Gpedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 {{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|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.
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 Women.
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.

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

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


Women

Samara Barend

Samara Barend (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)

This individual was a political candidate back in 2004, and received the usual coverage that all political candidates receive. She does not seem to have received any significant coverage before or since then, meaning she fails WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Marit Jessen Rüdiger

Marit Jessen Rüdiger (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 and WP:NPOLITICIAN Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Christine Lee (solicitor)

Christine Lee (solicitor) (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)

per WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, this person is not notable outside of a single event, and does not have lasting/persistent notability. WP:BLPCRIME also applies. Gpedia is not a newspaper or an indiscriminate collection of information. Our focus on her as a person fails certain privacy standards as well, as she is not a politician or celebrity. She is extremely likely to remain a low-profile individual. Therefore, it is almost impossible to maintain a NPOV on her life, given that her coverage will be UNDUE and focused on smaller news reports. — Shibbolethink ( ) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete but don't redirect to Barry Gardiner as he wasn't the only parliamentarian involved. I am the creator of this article and it appears I made a mistake doing so per WP:BLP1E. LondonIP (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne Hamburger

Anne Hamburger (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 fail GNG for not having significant coverage of independent, reliable sources. Cassiopeia talk 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep This isn't true there are many sources this article just hasn't been properly developed. Here are a few that could be used. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KNY22 (talkcontribs) 17:54, January 22, 2022 (UTC)

References

Comment [1], [2] and [3] are not reliable sources. [4] is a broken link. [5] is a paywall article and needs to get info rom RX prior comment (Received article from RX) - it is an interview piece for such it is not an independent sources. Cassiopeia talk 07:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I've rewritten the article and would give significant coverage in Forbes and LA Times as the two best sources now on the page. There are also paywalled articles in NYT 1, 2, 3 and WP if someone has access and wants to take a look. Mujinga (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

:Comment: Latinmes and Forbes sources are interview piece for such they are not independent source and thus not meet notability guidelines as for New York time is a paywall source, cant access to comment.

I added in the NYT and WaPo stories, both of which cover her in depth. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article now clearly demonstrates notability, and I am distressed that the nominator did not do a simple google search to find the mountain of coverage for this person over the past 35 years. This person has had an extraordinary career and really deserves a much better article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dahlia Salah

Dahlia Salah (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)

Lacks the notability required to have an article. While she meets the very lax indicators of WP:NFOOTY by having played for a national team, NFOOTY / NSPORTS explicitly state that they only give a presumption of notability, and that in the end WP:GNG must be met. The only non-database source whioh gives some attention to her is an interview by the Gibraltar FA, which isn't an independent source of course. Fram (talk) 10:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Paris Visone

Paris Visone (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)

References are primary interviews. Fails WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 18:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women)

2022 Supercoppa Italiana (women) (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)

We don't know the participating teams yet nor the dates of the matches. The article is also unsourced Dr Salvus 14:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Priyanka Saha

Priyanka Saha (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 bio article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Has few passing mentions in un-reliable sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete: as G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. ––FormalDude talk 09:24, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
    Hey I did some research and found some more reference to the subject on google. I think that if given some time, more sources and references would come up. May be it would be a good idea to hold the deletion for a few weeks. That is my opinion. Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey @Kavyansh.Singh
  • Nice to hear from you. I do understand your concern about the GNG, however, in my research, I found that the subject got an award. And the citation number [4] is the list of people who got the award in 2021 with a short description of what they were awarded. The list was published in The Print, which I guess is a reliable and a notable source. Your citation number [3] is of Republic World pray explain how it is un-reliable. Further more, when I tried to improve the article, the popup suggested that we source from Google, and you are suggesting that Google Knowledge Graph is unreliable, this has gotten me confused. As even now, as I am trying to understand, there is a suggestion under the name Priyanka Saha near the top of this page that is suggesting we find sources from Google. Sincerely I am scratching my head in confusion. Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi @Wiki3editor1986, sorry for being bit unclear in my previous comment. So, Google is merely a search engine. It (almost) provides all the sources available on the internet. Google itself is not a source. The top of this article says that you can find sources through Google. Don't use Google or Google knowledge panel as a source. As for The Print citation, yes, it is generally reliable. But, (1) it just has a passing mention of the topic, that is, it does not provides information about the topic in detail. It is fine to use that source to cite that she received that award. But, it does not help establish the notability. (2) If the India Icon Awards, had itself been notable per Gpedia standards, it would have helped in assertion of notability. But that award is itself not notable, thus we can't claim that the subject is notable as she won that award. And as for the Republic World/Republic TV source, per WP:REPUBLICTV, "[in 2021,] there was a consistent and overwhelming consensus to deprecate Republic TV. [Republic TV] Editors cite hoaxes, fake news, fabrication, misinformation and conspiracy theories.". Thus, it should not be used. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thank You @Kavyansh.Singh for clarifying. My opinion in the matter was, as my research yielded some sources that were not originally in the article, it might so be that more would come and they might be reliable and verifiable as per the standards. So in place of deleting the page immediately, would it not be better to draftify per WP:HEY as @FormalDude suggested and let the article provider improve on it, make proper and verifiable citations over time and re-submit for review? Wiki3editor1986 (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that Wiki3editor1986 has been globally blocked as a "[s]pam-only account" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Deepamoni Saikia

