Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Cecilia Ibeabuchi

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

Not quite at the threshold of meeting WP:GNG. run of the mill nurse that's got some coverage and participated in politics. Generally hyper-local in nature Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, Nigeria, and Massachusetts. Graywalls (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This person certainly does good work, but i can only find this [1], this [2]. We could maybe merge to the hospital or the clinic where they work, but I don't see enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Swierot

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

After defusing a couple WP:REFBOMBs, the notability of this young footballer didn't seem as clear. After a search, the most I found from third-party sources was this routine contract extension announcement and trivial mentions like 1. There is also a bit here, although it consists of quotes from the club's training center director. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and France. JTtheOG (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep :
- WP:FOOTYN :
- Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure.
- Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition.
- Swierot played for Lyon, winning the French Division 1 Championship in 2024, and with Reims. + UEFA Women's Under-17 Championship (which she won), UEFA Women's Under-19 Championship.
https://www.fff.fr/equipe-nationale/joueur/10490-swierot-julie/fiche.html

Third party sources

https://www.lunion.fr/id697342/article/2025-03-13/le-stade-de-reims-pourra-cette-fois-faire-jouer-julie-swierot-face-lolympique

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2024/08/02/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-une-saison-et-est-pretee-a-reims

https://www.leprogres.fr/sport/2023/08/01/le-futur-de-l-ol-feminin-c-est-elles

https://africafootunited.com/transfert-f-lequipe-feminine-du-stade-de-reims-signe-marion-haelewyn-et-trois-autres-joueuses/

https://www.lyonfoot.com/article/6634/ol-feminin-julie-swierot-prolonge-d-un-an-et-file-en-pret-a-reims

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/mercato-swierot-prolongee-par-lol-feminin-puis-pretee-a-reims,336445.html

https://www.olympique-et-lyonnais.com/ol-academie-dix-jeunes-joueuses-ont-obtenu-leur-baccalaureat,334629.html

And I wonder how people feel about a user specifically targeting another user after a disagreement. Harassment, stalking. ProudWatermelon (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all brief mentions or transfer reports, none of these are really helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Might meet notability requirements with the pro starts, but we need sourcing. Simply mentioning the person in a brief article less than a paragraph long isn't enough. I don't see sourcing we can use what's in the article is primary. The sources in the comment above are brief mentions or articles less than a paragraph long. It's likely TOOSOON for this young person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning Govvy and BeanieFan11. Barr Theo (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barr Theo. I see you are new to AfDs, and I'm sure this ping was done in good faith. Please note that you need to be very careful about pinging editors to a discussion. If it appears this is done to influence one side or another, it would be considered vote stacking. The active AfD participants will usually find their way to discussions they are interested in. If you need specific expertise, it is a good idea to explain why you are summoning that editor. E.g. because they speak a language used in the sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lolade Dosunmu Adeyemi

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

Likely fails WP Academics and ANY BIO. Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Medicine, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMICS or WP:GNG. Insufficient coverages found to establish notability of any sort. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Csilla Molnar (model)

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

Not to be confused with Csilla Molnár. No significant coverage for ANYBIO and doesn't qualify WP:NMODEL. Hmr (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Hmr (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Awesomecat713 (talk) 06:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Ratnayake

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

REDIRECT to Miss Universe Sri Lanka. Fails WP:GNG - the winner of a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT) however apart from that there is no evidence of any other significant achievements. Failed to place at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka fails WP:GNG for standalone article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türkan Atay

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

Weak sourcing, not enough significant coverage demonstrating she is notable as an entertainer or activist. Most of the coverage revolves around disputes over payment and defamation. Mooonswimmer 18:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, Internet, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very limited coverage. Most sources about her appear to be on a recent dispute: WP:NOTNEWS Aintabli (talk) 18:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marie-Rose Tessier

