:BUILDWP with useful encyclopedic content for future readers? Storm machine (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreína Álvarez

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

She still needs much more experience as a recognized and outstanding actress, page without relevance required Alon9393 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cheng-De Winne

[edit]
Sarah Cheng-De Winne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing more than a promotional piece; fails GNG. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chen

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

This BLP was created following the announcement that Chen has been indicted by the DOJ for disseminating pro-Russian propaganda. All the sources used in the article discuss the indictment, and the article's primary focus is the indictment. A draft currently exists, which directs back to this page. I have searched for coverage prior to September 1 but have yet to find anything to establish notability (which is honestly surprising to me). I found a few academic journal articles that mention Chen, but there is no SIGCOV. Otherwise, internet sources appear to be primary. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense 2600:1700:1A32:EE30:A41D:C079:4CBE:5596 (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 98.123.38.211 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are multiple secondary sources that discussed her influence in right wing media spheres before recent events such as Rebecca Lewis' report "Alternative Influence" and especially the book "The women of the far right" by Eviane Leidig in addition to the publications that were already mentioned. The criteria in WP:BLP1E aren't met. 3iz5 (talk) 21:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I unfortunately believe we should keep this up as a reference for people needing to understand who she is and what she stands for. I believe it is necessary to document the bad as well as the good. I was watching news coverage and that is how I found out about the wiki page. If she is indicted as a part of this current legal process, there will be more that should be added to it in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeMeek (talk • contribs) 04:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Keep. Subject is alleged by US Federal authorities to have participated in significant organized transborder criminal activity, which is even relevant to the largest ICC war crime investigations so far - if the US DoJ narrative is basically accurate (and so far everything checkable checks out consistently) she would fulfil WP:PERP more easily if anything than Michael McLaney or Gus Greenbaum. Notably:
    1. Indictment directly pertaining to subject (as partially knowing accessory to the main accused) being speedily and thoroughly acted upon by US and Canadian law enforcement and Youtube indicates these all consider the allegations well warranted
    2. Aforementioned law enforcement and social media actions directly affected subject.
    3. Subject highly likely to be found even more deeply involved in organized criminal activity involving at least Canada, the USA, Hungary and Russia, as soon as Canadian law enforcements publicly take steps to act against her.
    4. Such scrutiny will predictably lead to the publishing of such an abundance of WP:RS to outweigh the detriment of them being mostly primary and/or newsmedia RS.
    5. A glance over the "forfeiture" parts of the indictment quickly demonstrates that this seizure of assets associated with Chen/Donovan is certain to have major ramifications for wikinotable BLP articles such as Dave Rubin, Tim Pool, Lauren Southern et al., who suddenly find themselves with the bulk (perhaps up to 90%) of their operational cash flow cut with no prior warning
I think the preeding points do strongly advocate considering the delete request misguided, if not frivolous.
Furthermore, until extremely recently the Wikipedia page on subject did not even exist, while RationalWiki had a page on her since 15 November 2018‎, which as of now has 73 sources, not a few of which fulfil WP:RS. The sheer volume of information in the RW article alone a) demonstrates that subject is considered of elevated and long-standing relevance for at least part of the "fact-based community", and b) could expand the Wikipedia article considerably with non-recent information in particular (Tenet Media indictment being only a small addendum to the RW article).
Consequently, it is to be expected that subject's notability will increase significantly as pertinent criminal investigations continue and ramify, and all things considered I strongly advocate that, for the time being, a) a current-event warning and other appropriate warnings (BLP?) and possibly editing restrictions (certified good-faith editors only?) ought to be added, and b) the RationalWiki article be mined for information and sources suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, and the present article expanded, and copyedited for quality, accordingly.
tl;dr: "If Frank Wirtanen existed, would he have been notable enough for Wikipedia?"
100% Keep so far and the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. 5 ct and Doppleganger says we are dealing with a network here whose mission includes targeted falsification of trusted public sources. Calling such people and their helpers "sworn enemies of Wikipedia and all it stands for" is not that much too dramatically un-encyclopedic, and, sadly, "aiders and abetters of severe crimes against humanity" looks like it is a factual description of Tenet and their influencer portfolio. Vigilance is thus advised: Wikipedia should not be like Tim Pool and freely waive its due diligence here. Dysmorodrepanis2 (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dysmorodrepanis2, the extended circumstances of this RfD also suggest it is not a bad idea to check the nominator's log for bad-faith editing activity. is an outrageous personal attack on an active new page patroller who is quite familiar with the guidelines for deletion discussions. Please remember to WP:AGF, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there are a lot of keep !votes on this AfD but few engage seriously with wikipedia policies or the concerns of the nominator. Those arguing for keep, if you could address issues of WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME, that would be very helpful. It is very obvious that we will be covering Lauren Chen on wikipedia somewhere. The question at hand is whether it is appropriate to have a standalone biography for her, given the WP:BLP concerns. -- asilvering (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Here is my attempt to directly address this: WP:BLP1E means that all three of these conditions need to be met, to delete this.
    Direct quote of the WP:BLP1E

We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met

    1. Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
    2. The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
    3. The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.