Deepamoni Saikia (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 Notability. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Lack of citations. Arunudoy (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Tjoe

Charlie Tjoe (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)

Both references provided in the general references page are unreliable, and overall the subject appears to just be an actor who doesn't have much coverage at all I could find. Also, the name in the article title is misspelled. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Samia Bouazza

Samia Bouazza (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)

non notable businesswoman. Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. DMySon (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Maya Dobreva

Maya Dobreva (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:BIO. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Hardly any coverage. There is also a badminton player of the same name that gets more coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Michelle A. Valentine

Michelle A. Valentine (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)

Neither the author nor any of the books are notable. There are no references and extensive searches with Google, and newspapers.com have failed to turn up any reliable sources. Leschnei (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Dalia Gebrial

Dalia Gebrial (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 can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Cited sources are either written by the subject, primary, not independent or trivial mentions. WP:BIO is therefore definitely not met. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF are harder to assess, but with an h-index of 8, appear to be unlikely to be met. SmartSE (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the extensive explanation.--Google Search 19:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Daria Podtelejnikova

Daria Podtelejnikova (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 evidence of notability found. I redirected to Danish Figure Skating Championships(which she won by default as the only competitor), but article creator reverted. Article has no indepth sources, and searching online only reveals more databases and similar sources[10], and no Google News hits. Fram (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Alyssa Go

Michelle Alyssa Go (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)

WP:ONEVENT Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM. Gpedia isn't a memorial. Article can be merged to a Death of Michelle Alyssa Go article if her death passes GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:VICTIM. The article however can be merged to the Death of Michelle Alyssa Go, if her passes GNG.--VictorRocks (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Retitle to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go or Death of Michelle Go. X-Editor (talk) 14:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Title. I briefly heard about this death yesterday, and saw Internet news on it today. If her death is or becomes WP:NOTABLE, the standard title would be "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go" (as suggested by others). GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but Change Title. I heard about this on the news. I think this article is fine, but I do agree with others that it should be renamed "Death of Michelle Alyssa Go" or "Death of Michelle Go". MichaelFansz (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Retitle for now or merge - Retitle to "Death of Michelle Go" for now, or merge to the train station at which the incident occurred. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Retitle and merge it - You know what I changed my mind. I think we should merge like the others said. Hopefully, we can also make the criminal (Simon Martial's page) or we can merge with the article. But first, lets find Simon Martial's early life. --VictorRocks (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Move page to Death of Michelle Alyssa Go Per others. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a tragedy but it fails WP:GNG WP:VICTIM but add to the station as stated by @Jax 0677.Yousef Raz (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Retitle Rename to focus on the murder, not the subject. Michelle Alyssa Go seems to have been a wonderful person, but she obviously does not meet the guidelines required for a biography or a standalone article. Her notability is based solely on her tragic death. Most people believe that articles covering such criminal events do not belong on Gpedia, but the article is well-sourced and does no harm. Otherwise Merge to the train station's article, to History of the New York City Subway, or to New York City Subway. Mooonswimmer 16:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per WP:NVICTIM. This article could be renamed, but I do not believe that would be sufficient to prove notability of the subject, either. While this is tragic, there are over a hundred people struck by NYC Subway trains each year (dozens fatally). To have an article about just one such incident is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS; unless there is evidence of the long-term significance of this specific incident, it is not notable. As to places where people have suggested merging this: New York City Subway is a GA, so it's undue coverage to include this there. Maybe History of the New York City Subway might fit, but again, dozens of people in NYC are struck by trains just in a single year. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Traci Hovel

Traci Hovel (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)

Was unilaterally redirected to What Would You Do? (2008 TV program) by the article creator Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs), but given the long list of (mostly minor) roles, the redirect target is probably inappropriate, and deletion may be required if she fails WP:NACTOR and cannot be redirected to What Would You Do?LaundryPizza03 (d) 02:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Nanthida Rakwong

Nanthida Rakwong (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)

As raised on the talk page, and despite the author's response there and User:Sj accepting it at AfC, none of the references cited in the article, nor any that I could identify, are third-party sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. The Times video is entirely presented by the subject, the few news pieces that mention her by name are only in passing, and the rest are about the organisation's activities and don't directly concern the subject. While her work may be admirable (depending on one's political views), the WP:GNG does not appear to be met. Paul_012 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC) – 02:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notability is established by multiple third-party sources with significant in-depth coverage. One of the key references mentioned already is an in-depth video interview of the subject by The Times [11], which is one of the UK's (and the world's) oldest and largest newspapers that goes through very strict media and journalistic editing criteria. The videos on The Times youtube channel are about leading figures in UK and world politics, current affairs and entertainment, and the subject, Nanthida Rakwong, has been assigned an entire feature video. It is also evident from watching the video that it is produced, presented and distributed by The Times on their official youtube channel. Another third-party source with in-depth coverage, in the references already, is a feature interview of the subject and a co-worker by The News Lens [12], which also describes the work in detail. Other news sources that name the subject do so with significant weight, including the interview section from Apple Daily, which the source reproduced both in video and in text [13]. As a note of clarification, the subject's work is notable and relevant in the fields of international human rights and justice, not only politics. It is also important to be aware that the major media outlets within Thailand are state- and military-controlled, thus go through heavy censorship when it comes to the topics of human rights and the monarchy. Additional context about this within Gpedia can be found here Lèse-majesté in Thailand and here Censorship in Thailand. Recently, the body that regulates the Thai media "advised" journalists not to cover anything regarding criticism of the monarchy (incl. the demands to repel the lese majeste laws). All this makes it very hard for even the most notable critics of the monarchy to be more than "mentioned only in passing" in Thai sources. Please consider this as a reason to give more weight to the international references that do go in-depth. ThaiFactChecker (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment There is enough detail to make an argument for N. I don't think the [admirability] of the subject's work is relevant, but the relative difficulty of finding national sources in censored contexts is. Perhaps: a notability banner to encourage adding more evidence + detail (e.g.: who were the candidates mentioned? what came of the lawsuits + recent work / studies?), and a more detailed discussion on the talk page over a few months, would be a better place and tempo for this discussion than AfD. – SJ + 17:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury