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

This is an article about a supercentenarian, the oldest living French person on earth. This might be controversial, but I think this article violates WP:OLDAGE; just because something or someone is old does not make them notable. Looking at this article, there are no claims to notability besides the fact that she is really old. Yes, there is coverage in WP:RS, but it is not sustained coverage, and it barely clears WP:SIGCOV. What do we think? I don't think that people should have wikipedia articles purely because they happen to be very old. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and France. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OLDAGE says that if there are reliable sources covering the topic then it might merit an article perhaps a source analysis is in order (i would do it but im not very confident about the accurary i would have in determing the sources) if the sources arent good then i will vote delete but i cant just vote delete based on it isnt notable because i think it isnt Scooby453w (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 26 April

2025 (UTC)

Weak Keep per the statement "the sources are good and reliable but I don't think it's notable" and the guideline (and i may be wrong) says "being old isn't inherently notable unless there are reliable sources that have SIGCOV" so I feel like barring a source analysis that discredits the sources I have to vote to keep though I might change my mind if someone has a more convincing argumentScooby453w (talk)

Sure, but the subject barely clears WP:SIGCOV and does not meet WP:SUSTAINED, as there is not sustained coverage; stores from a few years ago when she became the oldest person in France. The sources listed in the article are French genealogy/gerontology reviews and a French newspaper, Actu, which seems to be a French tabloid.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thats not entirely true https://actu.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-sables-d-olonne_85194/une-chasse-aux-oeufs-avec-marie-rose-105-ans_9393580.html https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/les-sables-dolonne-85100/les-sables-d-olonne-la-doyenne-de-la-ville-marie-rose-tessier-souffle-ses-109-bougies-6361771 https://www.ouest-france.fr/pays-de-la-loire/laval-53000/la-doyenne-des-pays-de-la-loire-a-110-ans-et-est-vendeenne-7132965 the oldest source dates back 10 years granted im not an expert in french sources so i dont know how reliable they are but it shows she's had coverage for atleast 10 years Scooby453w (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; for French sources I know that Le Monde is the newspaper of record and AFP is the wire service. Actu.fr doesn't look super reliable, wonder if any French wikipedians will pop in AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sure hope so then we could find out how reliable these are Scooby453w (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like actu.fr may be a reliable source went on French Google and it passes NewsGuard reliability standards. (Don't know much about how reliable Newsguard is.) Not sure about Ouest. Even still, I think this article would still violate WP:ROUTINE. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that could be true for most of the sources but i dont think anyone planned for her to become the oldest living french person im still on the fence with whether or not to keep Scooby453w (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting WP:ROUTINE as like the small updates at the end of news broadcasts like it says in the policy. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: apparently Newsguard lists MailOnline as a reliable source, casting doubt upon the actu rating. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good to know although I admit I'm confused as to wether this means it's reliable or not Scooby453w (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MailOnline was listed as a garbage source by Wikipedia in 2019; the fact that newguard thinks that it is a reliable source is a red flag imao AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep - "Just because it's old, that doesn't mean it's notable" - but she's not just any old person, she's the oldest French woman & the fourth oldest person in the world.Blackballnz (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make her notable. You can't be notable simply for being old; and even if we consider her notable enough, she doesn't pass WP:STANDALONE; why should she have her own page? There's nothing notable besides old age. If we consider the oldest person in France notable for simply being the oldest person in France, then we go down a rabbit hole of "well maybe there should be an article for the oldest people in every country? Every state and province? AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think You are misreading the old age essay it says being old doesnt make you AUTOMATICALLY notable unless there are reliable sources whicu youve alreayd admitted you think this page has i agree that being old doesnt make you automatically notable but i cant vote to delete when you admit you think the page has reliable sources in your ratoniale Scooby453w (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just WP:RS, and the reliability of the sources is questionable at the moment. Second, it can't be WP:MILL or WP:ROUTINE, which in my opinion it is, and it has to be WP:SUSTAINED in WP:RS, which I think it isn't. Finally, this article doesn't meet WP:STANDALONE requirements, as there isn't really an extra or insightful info that readers are learning that couldn't be learned in a minibio or sm on French supercentenarians, as states by the editor below. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Theres alot of guesswork and opinions in that argument though "in my opinion" "i think it isn't" i respect your opinion but i disagree with it also it doesn't matter what sites the source think is reliable as long as they don't use it for reference in the subject Scooby453w (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Typical longevity fanfluff article: fails WP:NOPAGE, WP:WHYN. Based largely on WP:PRIMARY sources such as GRG/Longeviquest. Content is basically "Born, married, had children, widowed, resided in a few places". Such limited coverage is sometimes included as a minibio in e.g. List of French supercentenarians. A stand-alone article is more likely to be justified if/when she becomes the world's oldest person in 2-3 years. 10:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment what makes them primary sources? Scooby453w (talk)