Argument for each condition:
1- There are reliable sources that cover her in three separate events: see: here here, and here,
2- She will not remain a low profile individual, as this case will continue to evolve, and in either case, she was not a low profile individual to begin with.
3. The event is very significant

In this case, every single condition is not met, let alone, just one condition not being met. In this case, therefore, it seems clear that it should not be deleted on the basis of WP:BLP1E.

This is a Kremlin backed, right wing influencer attemting to hide her online profiles. DO NOT ALLOW HER TO DELETE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.217.34 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Chen may be attempting to delete this page to stop others from learning about the serious accussations against her. Kiluvitar101 (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've done a date limited google search, from December 2023 to August 2024 [25] to try and filter out the recent noise... There just isn't enough about her in RS. A ton in the GBNews [26], which seems like OAN and the like, I'd not call it a RS. There's the Singapore piece I linked in my first comment, this in the Daily Beast [27], which is a marginal source. Even in the years before that, the Tampa Bay article is all there is [28]. She was just another opinionated person online that no one noticed (outside of her core audience), until this scandal happened. She's just not notable, at this point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets significant coverage IMO with reliable source articles about her and/or mentioning her going back to 2019 being cited. Kiwichris (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Swinxy's sources and Paul's analysis above. I commend the nominator for her courage and would not oppose a merge. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge based on the comments above, it is clear that editors are politically motivated to "Keep" and not making fact-based recommendations. This page belongs in a catalog related to suspected Russian influencing. I am a right-wing media consumer and I have never heard of Lauren Chen until the scandal. This scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it is clear that anybody making this type comments is politically motivated. Is there something false in this page? Is it documenting the reality? Then why do you want to delete it? Do you want to cover it up? As a right wing voter are you not agreeing with Trump buddy Elon Musk about freedom of speech? Now you want to delete what is not in your interest? 188.92.254.84 (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    IPv4, please remember to WP:AGF and don't accuse others of attempting some kind of political cover-up for saying something innocuous like "the scandal constitutes the majority of her notoriety". -- asilvering (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To preserve the integrity (what little is left) of WP... this article which was hastily made after the scandal, and appears to be primarily about the allegations, should be merged with an already exsisting page dedicated to other such allegations. It's pretty straightforward. Now you're going on erratically about political figures that have nothing to do with the article or the scandal. You're proving my point. 2600:1015:B11E:FABB:B905:BD29:9318:CCEF (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Tenet Media There were insufficient sources to create an article before she was mentioned in an indictment. Most of the material in the article is a duplication of Tenet Media, the company she co-founded with her husband. I'm surprised no one has created an article about her husband, so they could cut and paste most of this article over there.
    After merging the article, it may be that Chen becomes notable in her own right. In that case her subsection in Tenet Media would expand so that a daughter article would make sense.
    It's possible that the DOJ will follow their example in the Russian troll farm story. Drop the charges against Russian nationals and never charge anyone in the U.S. If so, there may be nothing to add to the story as Chen and her husband slip back into obscurity.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. — The Anome (talk) 09:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:HEY. I understand that someone might have thought this was a case of BLP1E, but after all the secondary sources and ongoing coverage that have been found about the subject, no reasonable person would believe this person is not notable. I recall that Procul Harem was nominated years ago, but even then it was because of ignorance. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yohanna Logan

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

A biography of a living person with paper-thin sourcing. While the one source attached has some depth to it, it seems like the main reason this person is the subject of an article is implied notability-by-assosciation because she had some sort of relationship with Anthony Kiedis and he may or may not have written a song based on that relationship. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Warnke

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

non-notable, subject has held several local, insiginficant and largely inconsequential appointments. Article reeks of puffery and edits by interested parties Bangabandhu (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiane Wolf

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

She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evelina Bertoli

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, User:Grorp are you arguing to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esraa Owis

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, many sources exist under her Arabic name "اسراء عويس". Multiple-time major international championship gold medallist so clearly meets WP:NATH. I added the first two to the article. --Habst (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that it could be difficult to find sources in English language media. She may be notable as an Arab woman athlete winning medals in African championships and qualifying for the Summer Olympics. Nnev66 (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has sources and the nomination does not indicate that any effort was put behind it. I.e. effort might have been put behind it, but it isn't shown. Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search in Arabic on Arabic news sites only returned routine, trivial event announcements (e.g. 0–3-sentence lightly-refactored boilerplate text announcing results 123456). Nothing approaching the in-depth secondary independent commentary required to be cited in all sportsperson articles. There is explicitly no carve-out for athletes that allows us to assume IRS SIGCOV exists when no such sources have been identified. The whole point of SPORTCRIT #5 is to ensure that athlete bios are not based on achievements or participation, as those criteria were deprecated by global consensus. JoelleJay (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Sathyaraj

