Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fashion

Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Fashion or clothing. 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 {{Gpedia: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|Fashion|~~~~}} 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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Fashion or clothing.
Further information
For further information see Gpedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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


Brittany Evans

Brittany Evans (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I don't think Ms. Evans's beauty contest wins meet the "well-known and significant award or honor" criterion of WP:ANYBIO. She hosted one episode of the television show Wild On!, and had a minor role in the film Deep in the Valley. I looked for sources and found two interviews[1] [2], plus some passing mentions and trivial coverage. Cheers, gnu57 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jennifer Krum

Jennifer Krum (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 · NYT · WP Library)

The subject won a beauty contest for amputees sponsored by Howard Stern and subsequently appeared on the Playboy website. I found one article about her in the gossip section of the New York Daily News [3] and no other indication of WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG notability. Cheers, gnu57 17:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Iftikhar Zafar

Iftikhar Zafar (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Does not pass GNG nor WP:NMODEL. A. C. SantacruzPlease ping me! 13:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sofia Symonds

Sofia Symonds (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 · NYT · WP Library)

While the text of this of article created in November 2021 is not substantially identical enough to be an outright WP:G4 candidate, it appear to me that the May 2019 Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Sofia Symonds concerns still apply here: WP:NMODEL, WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. I note in particular that the purported USA Today reference includes a pop-up disclaimer: "this story is paid for by an advertiser. Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content." As always, more than happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Azhari