Zobeda Khanom Chowdhury (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 has no reason to be notable and sources do not prove otherwise. Notability is not inherited from her son. Apart from a single source (M. R. Mahbub) we have no significant coverage of the subject even in Bengali. If Mahbub's claim that she was among the first Muslim women to join politics in Bangladesh were true (it isn't), such a scarcity of sources is not to be expected: Language Movement has attracted attention of thousands of scholars in S. Asia across the last few decades. Anyways, a single source and some name-drops cannot guarantee passage of WP:N. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Such subjective claims are of no value and not supported by scholarship. The body has a lot of objective details and I leave the judgement to you. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. @AleatoryPonderings: I had edited an article drafted by TrangaBellam with good faith a couple of hours ago but they were not content with these edits and thus responded by criticising a number of my recent article translations from Bengali to English. This is very inappropriate behaviour. SalamAlayka (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm baffled by the nominator's WP:NOTINHERITED argument. The article text only mentions her son briefly and he doesn't even have his own article. There's no obvious attempt to coatrack notability here. pburka (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    One of the many arguments.
    Overall, there were thousands of ML Women Cells each having their Muslim women office bearers, who partook in routine party bureaucracy and outreach including submitting memorandum etc and dissenting with higher ups. None of this is an exception including criticism by press. The acts engaged in by our subject do not seem significant enough to merit anything more than a footnote in the annals of Language Movement. There were many women with far-significant contributions.
    And a profile over a single book by a single scholar arguing the subject to be some kind of revolutionary woman (minus the evidence) is not sufficient to pass notability guidelines either. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment The article says her son died in 1952 but according to this Obituary he died in 2008. Or is this a different son?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Armitage

Rachel Armitage (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)

"Welfare worker and community leader" fails WP:GNG. Also not notable for being related to William Downie Stewart Sr. KidAdSPEAK 19:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah

Nada Mourtada-Sabbah (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 came here trying to investigate the "close paraphrasing" tag. Instead, here we are. First I can find no evidence that this passes WP:GNG; I couldn't find independent coverage of the subject. As for WP:NPROF according to SCOPUS her work hasn't garnered many citations. No indication that her position was a "Named chair or distinguished professor appointment" per the 5th criterion. She has co-authored several books but nothing in WP:AUTHOR seems to apply here. Mysteriously, there's no mention of her at the AUS website any longer, and I can find no news of what she's doing now. To complete the picture, the article was created by a single-purpose account that shared a name with the subject. Certainly no rules broken, but it does fit with everything else to suggest this may be an article created for promotional purposes, and that doesn't meet our notability criteria. Perhaps someone else can turn up some sources? I've come up empty. Ajpolino (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Weak keep - I have removed the fluff. Her work on the political question has been cited in multiple legal articles, but doesn't end up in Google Scholar. I have added what I could find and look forward to hearing other thoughts on her. If this article does not survive AfD, can it be moved to a draft in case more sources are found? DaffodilOcean (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lynn Joseph

Lynn Joseph (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 a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Not really a HEY, though. These sources can all easily be found. They should have been found by the nom in their BEFORE. pburka (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I am always in the mood of shouting HEY! happily whenever someone actually adds the sources to the article, instead of just stating them in the discussion (which I too have been guilty of on occasion). Moreover, the nominator's statement, while given in good faith, has been demonstrated to be patently untrue, and the discussion now meets WP:SKCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a lot of reviews of her work, indicating notability *though* a lot of them are in the one title, Kirkus Reviews, which I'm not sure is a good example of RS if its publishing a high volume of reviews rather than being selective. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. Since when do we nominate authors with this coverage and publication pedigree for deletion? Cannot make sense using WP:NAUTHOR standards. She is being mentioned alongside of her publications in academic journals since 1999. We need more articles about her books, actually. Caballero/Historiador 08:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Nina Græger

Nina Græger (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)

Nonnotable scholar, tagged since 2010, no improvmnt Loew Galitz (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Madhumita G Das

Madhumita G Das (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)

Insufficient reliable sources to show that this person meets WP:NACTOR. I moved the article to Draft:Madhumita G Das, but author recreated the article again without working on the Draft. I indicated the problem in a PROD, but the PROD was removed without explaination. Singularity42 (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Heather Rene Smith

Heather Rene Smith (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 model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ally Isom