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

Biographical article about a person lacking in notability

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zeinab Norouzi

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable person and has sources. Xegma(talk) 19:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither of the sources in the article is anywhere close to IRS SIGCOV -- they are two routine event recaps from the same competition, and the second link has a namedrop in a single sentence. SPORTSCRIT is very very clear that articles must have IRS SIGCOV cited, and the community rejected calls to weaken this requirement for people from less-covered regions or time periods.
    I performed English and Farsi searches specific to each of the top 8 Persian sports newspapers.
    Tasnim: only returned routine and trivial namedrop results (e.g. here, here, here) and direct quotes from Norouzi or others (obviously neither independent nor secondary) (e.g. here, here, here, here). Tehran Times: nothing. News Now: nothing. Mehr News: routine and trivial news reports (12345), pure-quotes press releases (12, titled "Sohrabian [head of Iranian rowing federation]: We are grateful to the women's two-person rowing team for not finishing last"). Iran Front News: nothing. Iran Daily News: nothing. Iran Wire: very brief coverage of her displaying the Palestinian flag at the Olympics, but nothing actually on her (or even on this incident; the article just mentions it as a launchpad into nationalist and Islamist polemic), routine and trivial results announcements (12). Iran Press: routine and trivial results announcements (123). JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sahin

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are most business news than BLP sources. Routine coverage. No indication of significance. scope_creepTalk 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creepTalk 06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2024 (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 11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kadambari Jethwani

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

Just like previous AfD, no evidence support this individual's page meeting WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Currently, sources cover this person only in the context of a single event which is a sexual harassment case which is still under investigation WP:BLP1E. WP:TOOSOON. Charlie (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Juliana

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

Bit part actor. Lots of social media driven puff piece, clickbait and paid placement article but fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xegma: How does the subject pass WP:ENT exactly?
They have worked in multiple films and television shows. Xegma(talk) 04:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Palmiter Bajorek

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

I have checked many references and find them to be a mixture of passing mentions and what Bajorek says. Otherwise this reads like a resumé. WP:ADMASQ and failed WP:BIO. The whole swathe of alleged references is WP:BOMBARD. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia McIsaac

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

Fails WP:NSKATE; no significant coverage. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Strum

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

I don't think the sources here meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NM, save for a writing credit on Why Not Us, which is rather weak on its own. Consult the table of relevant sources in the article. Nothing in my WP:before search was of higher quality.

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Templeton, Tom (31 July 2005). "Introducing...Alexis Strum". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 September 2023. Yes Yes No little content outside of fluff and quotes ✘ No
Scott, Danni (5 October 2023). "'A mix-up over ice cream on Lorraine cost me my music career 20 years ago – but now I'm back'". The Metro. Retrieved 5 October 2023. ~ No WP:METRO Yes ✘ No
Strum, Alexis (23 July 2023). "I'm finally the pop star I dreamed of becoming – and I'm in my forties". The Independent. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No written by Strum ~ Yes ✘ No
Krieger, Candice (3 March 2011). "Alexis Strum lands a starring role at your fingertips". The Jewish Chronicle. Retrieved 2 September 2023. Yes Yes No Short article from when watching TV on phones was novel, with a few sentences of background on Strum at the end. ✘ No
Glanvill, Natalie (17 June 2015). "Kylie Minogue Songwriter to stage Homeland meets Loose Women play". Guardian Series. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No Mostly quotes or other stuff obviously sourced to Strum ? ~ ✘ No
"Comic documentary about failure in development". British Comedy Guide. 15 October 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2023. No mostly quotes from Strum ~ Yes ✘ 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}}.

Mach61 04:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did a teeny bit more searching, noting small amount of coverage here. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree with the nomination for deletion.

Strum has co-written two songs on popular 00s albums - Come and Get it by Rachel Stevens and Still Standing by Kylie Minogue in addition to the single, Why Not Us? by Monrose.

Under Notability (music), Strum therefore qualifies under the criteria: 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.'

In addition, Strum is eligible for inclusion under the criteria as a performer: 'Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.' 'Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).' ('Addicted' was released by Warner Bros. major label release - https://open.spotify.com/artist/49DJil4JyZdW8Upoilkfom?si=uoQw-rvcTSOKuvGOyykJkw - her second album 'Cocoon' was also a major label recording, which was shelved and has now been released and distributed on an 'independent label with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable - https://open.spotify.com/album/7vNUTEQtnCVWel68cxx5sC?si=fMuK_Zl5Q1mgtyt1TSqOAQ and https://hmv.com/store/music/cd/cocoon)

Her listing is incomplete, but she is featured on the UK Official Charts Company website: https://www.officialcharts.com/artist/alexis-strum/

In addition, she has released two albums as a recording artist, which are widely available on all streaming platforms, with 8.3k monthly streams on Spotify.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, such as a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).'

Go My Own Way was the theme tune to the 'network television show' Vital Signs (TV Show) in the UK, which aired on ITV, starring Tamzin Outhwaite.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.'

The music video for Bad Haircut featured Tom Ellis and was aired on The Box and MTV Hits, and has over 100,000 views on YoUTube.

She is also eligible for inclusion under: 'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.'