Rhian Sugden

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find anything about this woman other than the expected nude pictures and tabloid "journalism" detailing incredibly minor events. Does not meet WP:BIO. Previously changed to a redirect for the exact same reason, and nothing has changed since to make her more notable. Nomination for deletion since I simply do not think she's even notable enough for the redirect. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and England. CoconutOctopus talk 14:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Hard to find non-tabloid coverage, this [3] and this [4] helps. The multitude of Daily Mail or Sun coverage shows public knowledge of who she is. should at least be enough for a stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this one as well [5] Oaktree b (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- there is some decent coverage per @Oaktree b, but it only seems to be about a picture of her at a holocaust memorial, and a random scandal. Searching myself I can find many stories, but only about relatively minor details of her life, because she's a celebrity. She does seem to meet the general notability guideline of having coverage in multiple reliable sources, even if most of it is relatively pointless coverage of random details of her life. And she doesn't fall under "notable for only one event" because while 2 of the stories above not in tabloids are about the holocaust memorial incident, other articles are not about that. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, yes, she doesn't really need a WP article any more than she needs the random newspaper articles on tiny details of her life. But if Wikipedia is a repository of all human knowledge, some of it is going to be kind of pointless knowledge, I guess. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She was on a TV show in the UK, that likely ads to the notability. Details here [6], here [7], here [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in Ireland here [9]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Holocaust memorial "thing" is mentioned here [10], [11], these certainly all about her, but the event gained enough traction to show scholarly notice. That's something. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Grant

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

Subject's importance is solely in relation to Fistula Foundation. Subject does not meet notability in WP:BIO. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, United States of America, and California. 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 09:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- after looking a little bit her entire article seems to be about the foundation, other than a list of interviews of her. Searching, I can't find sources talking about her, and most of the sources in the article seem to be by her, non-significant, or interviews. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep admittedly this is my first time seeing this argument so I don't know if my interpretation of it was correct but one of the criteria for it seems to be " if the subjects role in the event isn't documented" and judging by the sourcing that doesn't seem to be the case multiple sources cover the controversy and some of them are years after it which seems to be lasting coverage. That said I'm new to this standard so if my analysis is wrong I'll change my vote Scooby453w (talk)

Jeanette Wilson

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

This is a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE following a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Looking through the sources, I just don't see the high quality we'd want for a BLP, with many sited to single news pieces. For a BLP with strong claims, I'd want to be able to resource from multiple news pieces, with no possibility of needing to rely heavily on a small number as this article does. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has been to BLPN three times:

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive298#Jeanette_Wilson (February 7, 2020)—raised by article's subject; brief discussion, including generally refuting a concern about sourcing
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive299#Jeanette_Wilson (February 24, 2020)—raised by article's subject; specific analysis of individual sources, finding many to be RS, including several in-depth, and some claim of notability, but that some of the article needed rewriting to correspond more closely to what the sources specifically support
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jeanette_Wilson (April 24, 2025)—raised by article's subject; the request that triggered this AFD

I have no idea if the article-editing discussed in #2 actually happened. DMacks (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Conspiracy theories, Paranormal, Spirituality, COVID-19, United Kingdom, and New Zealand. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 11 and 16 are listed as RS. I also see coverage here [12], [13], would seem to have enough for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm leaning delete as most of the sources are from a one year window (June 2019 to July 2020) acknowledging that a group of skeptics wanted to call attention to the subject. If kept the article should be written with WP:NPOV and condensed removing opinion pieces as sources of information, which I will add to my list WP:NOTADVOCACY. Nnev66 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article currently has 17 references of varying quality but the best of them are certainly adequate to establish notability. If there are actually factual errors as claimed at WP:BLPN, then the solution is to correct or remove that specific content. As for the dates of the references, they range from 2013 to 2023, and I do not see a clustering in one year to be a problem requiring deletion. I see the subject's request at BLPN as a form of reputation management and marketing her "services" would be easier for her if this article did not exist. Wikipedia: Fringe theories#Treatment of living persons should be our guiding light. The article should stay. Cullen328 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ IMO she does meet the GNG, but I see no reason not to honor this per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. We would not lose much. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind, keep, this is linked to by several other politics and NZ articles discounting templates, so this would be losing something. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It could do with some tidying up, but appears to have legitimate sources. I agree with Cullen328 that she would prefer this article was deleted for reputation management reasons.