Ally Isom (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)

Use of deprecated sources. Might fail GNG. Upon Google search, there are a few results from reliable sources, but mostly passing mentions, no significant coverage. Tame (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I am changing to keep because I feel her notability pre-dates her latest electoral run. Even if she doesn't win, she is notable for her actions in the past. DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gehrke, Gary (December 29, 2010). "Herbert names new spokeswoman". The Salt Lake Tribune (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-16. Gov. Gary Herbert named Ally Isom as his new deputy chief of staff and communications director Wednesday as part of a major overhaul of his senior staff heading into the legislative session.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ Gehrke, Robert (November 16, 2013). "Herbert's deputy chief of staff leaving for more family time". The Salt Lake Tribune (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-16.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Rolly, Paul (November 11, 2016). "Rolly: Herbert's former spokeswoman quits the GOP". The Salt Lake Tribune (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-16. "Dear GOP, you may have won an election yesterday, but you lost me," wrote Ally Isom, who now is director of Family and Community Relations for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Robert Gehrke: Frustrated with Trump, these LDS women are calling for change, but will it matter?". The Salt Lake Tribune (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  5. ^ "Why does Utah have so few female legislators?". PBS NewsHour (in American English). 2016-10-09. Retrieved 2022-01-16.
  • Draftify and retarget to 2022 United States Senate election in Utah#Republican primary. As the creator of this article, which was created as a redirect, it does not yet meet WP:GNG, but could meet it if Isom wins a primary. In that case, draftify it so it can be worked on so that an article can be created if Isom wins the primary, and change the redirect target that arises as a result of the move to the page of the election which Isom is running in, which is the Republican primary of the 2022 United States Senate election in Utah, as per convention of not-yet notable American political candidates. Muhibm0307 (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
    Agree with @Muhibm0307's proposal. Tame (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ellen Y. Zhang

Ellen Y. Zhang (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)

having googled about her in both english and chinese, i'm afraid she doesnt seem to have more notable achievements than other professors of philosophy. RZuo (talk) 08:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete subject to further information. chairman of a department is not necessarily a notable position. The books are all in Chinese, and I have no way of evaluating them. They don't show up in WorldCat, but that is not necessarily meaningful . Hong Cong Baptist Univeristy is respectable, a/c the ratings, but the famous research university in HK is University of Hong Kong, followed by Chinese University of Hong Kong. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alison Fanelli

Alison Fanelli (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)

Tagged for notability since August and I do believe this fails WP:NACTOR (has not had significant roles in multiple notable projects or made prolific/innovative contributions to entertainment). Notable for only one role as a child actress. In most sources I could find Fanelli is only mentioned in passing (like where is the cast of Pete & Pete today?). Sro23 (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

June Preston

June Preston (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 started editing this article with the view that the subject was, just, WP:NOTABLE. I tried, along with some other editors, to help knock it into shape by trimming unsubstantiated claims, information from unreliable sources, etc. However, the more I (and others) have sought to address these issues, the more I (and others) have been met with attacks (on the talk page) from an editor who states she is the subject’s daughter, and supporters of the latter. Through posts which the daughter is putting up on Pinterest, these supporters continue to add material which is trivial in itself and in any case not reliable. Having looked through the sources and related material in more depth, I am now of the opinion that the subject is not notable and I therefore move this AfD.

My rationale is as follows, and is based on WP:GNG, the elements of WP Notability.

1) “"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. “ That cannot be held to be the case in this article. The subject is presented as a film actress and a singer, but there is no coverage of her in either of these roles other than trivial mentions in sources which do not qualify as reliable 2) “"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline.” . Much of the material in citations is journalistic recycling of publicity materials. Other citations support trivial issues (e.g. that she sung Gilbert and Sullivan at high school). The above considerations also affect the other elements of notability: “"Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.”; “"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases…..”. One of the article's defenders has kindly listed the sources used - editors can judge for themselves whether they think these sources are significant or reliable. WP:GNG mentions that “significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article”. In this case there is clearly no significant coverage in relevant reliable sources.

As regards the detailed guidelines for notability for people WP:BIO – “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.” This subject does not meet this criterion.

For Entertainers WP:ENT the criteria are: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The subject fails these criteria.

For singers WP:SINGER there are 12 criteria, none of which are met by the subject – I’m not going to set them all out here, anyone can go look. The subject also fails the criteria for concert tours WP:NTOUR.