The album 'Cocoon' has received a large amount of press attention since its initial planned release in 2006: - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/music/alexis-strum---cocoon-mercury-1024671 - https://retropopmagazine.com/alexis-strum-cocoon-album-review/

Strum's music career has also been the feature of multiple, non-trivial, published works, as well as being mentioned in articles where she has been listed as a musical performer, worthy of note: - https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/04/lorraine-mix-up-destroyed-alexis-strums-career-for-20-years-19596176/ - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl7ld1glk3o - https://www.aol.com/clean-bandit-were-told-stop-233558500.html?guccounter=1 - https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/pop-star-music-alexis-strum-album-b2380472.html - https://player.winamp.com/podcasts/womans-hour-podcast-e59d55dc59 - https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/aug/23/popandrock - https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/festival-finalises-acts-for-v-line-up-12712 - https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/13337233.kylie-minogue-songwriter-stage-homeland-meets-loose-women-play/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevebritney (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as well as the above mentioned sources such as The Guardian and the Metro (not convinced it is completely unreliable as the discussion was not clear-cut at RSN) there is also a staff written bio at AllMusic here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through the RSN discussion links for the Metro and Im not finding any substantial discussion directly about it so unless Im missing a discussion it seems to have been quite a leap to list it as unreliable without a proper discussion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lee Dark

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

This article is based on interviews or publicity material in which the subject makes various claims of extraordinary musical ability and success. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject for these claims. gnu57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have just looked on Nexis which I have access to through my university, and there are sources on there for at least part of the article. I'd be happy to go through and resolve the sourcing issues on these pages with those sources (I am going to do this now regardless). It would seem a shame to delete the article with those options around. Flatthew (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly a number of claims in the article are not based in reality, but the article is worth a re-do. There is something here, even if it's obviously not what is outlined. Flatthew (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a number of otherwise reliable publications appear to be taking the subject's claims at face value. The 50,000 albums sold is almost certainly false. The famous relatives are unverifiable. The audio tracks on YouTube attributed to Dark are actually studio recordings by other singers (e.g., [31][32]). I have found no indication that the subject has ever performed live, in any setting. gnu57 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s an interesting point that otherwise reliable sources interview a subject and take their claims at face value when perhaps they aren’t accurate. I noticed in a Wales on Sunday article I found it was written that she performed with a band called Enigma, but there are a couple bands with that name neither of which list her as a member. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t perform with them. There’s also a CD she released but now that I think about it I couldn’t find it. So while my recommendation was ‘’’keep’’’ based on WP:RS guidance, I do have pause… Nnev66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough coverage in WP:RS for WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about the adequacy of the sources. An assessment would be helpful of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker (academic)

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

Non notable academic. The only non broken references are generic or links to university faculty pages, and it appears to be used self promotionally. The subjects high h-index on Google Scholar is the result of her sharing a name with a different researcher. --Spacepine (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Clearly a consensus to Keep but in AFD discussions, we don't need editors stating that the subject is notable. Our opinions do not matter. We need reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability, especially with a BLP. I see this article is referenced and a source review might help with this evaluation process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1 and 2 are her thesis and university profile. Ref 3 is a study she peer reviewed. Ref 4 appeared to be decent secondary coverage, although not enough for an article; however it is a contributor piece by 'Fusework Media' and I am not able to ascertain if this is a reliable source or not, their website is here: [33]. Ref 5 and 6 are employer profiles. Refs 7 and 8 are work she has done, with the news source being a statement from her in relation to her news, nothing here can be used to support a biography. Ref 9 and 10 are again, just studies/journals she has worked on and have no useful information to extract. 11 is just another employer biography. Ref 12 is an autobiography/self-description. Ref 13 is mention of something she is working on but it is just trivial and simply mentions her name as being involved on it and gives us nothing to write about her. Ref 14 is just a name mention that she won an award.
I do not see these sources as being adequate to satisfy the notability requirements. (WP:WHYN) Traumnovelle (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to h index, I checked her on OpenAlex but that profile also has conflation issues. I've asked them to fix it, and referred them to the Scholia I built for her, and hopefully we might be able to get a more accurate idea of her impact. DrThneed (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ela Gawin

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

The article is mostly based on primary sources, while the secondary sources are mostly unreliable, being as follows:

  • [34] prawdaoeligawin.blogspot.com is an attack site directed at the article subject, extremely unacceptable for a biography.
  • [35] celebryci.info is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [36] dramki.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [37] vibez.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
  • [38] Not sure if kobieta.wp.pl is considered reliable. Due to legal reasons the cited article doesn't disclose the subject's last name but only the first letter, so I'm not sure if this is compatible with BLP.
  • [39] truestory.pl is a tabloid, which shouldn't be used for biographies.
  • [40] krakow.naszemiasto.pl is a local newspaper. It may be considered reliable, but like some sources above, it doesn't disclose the subject's surname, only the first letter.
  • [41] wiadomosci.gazeta.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.
  • [42] pomponik.pl is a gossip site, unacceptable for a biography.
  • [43] o2.pl is, I think, a tabloid, so I doubt it would be considered reliable here. Like the others, it doesn't disclose surname except for the first letter.