Hester Leggatt

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

Subject does not appear to be majorly notable beyond inclusion in the musical Operation Mincemeat and the associated search. Majority of coverage of subject is coverage of the musical. Coverage of search for her identity is already covered in musical's article DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Military. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She is significantly talked about in Chapter 7 of Ben Macintyre's 2010 book Operation Mincemeat (full text) and there is a book coming out about her contributions in a few months [book page]. In addition, she has non-musical (or not-exclusively-musical) coverage about her war contributions here, here, and here. I think there is room for improvement in this article to better highlight the actual contributions to the war effort rather than just the musical-related research, but her notability itself follows wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG (two books with significant coverage of her life, multiple articles of the same). Engrigg22 (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The upcoming book appears to really be about the search for her (i.e. musical research) rather than about her specifically. Her real-life contributions are able to be covered under the page for Operation Mincemeat, and the research around her is already covered (but if necessary could be expanded upon) in the page for Operation Mincemeat (musical)

It appears to me to be a case of WP:1E without a large enough contribution to justify an entire standalone article. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if coverage of her also discusses the musical, the current sourcing and article is pretty good. Apparently she wrote the love letters. Sure, it's not critical we have an article on the woman who wrote the love letters, but it's interesting, well-sourced, and a pretty good article. Additionally per @Engrigg22 there is, in fact, significant coverage of her contributions outside of discussion of the musical.

Besides, read the bottom of the article -- an entire book focused on her specifically is set to be published in June (within a month from now). Is it worth deleting this just to recreate it in one month, when it is already a good and well-sourced article? This is not a case of WP:1E because there is a lot of coverage of her outside of just "she did a thing in this one specific event". Mrfoogles (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mrfoogles. The issue of whether decent article could be created is settled. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Vote for the delete as per nomination. Misopatam (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jane MacArthur

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

Nomination: Notability questioned. 3 of the sources are from own site. Promotional? ash (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what? We might say that these citations are WP:PRIMARY, and so do not count towards WP:N. But that's not an issue, there are plenty of other WP:RS here as well. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You seem to be cherry picking. I questioned her notability, period. The article discloses that she studied, she is the member of a few councils, she watched a space launch, she won a social media competition, and she may or may not write for a small magazine. How is this notable ash (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're changing the nomination? It's about you not seeing the WP:RS sources as adequate weight, rather than you wanting to discount the other primary sources. Any other nominations you're planning to use later? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, can I? Would you mind terribly if I bolded the first sentence? Or if I put a semi-colon instead of a full-stop after the word "site"? ash (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:NACADEMIC. The subject is a fellow of a major scholarly society (elected in 2012 to the Royal Astronomical Society, per this announcement ) which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. Best, Bridget (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NACADEMIC criteria are clear and undisputable. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Kochanová

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

Unable to uncover significant coverage of this individual from multiple independent sources. Results from searches generally yield results with little to no more detail than a name, such as [14] and [15]. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Slovakia. C 679 15:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - best I can find is this Q&A but it contains very little independent content and is from her tennis association, so not independent Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hawksworth

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

This Canadian-American sportscaster does not have enough significant coverage to meet the WP:GNG. She worked in a lot of markets (after WJLA, she stayed in radio in Washington and then went to BetQL), but the only article that was more than cursory was from the North Shore Outlook (hometown paper). I was left wanting when I searched for sources. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Television, Sports, and Canada. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arizona, and Washington, D.C.. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete like the nom I couldn't find any sources for the page that weren't primary and the sourcing already in the article isn't much better that said if someone can find a reliable source I may switch my vote Scooby453w (talk) 17:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV either in the article or elsewhere. I checked google and newspapers.com and didn't come up with anything significant that wasn't primary. Let'srun (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can't find any coverage either that would satisfy WP:BASIC. A WaPo article of subject joining WJLA as a sports anchor from CNN is all I could find that had some coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pippa Malmgren