Conclusion: delete. Smerus (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep You already know she meets the GNG with significant coverage from around the world from her concerts. You've been trying to remove sources and reduce the actual representation of notability in the article for over a week (with this article being practically the only thing you've edited on Gpedia as a whole in that length of time). Not to mention you've been repeatedly insulting the article subject and her daughter's account on the talk page during that length of time. I don't know why you have a personal agenda against the article subject, but it's pretty obvious that you can't properly determine notability in this case. Anyways, for everyone else, here's examples of significant coverage of June Preston from around the world, as helpfully collected by her daughter due to 1950's non-English papers not being digitized:
And that's all just a partial example from the coverage that's currently in the article. There's plenty more that hasn't been added as of yet, such as this, this, this, this, and this. She was very much more famous from her later in life opera career on the international stage than she ever was from her child film career in the US. So it's in the former where her notability lies and where all the significant coverage is. But, as you would expect, it's difficult to track down coverage from, say, 1950's Haiti, as an example. Their main newspapers aren't digitized properly at all. Regardless though, we clearly have more than enough coverage shown already to meet the WP:GNG. SilverserenC 19:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep At the very least, meets criterion 4 of WP:SINGER "Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Gpedia, in general, does a poor job of using non-digitized resources. I understand why, but people must recognize there's a large blind spot in searching for notability of older people. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 21:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I do wish one of the archival database efforts would include older non-English newspapers. We have Newspapers.com, Newspaperarchive.com, and the British Newspaper Archive. But that's all almost exclusively for English language papers, even if they do go back several centuries. The best we've got is some non-English archival stuff digitized by the Internet Archive, but that's pretty much it. And sure, other databases exist, but they're not all that readily available, are only on very specific newspapers and nothing else and/or are difficult to search through, lacking the digitized text search function of the aforementioned archives. It's really aggravating. But I guess we're getting there, slowly. SilverserenC 22:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is more than borderline notable, passing WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 23:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep I totally agree with User:Silver seren. This should be kept. PreppyElephant (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep. There is enough independent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Deletion is not the answer to the main concerns raised by the nominator. Any issues with original research, source quality, and conflict of interest are all solvable through talk page discussions and editing the article. Many of those problems have been solved already, or are in the process of being resolved.4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Salma de Nora

Salma de Nora (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 GNG & ENT. Might have passed PORNBiO but now awards no longer count this no longer meets inclusion standards. Spartaz Humbug! 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Amber Lily

Amber Lily (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)

Advertorialized WP:BLP of an singer, not properly referenced as passing our inclusion criteria for singers. The notability claims here are that she was a non-winning competitor in a singing competition and otherwise just that her work exists, rather than any concrete evidence that she achived anything that would pass WP:NMUSIC -- and while the article also claims that she's an actress, it offers no indication whatsoever that she's ever done anything of note as an actress at all. And for sourcing, two of the six footnotes are to her own self-published website about herself and three more are of the "music metaverifying its own existence on Amazon.com" variety, which are not reliable or notability-building sources. And while there is one footnote to a real piece of media coverage here, it's a very short blurb nowhere near substantive enough to carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if it's the only acceptable source in the mix.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Catherine P. Saxton

Catherine P. Saxton (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)

Non-notable publicist. Sources present do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE turns up nothing else. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Saxton is certainly widely quoted with statements along the lines of :...says Catherine Saxton, so-and-so's publicist". At the same time she appears multiple times in the 2021 book Gatecrashers (Ben Widdicombe), the New York Times quoted her in conversations about social climbers (2006), Nydia Neubauer (2002), and rent-controlled apartments (1992). There was also broader coverage about her work with the New York Pops [20]. That being said, the previous version of the page was largely copied from imdb, and I have removed that text. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I have dug deeping into the *Gatecrashers* book. She is covered on the following pages in the book: 144, 166, 171-174,226, 236-237. More details are in the page DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - There is good RS here, I am just concerned she is only mentioned peripherally in some of it, and there isn't much solid commentary on her establishing her notability. Close but not quite. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Phoenix

Lauren Phoenix (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)

Sources fall short of requirements to meet GNG or Ent. Just porn industry chatter and a mention in an article about something else. As a BLP the community expects far better. Spartaz Humbug! 17:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep clearly meets GNG with coverage in generally reliable sources (per RSP) that cannot be overriden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and yes that includes AVN articles like [21][22] etc. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Ahem. RSP makes it clear that magazine articles might count per the actual RSN discussion but sources clearly need ti be used cautiously and what you have presented clearly fails the GNG. 1) isn’t clearly in the mag and is an interview so lacks independence. 2) is obviously a reheated press release just from the format and again appears online rather than published. Spartaz Humbug! 19:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
      That's not what it says, especially since we discussed the promotional articles on the website within the discussion, and the entry says ... (which is marked as such in search). The cautions are listed on the RSP listing, and the links are not promotional, albeit need to be used with judgement applied (quotations of the individual are less reliable than things in the magazine's voice). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm going to agree with ProcrastingatingReader here. AVN and XBIZ coverage does count in addition to the San Francisco Chronicle article and coverage about American Apparel's controversial ad campaign starring Phoenix discussed in these academic publications [23][24][25][26] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup qualification

2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup qualification (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)

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-20 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification. Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification

2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup qualification (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)

this was a cancelled competition as qualifiers for the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup, where all of the relevant information about the qualification process is already in the 2022 AFC U-17 Women's Asian Cup article, and therefore there is no need for a daughter article on the qualification Matilda Maniac (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Mary Ellen Callahan

Mary Ellen Callahan (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)

Run-of-the-mill government employee fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. KidAdSPEAK 19:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • No vote yet, but adding in citations to news articles covering Callahan (and someone can feel free to let me know if I should not note that here. I still feel quite new to these discussions). DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - notability established by recent additions, for example 'Former DHS privacy head moves to law firm' in FCW and 'Jenner & Block becomes latest law firm to build privacy practice' in Washington Post Mujinga (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Phaedra Parks

Phaedra Parks (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)