Overall, even if someone can show that WP:GNG is narrowly met, this article is still a glaring WP:BLP violation, so I believe it would be the best to WP:TNT it regardless. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoë Paul

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CaptainAngus (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, please provide a review of sources and any improvements made to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Gong

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

It looks far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF notability for this 2018 PhD and assistant professor with a handful of citations. A prize for undergraduate work does not grant notability, nor does the CAREER grant. Performance on the IMO might tend to meet GNG, if it were widely covered by reliable independent sources, but about all I found was a passing mention in Wired. [44] Recently deleted by PROD and undeleted by request on WP:RFU. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sherry Gong's mother. I hope she will become a regular contributor to Wikipedia. Unfortunately the only link of hers that I have been get to looks just like local Churnalism and is not enough to pass GNG. Of course, it is accepted by editors here that WP:Prof is failed. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. Not of welcoming Sherry Gong's mother and hoping she contributes to Wikipedia as I agree with that. But The San Juan Star article does not read like churnalism to me. The story has a human interest angle but it's written by a reporter who used to work for the Associated Press and provides significant coverage of Gong winning a silver medal at the IMO at age 11 when she was on the Puerto Rican team. It adds to the other IMO coverage of Gong. Nnev66 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. San Juan Star article is about Sherry got Silver medal and a Special Award for Original Solution at 2001 Math Olympiads for Central American & Caribbean, not for IMO. There is an article on El Nueva Dia talking about Sherry got Bronze medal on IMO 2003. Sanjuanli (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome and comments. I don't know which page you can not see. So I post them from another site. (El Nuevo Dia is considered Puerto Rico's newspaper of record.)
It seems I can not post here--so I post them in the Talk page. Sanjuanli (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Just add my two cents to this debate. I think Sherry Gong can be truthfully characterized as a rising star who is known for her exceptional contributions to the mathematical community, particularly in inspiring and supporting young women in mathematics. Alongside Melanie Wood and Allison Miller, Sherry is one of the few female students to have represented the USA in the International Mathematical Olympiad (IMO) before 2024. Her accolades include one gold, two silver, and one bronze medal at the IMO, along with a silver medal at the International Physics Olympiad (IPhO). Since then, she has been instrumental in training and mentoring female students for the International Math Olympiads, the European Girls’ Math Olympiad (EGMO) and the China Girls Math Olympiad (CGMO). Her efforts have made a significant impact on the next generation of young women in mathematics. Her success has been covered by prominent media outlets in both the USA and China, including The New York Times, The Atlantic, the Herald (Glasgow), Science, and Sohu.
In short, I think what distinguishes Sherry from other rising stars is that she serves as a role model for American female students pursuing careers in mathematics and science. From this perspective, her impact on the mathematics community is in fact long-lasting. 67.252.7.30 (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need sources to support those claims. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the comment! Here are the sources. Some may be duplicating what was already mentioned above. Sherry may not be at the spot light of the coverage, but the importance of her role should be evident.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/education/10math.html (NY Times)
https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209 (IMO record)
https://www.aapt.org/olympiad2006/ (IPhO record)
https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=836 (assistant coach)
https://www.egmo.org/people/person110/ (Leader, Deputy Leader)
https://www.myscience.org/news/wire/cmu_hosts_new_math_camp_for_high_school_girls-2022-cmu (math camp coach)
https://www.news-gazette.com/wkio/vipology-single/html_9787332c-8a77-11ec-84d7-235488f5ac90.html?id=114973&category=girl-power (math camp coach)
https://www.g2mathprogram.org/staff (G2 program for female students)
https://math.virginia.edu/2019/09/sherry-gong-lunch/ (AWM meeting) 67.252.7.30 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A chat over sandwiches is not a significant event in the life of an academic. Any time a scientist from another school comes to my university to present a colloquium talk for the physics department, we take them to lunch, and we invite students so they can have a casual conversation with the visitor. Talking up the importance of an event like that does Gong no favors. Indeed, it makes it sound like she is being hyped up by a public-relations crew that has no understanding of mathematics.
The G2 website is not an independent source. Anybody can put up a website and say things about themselves. Who, other than the G2 program, has written about the G2 program? Likewise, the "myscience.org" item is just a press release, a type of source that does us basically no good whatsoever, and on top of that, it doesn't even give Gong a single full sentence. The "news-gazette.com" page is even worse: it's a recycled press release, just scraped and churned so they can have some text on their website.
I'm all for showcasing accomplished women in mathematics, as David Eppstein put it above, but all we've got right now is fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that we frequently take colloquium speakers to lunch. But it is rare that we invite a speaker for the purpose of meeting with students. This occurs only when the speaker has something exceptional that would benefit the students. Is it not so? 67.252.7.30 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although such things are very nice, they are almost never notable - and I've been invited to speak at universities for the sole purpose of meeting with students myself, and I am not notable. The only thing that would make it notable would be if it was covered by multiple independent, mainstream sources. So if the Boston Herald and the New York Times covered the colloquium event with focused articles on the colloquium then I'd agree that it was significant, but this is not the case. Please see WP:N.
Incidentally, can you please explain what you mean by "we?" Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Qflib (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— 67.252.7.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Qflib (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, didn't catch that. I changed my reco to weak keep, under criteria #7 of WP:NPROF, in that her unique achievement of winning both IMO and IPhO. CaptainAngus (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You know that these gold medals are not "winning", right? There were for instance 58 gold medalists at the 2024 IMO. Also, that is not even close to the purpose of PROF#C7, which is about making research contributions that have a significant impact on society, or being famous as a leading expert on some topic, not about achieving a good score in a high school competition. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw you add the [failed verification] after "tying for seventh place out of 536 participants"
This fact is showed in reference [4]
https://www.imo-official.org/participant_r.aspx?id=7209
In year 2007 of the above reference, it shows that her score was 32, rank 7, and relative 98.84%
Could you please add reference [4] at the place? Thank you. Sanjuanli (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are interpreting my [failed verification] tag incorrectly, despite the tag having a clearly stated rationale. It was entirely about the fact that, at the time I added the tag, the article claimed that she was one of four female US participants based on a source that listed three female US medalists, also, no, I will not participate in refbombing the article with tiny minutiae based on sources that have no depth of coverage of the subject. That is neither the way to build a Wikipedia article of any quality nor to find notability for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had removed @David Eppstein's [failed verification] tag when I found a journal article on "The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High Achievement Levels" reference which noted only three girls had participated on US teams in IMO (as of 2010) and re-wrote sentences to match sources. I was the one who moved the [failed verification] to the line about tying for seventh place out of 536 participants as this is not mentioned in the reference next to this line. Since reference [4] is already used in the article and it supports rank 7, score 32 I went ahead and added it at the end of the line. Since the source was already used once in the article I figured it was OK to use it again as it wasn't adding to the already long list of references that don't add to notability on their own and make it harder for editors to evaluate the article. Nnev66 (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion belongs on the article talk page and not on this AfD, right? Qflib (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 13:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (Weak) Keep - good arguments on both sides. There's a bit of too-soon/one-more-coverage-needed, but there's also more risk to learning and to the encyclopedia if we delete and we have missed a source. The Math DL/Math in the News coverage ended up being the tipping point for me to move from weak delete to weak keep. We have one math organization covering with a full article an award given by a different math organization. This meets my (and I think WP's) definition of a significant prize, and not a run-of-the-mill student award. That plus the notability-from-one-thousand small articles is a keep for me. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with David Eppstein's comments. She seems to be a very good mathematician, perhaps in the future a wikipage will be more suitable. Gumshoe2 (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reluctantly. I have kept coming back to this AfD since it started. For certain she appears to be a rising star, but that is not the same as a NPROF notable academic. I don't see a redirect to International Mathematics Olympiad working as there already are quite a few women there, but I won't oppose that if someone adds content and does it after the delete. While she does have supporting articles about her achievements to date, I don't think they are enough. She is young, I expect her to have done enough in a few years. As always, Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, so it has to be deleted for now. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mizuki Otake