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not a single piece of WP:SIGCOV in this BLP (a possible WP:VANITY BLP, I'm speculating [but don't know], based on the licensing of the Sears glamor shot in the infobox). A standard WP:BEFORE finds nothing either. WP:POLOUTCOMES does not presume notability for the minor post of special assistant. Fellows of the RSA -- the only other possible claim to WP:N -- are apparently self-nominated persons who pay a $100 registration fee [16]. Chetsford (talk) 06:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Economics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chetsford's read of the sourcing appears correct, and cuts well through the glut. My own WP:BEFORE did not yield more significant results. JFHJr (㊟) 04:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I looked for, did not find sigcov. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - just like Chetsford. You joined 8 years ago. Small world, huh...? Einheit947 (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is your obvious evidence of socking (per bellow), I suggest you try a little harder as (per their two xtools [17][18]) they have basically no similarity in editing topic and are clearly in different time zones. If you have any other inane speculation about other users you wish to post here, my recommendation is don't, and if you have any serious evidence raise it at the appropriate channels (i.e. not this AFD). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm also finding precious little WP:SIGCOV to show this meets WP:NBIO. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also open to a Redirect to Harald Malmgren as an WP:ATD Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Dr. Pippa Malmgren meets notability criteria per WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. She has significant, independent coverage in reputable sources, demonstrating sustained impact in economics, policy, and leadership.

- She was featured on Bloomberg’s *Merryn Talks Money* podcast discussing U.S.–China conflict risks ([Bloomberg, 2023](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2023-12-14/merryn-talks-money-avoiding-war-in-space-podcast)).

- Interviewed by *MoneyWeek* on interpreting everyday economic signals ([MoneyWeek, 2015](https://moneyweek.com/379100/dr-pippa-malmgren-how-to-read-the-signs-of-doom)).

- Regular contributor to CNBC and BBC programs such as *Newsnight* and *Hard Talk* ([Speakers Corner profile](https://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/keynote-speakers/pippa-malmgren)).

- Author of multiple published works:

- *Signals* (Grosvenor House, 2014)

- *Geopolitics for Investors* (CFA Institute, 2015)

- *The Leadership Lab* (Kogan Page, 2018), which won the Business Book of the Year Award ([FT article](https://www.ft.com/content/6dc2e2e0-3cb3-11e9-9bee-efab61506f44))

- Served as Special Assistant to President George W. Bush on the National Economic Council ([White House archives](https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/administration/Staff.html)).

- Named a World Economic Forum Global Leader for Tomorrow in 2000 ([MacroVoices podcast](https://www.macrovoices.com/podcasts-collection/macrovoices-hot-topic-podcasts/646-hot-topic-2-dr-hal-dr-pippa-malmgren-father-daughter-presidential-advisor-team)).

These sources provide significant coverage that is both independent and reliable. She clearly qualifies for a standalone article under Wikipedia notability guidelines. 64.98.74.238 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When we say significant, independent coverage in reputable sources we are not looking for interviews in or expert quotes given to reliable sources as these aren't coverage of the person. Publishing books (in and of its self) is not enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. The FT award is more interesting but your link doesn't work, and I can't find anything about it on the web. Much of the rest is covered by the nom already. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to ask if the above is AI generated (thus explaining the hallucinated FT link, broken incorrect formating and making points already discussed in nom)? GPTZero gives 100% chance of AI generated, but I guess I'll give you the chance to explain whether that's the case. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there lovely person. Don't think that's AI generated. Mostly because AI either gives me no links or correct but irrelevant links. Broken links are probably the result of a typo. Furthermore, the incorrect broken formatting if anything points to a fallible human rather than a machine.

Perhaps the reason why they're making points already discussed in nom is because the persons interested in this article's deletion give no credence to easily discernible and verifiable facts?