Sarah Azhari (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:NACTOR. Noting IMDb is not an acceptable source. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • as you mentioned, you don't talk Indonesian ... so I find it outstanding for you to analyze google researches in Indonesian language, in less than few minutes to assest 90% of the google search articles in indonesian regarding the matter are not relevant and do not prove notability... wondering if you have any magic forces to drive your amazing intuition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talkcontribs) 08:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The very nature of Google (and Internet search engines as a whole) means that it will pull literally everything that seems to be somewhat relevant and put it into the search results, hence my blanket statement about Google searches. The 95% figure is from over a decade of experience editing Gpedia and looking for sources for various topics, and I see no reason why the Indonesian-language Google search would be any different from the English-language one. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe because you are not Indonesian? so to me, your hypothesis that 95% of the entire google engine articles regarding a topic are just trashy gossip is just an understatement which sounds to me as someone that has YES, has an incredible amount of years of experience in working in Gpedia and congratulations for that, but also assuming to know more than they do about a particular topic? and using their own judgment, despite actual facts that lacks of actual fundamental proof which could simply come from researching a bit deeper in a big cultural aspects of an entire nation cultural artifacts in movies and entertainment ? -,364.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talkcontribs) 09:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Kapanlagi is useless for notability (too sparse). The PDF is much of the same, using her name for a completely disconnected concept. They don't discuss Sarah in any appreciable depth and merely say her name; that's nowhere near enough to justify citing it for her article. I cannot speak to the book absent a physical copy of it due to Google's viewing limits, but what I did see barely even spoke about Azhari specifically. Google Scholar is worthless unless you're making an WP:NACADEMIC argument. Seriously, if this is the highest calibre of sources you can come up with, the article's pretty much doomed. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • And for the record: It's the 21 Cineplex source specifically that I'm calling out as Shit She Says because the majority of the article is direct quotes attributed to her, to the point where the writer may as well have handed her the pen and gone off to lunch and filled in the remainder with one-line addenda. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • you do definetely are neglectful and have psychic abilities assuming that a book you can't read because of your google view is limited does not prove notability! first 95% of the indonesian google searches are based of not notability, you must have read ALL the articles, know you know so much of the writer's lunch schedule! wow!!!
  • "An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly. If you do make such an edit, please follow it up with an email to WP:VRT, Gpedia's volunteer response team, or ask for help on WP:BLPN, our noticeboard for articles about living persons, or the talk page of the article in question." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No, I do am not Amoeba. Is it your first time accusing someone of sockpuppetry, dear Jeske?
  • let me explain the situation a little bit Jeske, now this is getting old... because it is complicated. Sarah Azhari was on every possible modeling magazines, television sitcoms and career as an actress, model and singer as been always in the spotlight of mediatic, sociostudies and....politics...particularly the modeling one...coming from a huge family, she is in fact the sister of Cintra Award winner Ayu Azhari, not that does merely give her notoriety....but it is evident that all of these sisters have reached a huge amount of notability because of their progressive view of women in a country that does not usually tolerate it... as you might know Indonesia does not grant of a progressive view of women. religion sociological aspects of it derives from it, because it is off-topic and there's TOO MUCH more to the thing. Despite that, sarah;s works and persona got at the center of the attention because politics as well played a huge role in her modeling career for oblivious reason. as you can read in Roy Suryo (whose was a minister in indonesia) the two sisters accused him to leak nude pictures in order to damage their reputation...the case was one of the biggest in Indonesian politics in the last decade to the point it re-shaped constitution and it's been studied still until now by sociologist all around the world ....and Sarah being the major playing role as well as her sister Rahma in these trials, then i don't really know if something that changes indonesian constitution of cyber security and defamation rights is not notable enough [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talkcontribs) 00:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If everything above is as you claim, then there should be absolutely no trouble finding third-party, in-depth sources with editorial oversight that discuss this (and you would be hard required to provide them in this case). As I have said, I cannot speak to either of the books' suitability as sources, and would defer that question to WT:WikiProject Indonesia.
  • The issue you keep running into is that you're making all these grandiose/controversial claims and yet are failing to provide ironclad sourcing that corroborates them. The more outrageous or unusual the claim, the stronger the cited source corroborating it must be, and the onus is on you, or whoever else is seeking to keep the article, to do the lifting on the sources, not on me (as, frankly, I don't care one way or another). You can't just say "Look at Google results" or "Look at book <foo>"; you need to provide links to specific sources and detailed bibliographical information for books in order to defend your position. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're trying to indicate with this link? Her name is on the page only once, in an image caption. Am I missing something? -- asilvering (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC) (Reindented. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC))