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NBAD is subordinate to the higher requirements of NSPORT, including SPORTCRIT, which demands an IRS SIGCOV source be cited in the article. Routine event recaps don't count towards notability, and we don't have evidence of meeting SPORTCRIT through any other coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being a BLP, the threshold for retention is higher. More source analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. NBAD is irrelevant when NSPORT itself is not met. The Hochi link does seem to cover her playing beyond the one tournament, but it is not enough to overcome the stricter SIGCOV requirements in place for high school-age athletes (which she was at the time). Draftifying might give people a bit more time to find more recent sources. The other two links identified above are pretty routine tournament recaps. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe Gardner (migration expert)

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

All edits are by this obvious agency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starklinson

This amounts to a self-written autobiography of an opinion columnist. It does not warrant a wikipedia article and the current one is promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 16:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very clear cut case of a non-notable person. Badharlick (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[46] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, Wikipedia policy does not care about your opinions on how you think the world ought to be. Badharlick (talk) 05:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations" Where she works already comes up on every article about her lol. Why would I need a Wikipedia page for this? Tweedle (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD 08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all this including altering the title.Orange sticker (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD, I'm thinking this discussion could end up as being a no consensus outcome. What do you feel about (refugee advocate) as the disambiguation? TarnishedPathtalk 12:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD 18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
  • Delete: Per WP:NOTRESUME. TarnishedPathtalk 10:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk 12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD 13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk 13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
    • ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
  • Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about source 1? Starklinson (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an interview with/about her, not terrible but not nearly enough. Generally don't count for RS as they are primary. Oaktree b (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the provenance of this article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Awards are WP:MILL (a trade pub's 30 under 30), and the rest of the sources are WP:INTERVIEWS (which do not contribute to notability), WP:ROUTINE coverage of organizations she works for and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. No obvious redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly agree with this. Badharlick (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could draftify be an option? – Starklinson 13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starklinson, draftification is generally for newish articles, not for ones which have already been around for a year and haven't demonstrated that they meet our notability guidelines in that time. See WP:DRAFTNO. TarnishedPathtalk 06:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Oaktree b and Dclemens1971. It also does read somewhat like a resume. Flyingfishee (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiple sources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.

Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources appear to be blogs (Brexit Spot), or paid PR opportunities (30 under 30 - you buy a listing in these, its like a 'best european xyz') and are commercial work, aimed to promote the media career of Zoe Gardner. The one or two non-blog / podcast sources, a single mention in Thompson Reuters and one Huffington Post article, do not meet the criteria for significance. Zoe is not an academic - she hasn't finished her PhD, and appears to have no cited publications. So she is not an academic expert, and neither do most early career academics have wikipedia pages. She has appeared once or twice in the press as a talking head, mostly in extremely small blogs that do not meet the thresholds for significance or realiability. Some of these 'sussex news'? appear to be miniscule local blogs.
I appreciate the points about new users recommending deletion, but I do not see how in this case any other decision could be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and shouldn't exist to promote media careers that are not already well established, especially not with misleading language which implies Zoe is an academic expert or has published books on the topic. I do not see any compelling arguments to keep the article.
Regarding PamD's points about the creator of the article having made many edits - if you look through them, they are all of early stage professionals, actors, media figures and so on, and the institutions they work for. They are clearly working on an agency basis, dealing with little known authors, actors and media commentators. A thorough review of recent edits makes the commercial nature of their work obvious. I do not think this is a credible argument to keep the article, which is clearly suspect. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean just look at this - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Stacey_Halls
He is leaving draft articles online to show to clients to confirm they are happy with them. He's even left 'draft' in the title! This is blatant commercial misuse of Wikipedia by a media professional. All of these articles should be closely reviewed. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut As you have only been an editor since 21 August you may not be familiar with the concept of "Draft", which is a standard way in which many editors choose to work on an article before it is ready for "main space". See WP:DRAFT for more information. Your accusation that @Starklinson: is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious WP:Personal attack. I invite them to respond to it here, and suggest that you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices before accusing any other editors of malpractice. PamD 12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PamD:. I would like to reiterate – I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia and nor have I ever made a page as a favour. I was recently invited by @Ipigott: to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red because I happen to create a lot of biographies of women. My recent focus has been on writers (particularly in the UK), though I don't limit myself to any one topic. Starklinson (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see your very first edits involved a similar argument over an (eventually deleted?) page for a minor YouTuber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safiya_Nygaard_(2nd_nomination) - you have since continued to work almost exclusively on pages for minor media figures, both men and women. Regardless of whether this is a bizarre labour of love or paid work, Zoe's page does not include enough relevant, high-quality sources, she appears to hold no important public position, and is not widely known despite a few brief media appearances. The article, particularly but not only in its describing her as an 'expert', is written in a promotional style. It would not be out of place in a corporate biography or Linkedin page. The most substantial source, 'Sussex Byline', does not even have its own wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to give every early career think tank employee in the UK their own wikipedia page. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept assessing the article on its own merit, I do not accept WP:Personal attacks. Pulling up one of the first articles a user ever worked on over 6 years ago (the subject of which now has a Wikipedia page anyway) is not an argument and not how Wikipedia works. The vast majority of the articles I create get approved without issue, and the handful that didn't have not interfered with my ability to edit long term.
In addition, most Wikipedia editors do it as a hobby, or there wouldn't be rules about payment.
As @PamD: said, you seem to be making assumptions that certain things – like working on drafts until they're ready for publication, for example – are a problem.
I have also already said I'm okay with changing the title to something like (researcher). I'd assumed it was impartial enough given Category:Experts on refugees exists, but I'm not fussed about it either way. Starklinson (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut You are very new to Wikipedia, at least as a registered editor. You seem not to understand that the whole thing is indeed "a bizarre labour of love". We editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, by creating and editing articles (though a small minority seem to be here with the sole purpose of getting one article deleted). And recent page creations will tend to be for early-career people, as the long-established notable people in a field should already have articles. Hence many new articles are created for 20-year-old footballers, far fewer for those who've been playing professionally for 10 years. PamD 10:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources appear to be blogs she receives WP:SIGCOV from the BBC[47], Channel 4 news [48], The National [[49] and Huff Post [50]. Orange sticker (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have attached the same Channel 4 section on 3 times, please adjust two of your links. HuffPost on Political matters is 'No Consensus', so that cannot be used to demonstrate notability. That just leaves three 'major sources' left. The BBC is a two minute segment and is just about her talking about related migratory issues, not about her specifically which does not make it useful enough to qualify for an article. The Channel 4 4min segment is fine maybe (I have not really looked at that am being generous) as justification. For The National, the real subject matter of this one is Jonathan Gullis (which would be best on his page) and his claims as the article would not exist on it's own without that, not Zoe Gardner in of herself to justify it as worthy of her article's inclusion (this also applies to the HuffPost). I would only really consider a good source which would be of near noteworthiness is the article entirely on her by Sussex Bylines, but that's another question as to whether or not your accept them as noteworthy. Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the reasons given here by others and at the very, very least the "migration expert" title should be removed. This person has not published anything of their own and they don't appear in Google Scholar which should at least be a some sort of a prerequisite for being titled as "expert". Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van