Btw - Leadership Lab did win Business Book of the year award: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/kogan-page-scoops-business-book-year-award-981931 CodenamePingu123 (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re the formatting it seems to be Reddit's formatting ([19]; even more so before I reformatted some of it) which could either be AI generated by somebody used to generating for reddit, a person writing whose used to reedit formatting or copied from a reddit comment. This is why I referenced GPTZero on the original comment, but as it isn't necessarily fool-proof I thought I would ask for confirmation from the person who posted it.

Re the award, I had misunderstood this as referring to the Financial Times Business Book of the Year Award which, as a very notable award, would have significantly contributed to her notability per WP:ANYBIO. Instead it's the much less notable Business Book Awards "Business Book of the Year award", which is much less likely to lend to notability unfortunately. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all should be aware that this article has been tangentially mentioned in various fora during an ongoing off wiki condonation campaign (e.g. [20], [21], [22]) so theirs a possibility of WP:CANVASSING to keep in mind here.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in this hour long talk show Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And another one: [23] Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we call for a block on "Chetsworth" pulling this crap, please...? It's pretty obvious someone's operating a sockpuppet account here, I have no idea what their problem is with the late Mr Malmgren, Pippa or Christopher Mellon for that matter - they hit him yesterday as well as Malmgren - I'm sure they're sticking to the strict letter of the law but these deletion calls really are bullshit.

I don't know what's pissing me off more at present - this person vandalising Wikipedia like this or this idiot making me actually agree with UFO nuts....

KEEP THE ARTICLE - QUIT PULLING THIS BS

If there are issues, correct them - stop with these pointless calls for deletion, this is obviously targeted and clearly done in service of some idiot sceptic group's addenda. I don't give the first shit what they're calling themselves this week - knock. it. on. the. head.

Do we have a label for that one...? Should we invest, do y'think...? Einheit947 (talk) 14:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is obviously targeted and clearly done in service of some idiot sceptic group's addenda I would recommend avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH (with zero evidence beyond you disliking that editors are holding these articles to actual standards). It does nothing to help demonstrate notability of this article to tilt at imaginary WP:CABALS. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to cast aspersions and make unfounded allegations against editors commenting here, I will be calling for a block against you. Please knock it off. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing much recent coverage about her.

WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 21:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – two articles with SIGCOV.
- Heller, Michele (May 24, 2001). "Adviser on Banking Gives Bush a Trader's-Eye View". American Banker. Vol. 166, no. 100. Gale A74983396.
- Barreras, Bryan (February 23, 2023). "Fund Finance Symposium Panel Recap: A Geopolitics Discussion With Pippa Malmgren". Mondaq Business Briefing. Gale A738241410.

Biography from Royal United Services Institute, can be used to fill in biographical details.

- "Dr Pippa Malmgren Biography". Royal United Services Institute.

Pippa Malmgren is often given credit for coining the term Shrinkflation

- Taş, Hilal; Boyacıoğlu, Ebru Z. (24 October 2024). "Shrinkflasyonun Tüketici Kararlarına Etkisinin Davranışsal İktisat Çerçevesinde İncelenmesi" [Examining the Effect of Shrinkflation on Consumer Decisions within the Framework of Behavioral Economics]. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi. 46 (2): 404–428. doi:10.14780/muiibd.1478148. ISSN 2587-2672.
- Wong, Wailin; Ma, Adrian (September 30, 2022). "The journey a number of econ terms recently went through to get into the dictionary". All Things Considered. NPR.
- Dodwell, David (18 October 2024). "Outside In | For Hong Kong's poorest, cheapflation hits harder than shrinkflation". South China Morning Post.

Business Book of the Year award

- Mansfield, Katie (April 3, 2019). "Kogan Page title scoops Business Book of the Year award". The Bookseller.

Journal article where she is significantly mentioned and referenced.

- Mathonniere, Julien (13 June 2023). "Guerre économique et multilatéralisme : un conflit majeur se dessine-t-il?". Revue Défense Nationale (in French). 861 (6): 145–153. doi:10.3917/rdna.861.0145.