Non-notable reality show participant. Keeps getting re-created from redirect. Fails GNG, absolutely no in-depth coverage about this person outside show. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Yoriko Angeline

Yoriko Angeline (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)

non-notable actress. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment nothing more than paid coverage. Published in same paper, by the same author, date 1 june, 2 june. We can't consider this independent, multiple, in-depth coverage. Behind the moors (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete per Behind the moors well argued reasons as to why the coverage we have meets essentially none of the prongs of GNG, let alone all the prongs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Liu Siqi

Liu Siqi (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)

Appears devoid of notability, case of WP:NOTINHERITED WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 06:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep NOTINHERITED isn't applicable here -- it relates to articles that exist solely on the basis of "subject is somewhere in the line of descent for an inherited title" or similar, without any evidence of significant coverage. It doesn't rule out the existence of articles for people who have significant coverage because of their connections to others. Subject of the article passes GNG through the substantial number of obituaries that have come out in the Chinese press following her recent death, both cited in the article and clear on a web search. Vaticidalprophet 16:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep - Notable and many independent reliable Chinese sources are available following her death on 7th January, 2022. VincentGod11 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Linda Dunikoski

Linda Dunikoski (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:BIO1E because her notability is based primarily on her prosecution of the Atlanta Public Schools cheating scandal and the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. Edge3 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Connirae Andreas (2nd nomination)

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).[27][28]

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)

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma

Riniki Bhuyan Sarma (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)

Except being Chief Minister's wife, she has no notability. Her page was created after her husband became Chief Minister. Moreover, being an owner of a local news channel can not make her eligible for Wiki. Requesting higher level to look up the matter. - Arunudoy (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete The coverage in WP:RS found above is all focused on corruption allegations. Neither does it appear WP:SUSTAINED nor can it be covered here due to WP:BLPCRIME requirement on conviction. The Guwahati Plus source the page currently depends heavily upon, is an interview and hence WP:PRIMARY (the site does not inspire any confidence about reliability or independence, founder claims to be a marketing professional). Her own channel has nothing that amounts to WP:SIGCOV. --Hemantha (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Urmila Devi Dasi

Urmila Devi Dasi (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)

All ISKCON members are not notable. Lack of major work or post held. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. Promotional bio based on self published or dependent (ISKCON) sources. Last Afd in 2010 had only WP:ITSNOTABLE comments. No evidence of notability was provided. (similar to Gpedia:Articles for deletion/Gour Govinda Swami) Venkat TL (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: All the sources in the article are not independent of the subject. Can't find any other sources with WP:SIGCOV - SUN EYE 1 03:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete What has changed since the previous nominations is that we've become a little more objective about promotional articles for authors. If she hadwritten a major textbook series used world-wide or even nationally she might be notable, but it's designed especially for ISKON and probably only used there. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Priyanka Mondal

Priyanka Mondal (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 is previously rejected through afc process, so this article should go through afc process. Please check the creator's talk page for further information. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete The film credits may count towards NACTOR, but significance of some roles aren't clear. Falling back to sources, ToI articles on her are all two-three paragraph collections of her quotes. IE Indulge is a "luxury lifestyle magazine", a once-per-week supplement that shouldn't be presumed to be as reliable as the main paper; but setting that aside, the coverage is all shallow interviews that can hardly be considered independent. ABP/Sangbad links are movie announcements which do not mention her at all. There is a bn-wiki page, but it uses same sources as here. This bengali search https://www.google.com/search?q="প্রিয়াঙ্কা+মন্ডল" doesn't seem to turn up much, so I think there isn't enough for WP:GNG. --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Robin Wonsley Worlobah

Robin Wonsley Worlobah (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 notability. Being elected to a non-major office and just existing does not warrant notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshens (talkcontribs) 18:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Comment, leaning Keep - As always, looks like this is down to WP:GNG. My attempt at satisfying WP:THREE to focus the discussion is: [1][2][3] So, two pretty good sources (one national, one regional), and a small smattering of passing mentions in the Star Tribune and other regional news sources. Overall, I would characterize the coverage as weak, so this might be WP:TOOSOON. Suriname0 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Michaels, Samantha. ""Defund the police" was a rallying cry in 2020. Minneapolis is about to vote on what that means". Mother Jones (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-19.
  2. ^ Duggan, JD (2021-08-18). "Democratic Socialist challenges Green Party incumbent in Minneapolis Ward 2". Sahan Journal (in American English). Retrieved 2022-01-19.
  3. ^ Navratil, Liz. "Robin Wonsley Worlobah once again declared winner after recount in Minneapolis council race". Star Tribune. Retrieved 2022-01-19.
In consideration of the MPR coverage, I've updated my vote to Keep. I'm not sure how meaningful the ongoing passing mentions of her policy positions are, but it does show evidence of ongoing sustained coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep The person is an elected official in a major U.S. city and is the subject of news media coverage, as opposed to being mentioned merely in passing. Minnemeeples (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus)

Theoclia (sister of Alexander Severus) (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)

This article covers a supposed sister of emperor Severus Alexander. But I've done some digging and it seems to me that the article might be confused.