  • I'm not sure you did read the NEWS article and comprehend the topics discussed in the article? First of all, if you did read it... you would DEFINETELY know what it is about....The articles goes for pages discussing the complicated dynamics of an Indonesian constitutional matter of Cybersecurity and Defamation rights in the the class action of Azhari vs. Suyo and you come out with WHAT YOU MEAN WITH THIS ARTICLE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talkcontribs) 01:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Because the very limited number of pages we can view don't help make your case at all. There is a reason why I'm not commenting on the books beyond my "first impressions" of them, and that is because Google Books limits page views fairly heavily. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 02:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    How in-depth can it be on her if her name isn't used in the text of the article? I searched the text of the book for her name and it only came up in that caption. It really sounds like you're trying to argue that this legal case is notable, which it may well be? But that's not the same as Azhari being notable. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Translated As: Classic, I only read what I want to read but still the source you are providing WHICH I AM NOT READING because I dont want to (i cant) but still vote to Delete, {Not a ballot}. Amoeba69th (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I have to go by Google Translate for Indonesian, as I've explained before. How long do you want me to take to sort through an entire PDF, plug it into the (hard-character-limited) translation interface, and then sort out the input into a language I can read? Please quit with the assumptions of bad faith and show the source to WT:WikiProject Indonesia, as they can assess the source in a timely fashion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Google search result shows not much other than attention-grabbing infotaiments and gossip pieces. The sources given in argument between @Amoeba69th and @Jéské Couriano is a magazine released by Constitution Court on 2009, which talked mostly about the importance of protecting privacy of victims in cyberspace (coincidently citing her controversial case as an example of a victim). Very sparse and she is not the center of the discussion itself, she is just an example used by the magazine. Also, "her case was the biggest scandal to the point of reshaping constitution". As far as Im aware, there's no such a thing and there were only four amandments made to 1945 Constitution, all of which happened after fall of Suharto and very unrelated to petty porn scandal involving some politician. Google scholar result also shows not much. If you are really interested in Indonesian women being progressive, Im sure there are a lot more other figure to focus on. Apologize if my wording sounds aggresive or bad. If you have other sources that you would like to use for the argument keeping this article, I'll be happy to look at it. Im open to change my mind if proven otherwise, but for now i support the deletion. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • So you think the entire Actress, Model and Singer Sarah Azhari article who IS a progressive woman, as you might know.... should be deleted ? because that is what the voting is for... not that paragraph in particular, you are more than welcome to omit the paragraph if you think that is not of encyclopedic importance.Amoeba69th (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it should be deleted based on what I found (looking at sources in the article and the magazine you brought to the argument here and also the result on Google search is not great). But as I said before, I am open to change my mind and will look at other sources or arguments that you think would prove otherwise. Nyanardsan (talk) 01:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • are you a millenial? (if possible to ask - just saw you are busy in college) [5] Amoeba69th (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    By definition, I am not. Thank you for the source, Im not sure if that one actually establish notability since almost everything there is from her Instagram account directly, which makes it not independent. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name? millenial was not an insult or anything! what about if you read sarah azhari's page beside this talk? a lot of the works that she has done are well reported in bahasa indonesia as well and there are way more sources than what ive posted here in the talk page. to mention just one [6] Amoeba69th (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    I do read the article, which is why I said before the sourcing are not that good. If you think there are more sources, please add it to the article because right now the article's sources are unrelated/passing mention on some articles related to Indonesian women, gossip/infotaiment pieces, or articles related to her controversies. Nyanardsan (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • what you mean by "is not that good"? and req "but do you know about Sarah Azhari or it is the first time you hear her name?" Amoeba69th (talk) 02:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Jeske you do always do WP:HIGHMAINT on questions given by others, but you do like to inflict your questioning of yours TO OTHERS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoeba69th (talkcontribs) 03:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Whether I know her or not is not important to discuss. As before, please add the relevant sources to the article so it meets WP:GNG and other editors would stop questioning her notability if possible. As I myself an Indonesian, I would like to help you with whether the sources you presented on your arguments are good or not (which unfortunatelly its not so far). Thats all it needs. Thank you~ Nyanardsan (talk) 03:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete because of insufficent sourcing. Reyk YO! 04:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • well, this talk page got as hot as Sarah in gossip talks.... but now i am curious to see if something I don't consider a reliable source it could be?