And quite frankly, when I see snide comments being made about the subject of a BLP (Sears glamor shot in the infobox), it diminishes the credibility of the nomination, in my view, because it's certainly not described as such on the file information at commons. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the headshot is the first thing I noticed about the article, as an image that good is either self promo (which is fine by me if your releasing it under a free licence) or copyvio. It seems the former as the upload here is predates the upload by the subject to Flickr and was uploaded by user whose only other upload was logo of DPRM, the company she founded. With all that said, the account in question only ever made very minor edits to Malmgren's article. There's also the accounts: DRPMGroup, Dr Pippa Malmgren and Pippa Malmgren that have also made small edits. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These strike me as mostly incidental mentions that don't pass our WP:SIGCOV standard. Moreover, the word choice of an AfD is not a policy-based reason for Keep. Chetsford (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my last paragraph, I was just pointing out your word choice was an unnecessary and snide comment. My rationale for Keep was not based on your poor word choice, which is quite clear. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the American Banker article counts as SIGCOV, I'm not so convinced by the others. The Mondaq Business Briefing article, for instance, to me is a interview that struggles to offer independent coverage. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Isaidnoway's cited sigcov. As noted by others, much of the language of the deletion is problematic. Timing is worth mentioning: We all understand what it's like to fall down a wiki rabbit hole and try to improve multiple related articles. But the timing (which I truly believe to be an artifact for innocently of falling down a rabbit hole) does give the odious impression of retaliation for the 'sins of the father'. I don't believe that to be the case at all, but it does bear repeating that we'd never ever delete someone's bio because of something her father said. Feoffer (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than sufficient coverage in realiable sources, per Isaidnoway. And as an entirely separate matter, I would echo the concerns raised by others about this problematic nomination. I am myself an FRSA and I certainly didn't self-nominate. I don't think that in general, being an FRSA is sufficient for notability in Wikipedia but the implication that it's somehow questionable is unwarranted.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, God-king, never mind FRSA, howabout AGF. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 14:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect: I honestly don't think that you should participate in votes at all, Mr. Wales. Your public actions have a significant influence on how people decide here due to your popularity (your influence, specifically your comment here, is already part of discussions outside of Wikipedia), unintentionally causing a conflict of interest. Very hungry Yeti (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best advice: don't 'elevate' him to some superior role, addressing him as "Mr. Wales", as if he's somehow "above" you and I or has final control over wiki content -- he's never pretended to such a role! Feoffer (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is just as entitled to comment as you, me, or any other editor. Gronk Oz (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If he wants to, he should. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Upon further searching, I found another article with sigcov, in addition to the American Banker profile cited by Isaidnoway: Boulton, Layla (27 September 2017). "Silicon Valley is not the only route to success". Financial Times. Subtitled "Women in technology Two founders with contrasting motives blaze a trail." One of the two women profiled is Malmgren. Those two good sources, combined with the sheer amount of quotes of her as an economic expert suggest to me that she meets WP:NSCHOLAR#C7 through her popular influence if not scholarly impact, and quite possibly GNG as well, though I don't think it's as clear cut as other !voters are suggesting. For instance, FRSA has long been considered questionable as any indicator of notability at Afd. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I have with American Banker is it's a trade organ. As a generally accepted matter, while we do routinely accept trade media as RS, I can't recall a BLP ever hinging on business or trade press for N. Indeed, profiles in outlets like American Business Journals, AdAge, Pulp & Paper, etc. are generally classified as WP:ROUTINE in AFD discussions [24] for purposes of establishing N. Moreover, like most trade organs, American Banker routinely publishes advertorial and sponsored content [25] and -- without having access to the actual article on American Banker (as opposed to a Gale text archive) -- we have no idea if this is that. (I do, however, appreciate that this is a charged topic and want to be sensitive of individual proclivities related to this subject and hope this isn't taken as an indictment of anyone's fidelity here, but only as an open discussion point.) Chetsford (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can see what you're saying, but it is a bylined 1300 word profile. Also, the ad you linked really is quite clearly distinguishable from a news article, and as best I can tell isn't even indexed in the online American Banker database I am looking at (while the profile of Malmgren is). Most of the discussions I see in recent (<10 years) AfDs consider interviews/publications by the subject/routine coverage of companies. IMO this is quite different, but ymmv. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the same thing as you but it's definitely an edge case and I totally understand where you're coming from. Chetsford (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At EBSCO, it is listed as "Adviser on Banking Gives Bush a Trader's-Eye View. (cover story)"; 2 page article with a full text word count of 1444; with 1 color photograph, 2 black and white photographs. At ProQuest 249815310, it is listed as a "Feature" in the section "Washington", so I think it's safe to say it isn't sponsored or advertising content. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But a trade organ. Chetsford (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reddit appears to be canvassing this discussion so the closing admin should be aware of that. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