It seems to me that Theoclia (if she was real) and her possible marriage to Verus is thought to have been proposed during Severus reign 3, not when he was a young boy as he would have been in 218 when Marcianus daughter was killed. This work treats the two women as separate people, while this one argues that Theoclia is entirely made up. There is also the fact that Marcianus might have been Severus step-father, not father, so a daughter (if she was indeed married in 218) was probably too old to have been Julia Avita Mamaea's daughter, thus this woman may only have been Severus step-sister. I believe this article should be deleted and the link redirected to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family ★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Support merge to Julia Avita Mamaea#Family, as, even if she existed, she probably isn't notable enough for her own article. If the merge is performed, then it will be important to ensure that the new text at Julia Avita Mamaea#Family is free of WP:OR / WP:SYNTH (I say this even though I'm pretty convinced that the argument about Theoclia's existence that you present here is correct). Furius (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete This was written by an editor who liked to mass-create articles on non-notable but high-profile people, with only the slightest regard for WP:Verifiability (example). This article simply repeats what the Historia Augusta says without question, while adding some genealogical trivia to flesh it out. The former is unverifiable (unreliable primary source), the latter is already found elsewhere, so there's nothing even to merge (not even worth a redirect). It's all OR, SYNTH, or trivia. That Birley citation mentions in passing an unnamed sister who was supposedly murdered in 218, but you don't need a merger to use that source and mention the fact elsewhere, and there is nothing else of value here. Avilich (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete At best should be a curious footnote in the dynasty article of a possible relative mentioned by a not necessarily reliable primary source, for reasons mentioned above. SpartaN (talk) 17:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge to her mother. For ancient history, primary sources are all we have. Whether we believe the sources is a matter of historical interpretation. Merging leaves a redirect, which means that what little we do know on the lady remains available. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a case of notability where the infomation can be simply transferred elsewhere, this is a case of the content being unverifiable or put together through original research, which means it's not merge material, as you have been told several times. Avilich (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redirect Anything sourced to the Historia Augusta is likely to be garbage, if there are no other sources covering them then it should be deleted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete/Redirect -Agreed, needs more than one source to establish what is going here, for this person who possibly didn't exist. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:V and WP:OR concerns with merging. Agricolae (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Tina Rivers Ryan

Tina Rivers Ryan (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 coverage of in reliable sources is minimal. Mostly it consists of very brief mentions (exceprpted below) and quotes that she provided for context on other subjects.