[7] I mean Kim Kardashian has a wikipediaAmoeba69th (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  • yes, i did red it and thats why i said i dont consider it a good source myself either ... [8] Amoeba69th (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


Titi Kuti

Titi Kuti (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Hasn't had any significant roles in notable films or television series. Is reliant on primary sources and unreliable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete — NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple movies or TV series, The actor is predominantly known for their “bit part roles” in both the movie titled “King of Boys” (the movie), and King of Boys (the TV series), of which in both movie and TV series they weren’t the lead role, they weren’t supporting actor, their roles are honestly best described as “bit part” . Furthermore they haven’t been given any prestigious awards for their acting, i am indeed doubtful they have ever received and prestigious award. I’d like to see the input of the article creator who removed the prod on the article, citing that NACTOR is met, I’d love to hear their rationale as how this is so. Celestina007 (talk) 03:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey, no need to bite or sound so angry. Now, I'm not the author of the article or the one who removed the prod, but glancing at the article and a few of its sources, I can see an argument that WP:GNG may have been met, as surprisingly, there are multiple articles listed expressly about this person in the role you labeled as a bit part. Even if WP:NACTOR is not met, WP:GNG would trump. The question I have though, is whether the sources are RELIABLE sources. I have no idea about the reliability or relevance of any of these sources. Could you (or someone) assess that? Fieari (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Fieari, could you please retract your aspersions? I consider aspersions a personal attack, you accused me of BITING when I have been nothing but civil with the editor who created this article, please which part of what I just said above is “Biting” ? I made factual statements which are all corroborated easily. In-fact look at our civil conversation I am very much offended by your aspersions against me, furthermore you stated that I “sounded angry”, which i found strange as “tone” can’t be interpreted over text, i was literally relaxed & laying on my sofa without an iota of anger or frustration when making those comments. I’m offended by this aspersions because I put in very conscious efforts to be polite and simultaneously precise/concise when interacting with my co-editors, Please can you be so gracious as to retract your aspersions or in the very least apologize, for assuming wrongly? Celestina007 (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Taking this to your talk page to not clutter here. Fieari (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep — NACTOR also requires significant roles in multiple TV series or other productions. The actor is also a producer. According to "NACTOR", he must have had significant roles in multiple productions, which includes, his production for Africa Magic, reality show "Nigerian Idol", and Africa Magic television series "Hustle", starring Sola Sobowale. A reliable source from Vanguard Nigeria, confirms the statement above. I believe with this, NACTOR is met.--Afí-afeti (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment — This is to note that the editor above is the article creator. They produced this Vanguard source which is unreliable as the byline is missing “the staff reporter” which invariably means we are dealing with an opinion piece which we do not consider reliable. Generally, when dealing with articles on business people, organizations or entertainers or any topic area which may be prone to less than ethical practices, we want to see reliable sources being optimized. Can this reliable sources be brought here for thorough analysis? In the very least at least three good sources that satisfy WP:RS & are in accordance with WP:GNG I’m afraid, If not, it is my opinion that this is a NACTOR fail. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep with no prejudice toward the nom as this is a very close call. He appears to have a regular role on a notable show but the debate above is about NACTOR and needing multiple notable roles by that guideline, with the rebuttal that he's been a producer in other things. So I'm left with looking at the broader general notability guidelines and there I find that this article's subject has himself been the non-trivial subject of multiple (in this case exactly 2) reliable secondary sources, the Guardian and Vanguard. So he only barely passes general notability, but a D is indeed a passing grade. -Markeer 23:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • CommentMarkeer, Hello MKR, as stated on my TP that I wouldn’t comment here except expressly pinged, I’ve been deeply troubled since I made that statement(I would expatiate on this below) the apple of discord here is for any editor to bring forward sources, please can you be so kind as to show me the sources you found, the truth is, In as much as I try to ignore this AFD or comment any further, I have this huge feeling of guilt that an article that falls short of both NACTOR & GNG would be retained on mainspace due to honest mistakes on the part of editors unfamiliar with Nigerian sources(I am an expert on this) I am troubled because as a Nigerian(well I’ve lived here for 20+ years now) & I know as a matter of fact that the subject we are currently discussing doesn’t satisfy both NACTOR and GNG, MKR, I would be extremely grateful if you can show me the sources you found so I can do a source analysis. This isn’t an attempt to make you change your !vote, no, rather it is an attempt for me to do a source analysis on the sources you found and if you stick with your !vote that is indeed your prerogative and I would speak no more, all I’m begging for at the moment is a chance to do a analysis for you on sources you said you saw and as aforementioned if you stick to your !vote, in the spirit of consensus I would bow out, all I’m asking for from you or any editor to bring all the sources that substantiate their notability & as aforementioned, a chance to do a source analysis for everyone to see, I would draw up a source analysis table and assess each source presented. Celestina007 (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Celestina007, I published the article on mainspace, you moved it to draft in quote, you stated "Not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources." I obliged to that, by making sure it was rewritten, please note: The interviews questions, are independent of the subject, to help establish notability. Without the series of questions, no media house in Nigeria or the world can successfully write an article independent of the subject, without the help of these interviews, which are been published by reliable sources. Also, I will love to bring to your attention, the article was submitted through AfC for review as requested by you. As Markeer stated above, I'm also bringing to your attention, the AfD was nominated for failing the requirements of "WP:NACTOR", this is the debate. It all said, it clearly meets this. In WP:Interviews, it states "it is okay to sparingly use interviews to source some facts", this was what I did in the article. Remember the article is a "Stub". WP:Interviews are accepted for WP:GNG, if only it been published by a reliable source.--Afí-afeti (talk) 06:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source Check Request - @Celestina007: I don't think there's any need to bow out of commenting on this AfD... we're all here to build an encyclopedia, I think we're all okay now, and I believe your insight would be valuable. I see on your user page that Nigerian sources can be... complicated... with regards to reliability. Could I formally ask you to review the other sources on this page in this light? Specifically:
    • PM News Nigeria - If (and only if) this is a reliable source, this is a strong indicator of WP:GNG as it is an article expressly about the actor in question in far more than a passing mention. It also has a byline, unlike the vanguard source you checked above.
    • The Guardian - This is a similar kind of article as the PM News one, expressly about the subject in detail. It has a byline.
    • Daily Trust (archived) - Another interview article with a byline as above.
    • Bella Naija - I think I can already see just by looking at it that this isn't a reliable source.
I'm not claiming that I think these are reliable sources, I'm asking... are they? How can we tell? Thank you. Fieari (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Fieari, great. you have cited 4 sources and I’d analyze them accordingly, let me start by referencing the first source briefly before we delve into the crux of analysis, now, contrary to what you think, it is indeed a reliable source but that piece is unreliable, let’s begin the analysis, first source is credible but an unreliable piece, because it is literally based on an interview on a different platform, a portion of that piece reads Speaking with Ebuka Obi-Uchendu in a recent interview, the piece literally relied on an interview, and interviews aren’t independent of the subject thus doesn’t count towards notability the second source is is at best now a WP:QS, see one of the reasons here and even worse still, it is an interview thus doesn’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject which is required by WP:GNG. the third archived source is an interview thus can’t count towards notability as it isn’t independent of the subject. GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and that piece falls short of the standard requirement. As for the fourth and final source, you are apt. it is a gossip blog which is pretty much self published, lacks editorial oversight and has no reputation for fact checking, a huge fail of RS. Celestina007 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Are interviews really excluded from establishing notability? There's editorial control over who they interview, after all. The selection of questions, the editing, and the context they provide all seem like things that could establish notability. Fieari (talk) 01:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Fieari, GNG requires in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of a subject, an interview is not independent of the subject thus is in variance with a core aspect of what constitutes notability as detailed in WP:GNG which requires absolute "independence" Do you get the drift? An interview is not independent in the sense that the editorial is publishing a literal interaction with the subject. Having said, let me expressly state that interviews are not without use, You see, Interviews are treated in the same manner we treat primary sources, that is, they can be used to verify information that is relatively trivial such as age, full name, college attended and things along those lines, they however do not count towards notability but only serve predominantly to satisfy WP:V When it comes to claims of notability we discard primary sources and employ or make use use of WP:IS. Furthermore to comprehend what I’m saying better look at Gpedia:Interviews. Like I stated, elsewhere I wouldn’t bludgeon the the AFD process, and except I was pinged to do a source analysis I wouldn’t comment anymore. I believe I have just done so, thus my work here is done. I did this analysis not to make you change your mind nor that of anyone else but to show everyone that the sources are very unreliable in this context. If you need me to expatiate please ping me. On a lighter note, Did you ask how I can tell reliable sources from unreliable sources? Barkeep49 was my tutor at NPP academy, I learnt from the best Face-smile.svg Celestina007 (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Cali White