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

Article deleted by consensus last month; G4 Speedy contested. Additional sources added by contester still don't appear to meet GNG as they are either results/routine coverage or interviews with the subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just last month. a previous AFD closed as Delete so I think the discussion would benefit from a little more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added more sources to the article where she is the primary topic. One source is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is a generally reliable source on WikiProject Pro Wrestling's list of sources, as well as an interview conducted by Denise Salcedo. Salcedo is an employee of Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Fightful, both of which are considered reliable sources by the aforementioned list. These new sources, in addition to sources already in the article, help her clear WP:SIGCOV criteria. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews of the subject cannot be used to meet WP:GNG due to not being independent of the subject. Both of the sources you added were interviews with the subject. I'm still not seeing anything in the article which indicates the subject has met GNG in the month since the last article was deleted (which, if this is kept, should be undeleted and attributed to, since I don't think there was much different). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I pointed, my main concern is the sources. Wrestlers need reliable sources focusing on them. Most of the article is just WP:RESULTS, that means, reports about TV shows where she worked, but the report is not about her. We can use Cagematch and create articles for every wrestler on the planet, that's why we need to include sources about the wrestler. For example, AEW section has 5 sources, 4 of them, WP:RESULTS. ROH section has 1 source, which is WP:RESULTS (Her ROH career isn't notable). Impact Wrestling has one source, WP:RESULTS. Almost every match on the Independent Circuit it's WP:RESULTS (I don't get why her work with Hoodslam it's relevant at all). We can't just take matches from famous promotions to create an article. On the other side, it's fine to read articles from Denice or Miami Herald about her. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Denice interview has too little secondary context to base a BLP article off of it, especially so since in this instance it's published on The Sportster which is redlisted at WP:RS/PS#Valnet and specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. The PWI interview is literally just the raw interview on YouTube. Even if we count Miami Herald, that's still one source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article is a moving target as sources are being added and removed during the course of this discussion. Sources that merely mention an appearance in a match and pure interviews are not considered SIGCOV. A source assessment table might help settle the disagreement over the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for more input (hopefully).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Here is an SA table:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.fightful.com/wrestling/mariah-may-vs-viva-van-added-87-aew-dynamite Yes Third-party industry press Yes WP:PW/RS; Personal opinions of Sean Ross Sapp aside, consensus is that Fightful is reliable No strictly WP:ROUTINE coverage of a booking. ✘ No
https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/fighting/article277229318.html Yes Yes Mainstream broadsheet paper/online; owned by McClatchy Yes I have to skim between hitting refresh here because they won't take my Canadian address to remove the paywall, but this does appear to contain SIGCOV in a bio ✔ Yes
https://wrestletalk.com/news/aew-dynamite-debut-announced-viva-van/ Yes No WP:PW/RS; WP:TERTIARY gossip website with no editorial structure posted on the website No WP:ROUTINE ✘ No
https://www.thesportster.com/viva-van-women-wrestler-interview-career/ No This is based on an interview with the subject No The Sportster is redlisted due to ownership by Valnet (WP:RS/PS#Valnet) and is also specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS ~ Too little secondary context to base a BLP article on the English Wikipedia. ✘ No
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVVC9Phfx1s&ab_channel=ProWrestlingIllustrated No A direct upload of an interview with the subject ~ PWI is listed as reliable at WP:PW/RS, but this is a direct upload to YouTube of an apparently unedited video No Purely an interview on YouTube. ✘ 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}}.

Miami Herald makes one GNG-compliant source out of what has been added since the article was recreated. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

[edit]
Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.fTalk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.fTalk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that addresses WP:GNG concerns, i.e. the issue of her not receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Her family connections and famous descendants mean nothing; see WP:INVALIDBIO. The only reason to have this article is if you, or someone, can prove that she has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She was the Lady of the Bedchamber during her time, a notable and high-ranking social position in the palace. This role may be equivalent to the Sang-bok rank in the inner court of Joseon. The Sang-bok rank in Korea could pass WP:NPOL as it was one of the highest positions in the Joseon inner court. The Korean monarchy had two courts: the royal court (which functioned like a parliament) and the inner court (the court of the palace). The internal court, headed by the queen, wielded both political and judicial power. However, I'm unsure if the Lady of the Bedchamber had influence similar to that of the Sang-bok. Nonetheless, Lady of the Bedchamber served as like the queen's chief secretary, which could be considered notable, and she was also a subject of royal artwork. Therefore, I believe her role is significant enough to warrant inclusion. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which sources discuss her in detail as a proof of how exalted her position was? Surtsicna (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The woman of the bedchamber is Her Majesty's right-hand woman and plays a key role in making decisions about social engagements. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 09:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asking about the position. I am asking about the woman who is the subject of this article. You claim that the position she held was "a notable and high-ranking social position". Very well. She must be thoroughly discussed in the sources then. Where are these sources that discuss Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan, in great detail? Surtsicna (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per above. She would almost certainly have more sources if historical sources wrote more about women, but the position is notable. Relinus (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is currently no consensus. Since there is disagreement over sourcing, can we get a source assessment? And, although half of the editors here are arguing for a Keep would editors consider a Merge or Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

Deletion review

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1245335968"