Put them in then to prove they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
I will try to do so. Please also note her work is in multiple national libraries, as you can see from the authority control. If anyone else wants to pitch in to help, please do so. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment. I note that this AfD has been alerted by its creator on the Women in Red talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC).
How do library holdings of a book establish notability for the (co)author? Most libraries are not at all selective, but the BNF and especially the Library of Congress collect just about anything that gets published. Vexations (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to answer your question and perhaps I am mistaken re: library holding having any significance. I apologize. Ryan has a lot of mentions in the news and in books (per BASIC), and there are citations specifically about her which have also been added in my expansion effort of the article. I am confused because the last time I checked the wiki rules, we did not make article deletion nominations in the case of thinking something needs clean up and a quick google search of her name indicates her presence? And yes, I had asked for clean up help from WiR because I have been busy (i.e. the pandemic), and the WiR project event was related to the creation of this stub. I apologize if I am not allowed to ask for help(?), I had assumed wikipedia was for collaboration. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
There's no need to apologize. Of course you are allowed to ask for help, but we have consensus that canvassing is inappropriate. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment Unless the post has changed, I don't see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red#Tina_Rivers_Ryan as a canvassing violation. @PigeonChickenFish is asking for citations to help in the decision making process, not help necessarily to !vote keep. Star Mississippi 16:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I worded my response poorly. I did not mean to imply that there was canvasssing. I wanted to point out that we differentiate between "help me !vote for my preferred outcome" and "help me improve (something)" and that asking for any kind of assistance in improving an article or a discussion or understanding of policy etc. is very much encouraged. Vexations (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Just holding a job and publishing stuff does not confer notability. What are needed are multiple independent in-depth sources about the subject and there don't seem to be any. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
There are many sources (and that is enough for BASIC). However the nomination here glosses over all of the sources specifically about Ryan's work - and many of which have depth (for example see the comment left earlier by Bridget). PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's just about an exhibition, not about her. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
Exactly what do you think her work is, if not an exhibition? She works as a curator at a museum. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It just shows that she is doing her job (no doubt excellently). However that does not make a person notable. The sources show that she exists, but not that she is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2022 (UTC).
  • Very weak keep. Assistant curator rather than head curator, at a regional museum rather than one at the national level of say the Met or MOMA (to pick two in the same state), definitely is not enough for automatic notability. We would need in-depth coverage of her work, sufficient to pass GNG. What we have is: non-in-depth listings of her marriage and degree; International but not in depth coverage merely quoting her as an expert on digital art (Artnews, The Independent, NYT, Jing), a local report on a talk she gave (The Horace Mann Record), the University of Buffalo promoting an exhibit co-curated with a UB faculty member (not independent; both the UB and Spectrum sources); a non-in-depth announcement that she was hired (Artforum); a non-reliable blog post, badly linked and disallowed as a source on a BLP (VOCA); local coverage of her exhibits (WBFO, WGRZ) an in-depth interview (Cornelia), and a single non-local in-depth review of an exhibit (Brooklyn Rail). The only sources among these that count at all towards notability for me are the WBFO, WGRZ, Cornelia, and Brooklyn Rail ones. If you are one of those editors who discount local sources and interviews as counting towards notability, then all that's left would be the Brooklyn Rail, not enough. I tend to think that WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE don't actually say anything about locality of sources and that discounting interviews as primary is a stretch, so the other three can count for me, but they're not very convincing. What pushes me from weak delete to weak keep is that we do have multiple major international sources that do not provide depth of coverage, but do make a credible claim that she is known as an expert on digital art. They don't directly contribute to Gpedia-defined notability, but they make me more sympathetic to the idea that, as a known expert, she is the sort of person we should have an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment The Albright–Knox Art Gallery is a major collection. Not like MoMA, but a major museum like the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles. It just happens to be in Buffalo, not NYC. Hardly regional. It is a big deal to be a curator there. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
    Minor correction: she's an Assistant Curator per [32]. The chief curator is Cathleen Chaffee. I do think that the Albright-Knox is a museum with an international, rater than regional scope. Definitely not a "local museum". I'll note that we have an article on Janne Sirén, the museum's director, but none of the curatorial staff, except TRR. Vexations (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep several editors have listed reasons to Keep, will trust their judgment. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Mild keep Nothing in Jstor, she's got a few hits in Gscholar, but they don't appear to be papers, one looks like a .mp4 file of a lecture? She's got enough hits in the ArtNews or ArtForum, so she's relatively well-known. We know about the Knox-Albright here in Toronto, it's more than a local art gallery, more like a renowned, regional museum. I think this person is just over the line for notability.Oaktree b (talk)
  • Comment as an aside, I've had a few of these Women in Red articles come up in the deletion process that I either worked on or started/created. Seems counter productive if we (Gpedia as a whole) ask for the article to be created then nominate it for deletion later. I would assume there is at least a basic level of vetting before they add them to the WiR list, is there not? Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    from my personal experience, no vetting required although some conversations end up taking suggestion A and end up discussing that subject within category B if it seems they don't yet meet GNG or the applicable SNG. Star Mississippi 03:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete assistant curator is about as significant as assistant professor--it normally means not yet notable. The quality of the museum is irrelevant--all museums have junior staff who are not yet notable. . Being quoted briefly in articles about other people is not significant coverage. The way WiR articles can avoid deletion is by 1. taking care to select the many really notable people who do not yet have WP articles--(for example Cathleen Chaffee as mentioned above, who is the actual curator, not one of the assistants, and 2. writing encyclopedia articles that don't include minor material--that inevitable give the impression there isn't any major accomplishments. That way, any editors here who still might be unreasonably skeptical won't single them out any more than other articles. A few such projects have taken lists of 100 women in whatever, ,or women under 30 in some profession, and uncritically made articles on all of them. `` DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete As DGG said, she is an assistant curator, akin to an assistant professor. Assistant professors who have not published more two books and are not widely cited do not qualify for articles. If she had authored numerous books, she may have notability as an author. Being an assistant curator at a middle tier (no offense meant) institution and doing normal assistant curator stuff does not qualify someone for an article. She is still early in her career, so there is plenty of time for her to rise through the ranks, author books, etc. Let’s see where she is in five to ten years and then maybe she’ll have passed the notability threshold. Thriley (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep In addition to the support for WP:BASIC notability as an expert noted above, I also found two book reviews: Publishers Weekly, Choice Reviews (via ProQuest, by J. H. Noonan), "Ryan unpacks the connection between technology and irrationality. [...] Highly recommended. Lower-division undergraduates through faculty and professionals; general readers." Beccaynr (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Good finds, that should do it. Will link this page somewhere in an essay I've been intending to write. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. RL0919 (talk) 18:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Kung Minkoff

Crystal Kung Minkoff (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)

Reality show performer. Not enough in-depth coverage outside of the show to show they have any notability outside the production. Should probably be a redirect, but was reverted. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Redirect - to Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. When I read things like this: According to Bravo, Crystal and Rob live in Bel Air and Crystal has formal culinary training, and she has a passion for cooking and throwing extravagant parties. She is an enjoys skier and loves to play tennis. in the encyclopedia it is often signal that there is either promotional editing going on or there is not enough info out there to substantiate notability for a stand alone article. This too: Kung is a 76th-generation descendant of is filler. Fails WP:NACTOR Netherzone (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Perhaps you can assess secondary coverage and not the quality of the current text, which can be changed? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
      @Another Believer hello! just seeing your note now. When I did a BEFORE search, all I came up with was social media, something called "Facebook Wedding Style", and primary sources like interviews without editorial content. I also found low-quality sources similar to what is in the article. I found things that looked like native advertising - that appears to be an article but with the byline "produced by digital editors" or no byline, which makes me think it's PR placement, and not real reporting or journalism. Please improve the article if you can find independent secondary SIGCOV in reliable sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Redirect as suggested by Netherzone , for the reasons given there. There's no encyclopedic information. I'm not sure it's promotional , but its not a basis for an encyclopedia article DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Impact100 Sonoma

Impact100 Sonoma (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 wrote this Gpedia article when I first moved to the Sonoma area. Now, I think it might fail WP:NORG because it's only featured in localized press coverage.

Thoughts? Missvain (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)