Cali White (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails NBIO. Refbombed with examples of her modelling work but lacking in SIGCOV. KH-1 (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor)

Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor) (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 · NYT · WP Library)

No indication of notability. Most of the appearances in films listed are as an "extra". Majority of sources are either imdb or youtube. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 00:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If this AfD fails, please merge Draft:Siddhant Ghegadmal (Actor) into this. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Paras Kalnawat

Paras Kalnawat (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Only one significant role and some small roles , failing WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep: Though the notable role is only one that is Samar Shah in Anupamaa but still it'll be very soon to get his article deleted due to illogical fan activities by some sockpuppet users.Though ITV shows features dozens of actors. But he's one of the important character since starting of the show. And the main lead of 2017 series Meri Durga and main antagonist of 2019 web series Ishq Aaj Kal. Though his main notable role is Samar Shah right now. But see his career graph for once. Not asking as a fan. Generally. See the plot of Anupamaa first and his career graph also. Please.Pri2000 (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete requires multiple lead roles. There are many roles but they aren't essentially lead. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree, it's not clear that this meets WP:NACTOR one major role, some minor roles, with no RS supporting. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Although he had lead role in Meri Durga and in Ishq Aaj Kal but he is an important character in Anupamaa. He has a huge fan following too so this article should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gari897 (talkcontribs) 03:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Brittany Binger

Brittany Binger (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Biography for a non-notable playmate (possibly, redirect it to some playboy models list) damiens.rf 18:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment if it's the same person, she could be included in the Grady Sizemore article, a person with her name married Mr. Sizemore. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
    • We do not have a personal life section on Mr. Sizemore at present. While he may have married this this Ms. Binger, if all the evidence we have for that "is a person with this same name", instead of "we have a source that says Mr. Sizemore married a woman who had been photographed professionally and included in published magazines", or other wording to indicate a connection other than the same name, we should not go based just on the same name, because if we do we might be creating the Frankenstein's Monster article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Being a Playmate of the Month is notable in modeling. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    Quite incorrect. Only 3 of the 12 listed in the "Playboy Playmates of 2007" template on her page have articles, and 1 (Tamara Sky) should be an easy deletion next. Being a Playmate may have been a criteria of the old WP:PORNBIO notability guide, but that was deleted ages ago. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable pinup girl, nothing but the Playboy spread and some gossip mags. Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Bride of the World

Bride of the World (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 · NYT · WP Library)

Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2014. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Anastasia Michaelsdotter

Anastasia Michaelsdotter (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 · NYT · WP Library)

I'm not sure if this person passes WP:GNG, so I thought I'd bring it to discussion.

I can't find many reliable sources that mention her (Anastasia Michaelsdotter or Stasia Michael) that aren't just interviews or quotes from her, and all of the sources in the article seem like passing mentions or non-independent. The lead also mentions she was featured in a documentary, but if the majority of sources are anything to go by, it could just mean she was mentioned in it.

The original version of the article has 2 sources that may be reliable and/or significant, but they are written around the same time (early 2015), so I'm not sure if that indicates lasting notability (or if it's enough).[4][5]

Her article has also been deleted on the Swedish Gpedia 4 times for "relevance" (not sure if that's similar to English Gpedia's notability standard), and this English article was created a month after the first deletion. - Whisperjanes (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete - despite an apparently successful career, she seems to lack notability. Her deletion from the Swedish Gpedia, though it has no bearing here, is still telling, in my opinion. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
<div style="font-size: x-small;">The article is a derivative under the <a href="">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License</a>. A link to the original article can be found <a href="">here</a> and attribution parties <a href=";action=history">here</a>. By using this site, you agree to the <a href="">Terms of Use</a>. Gpedia Ⓡ is a registered trademark of the Cyberajah Pty Ltd.</div>