collapsed seemingly AI generated WP:WALLOFTEXT with seemingly hallucinated links. See also WP:LLMCIR and WP:LLMDISCLOSE Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Official Website — drpippamalmgren.com (Her direct professional website: her books, speeches, awards, past government roles.) 2. Forbes Contributor Page (archived) She used to write for Forbes about economics and global risk. 3. World Economic Forum (WEF) • She’s listed as a speaker at multiple Davos events. • Example: World Economic Forum 2019 Agenda Contributor 4. Financial Times / Bloomberg • She’s often quoted or featured in discussions about global financial risks. 5. Books Published She’s a published author (which is a big deal for Wikipedia notability): • Signals: How Everyday Signs Can Help Us Navigate the World’s Turbulent Economy (2016) • The Infinite Leader (2020, co-authored) • Geopolitics for Investors (2015) 6. Past U.S. Government Role • She served as a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy under George W. Bush. • This was at the National Economic Council (NEC) — pretty serious White House experience. 7. The Economist / The Spectator • She’s given interviews and written pieces for these major publications. 8. Award Recognition • Named a Leading Woman in Tech by We Are Tech Women (2019). • Recognized for her work on risk management and geopolitical strategy. 9. Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs) • She’s been involved in discussions and panels at Chatham House, one of the top think tanks globally.

Extra Interesting Fact • She’s very plugged into “Fourth Industrial Revolution” circles (AI, blockchain, digital currencies, etc.). • In early 2022, she made headlines predicting that a new global financial system would emerge from chaos — tied to crypto and programmable money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:a021:b9df:7565:fd7b:b83a:f7fc (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/pippa-malmgren

https://web.archive.org/web/20240126131022/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/pippa-malmgren

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/dr-pippa-malmgren/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220305100339/https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/expert/dr-pippa-malmgren/

https://www.ft.com/content/3b859f58-38e7-11e5-bbd1-b37bc06f590c

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/546122/signals-by-pippa-malmgren/

https://web.archive.org/web/20230130094308/https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/546122/signals-by-pippa-malmgren/

https://www.koganpage.com/product/the-infinite-leader-9781789665998

https://web.archive.org/web/20230130094459/https://www.koganpage.com/product/the-infinite-leader-9781789665998

https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://web.archive.org/web/20240101052124/https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-11-04/malmgren-says-china-wants-biden-to-win-video

https://web.archive.org/web/20240101052124/https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/research/foundation/2015/geopolitics-for-investors

https://www.ft.com/content/8dff78e4-9c24-11e9-b8ce-8b459ed04726

https://web.archive.org/web/20201105053035/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-11-04/malmgren-says-china-wants-biden-to-win-video

https://wearetechwomen.com/techwomen100-awards-winners-2019/

https://web.archive.org/web/20201216094804/https://wearetechwomen.com/techwomen100-awards-winners-2019/

https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/online-event-are-we-ready-next-global-crisis

https://web.archive.org/web/20230414183228/https://www.chathamhouse.org/events/all/online-event-are-we-ready-next-global-crisis

https://web.archive.org/web/20220425151218/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/former-white-house-advisor-predicts-193241639.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:a021:b9df:7565:fd7b:b83a:f7fc (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it is lovely that you seemingly copied and pasted the raw output of LLM chatbot response, most of these links don't exist and the only one that does (The penguin book) has nothing to do with the subject at hand. Even if these links did lead somewhere (as has been said already) WP:GNG/WP:NBIO requires more than being quoted in articles on other topics or else being at events/on panels. It requires in depth coverage in independent reliable sources, about the subject. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:23, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on canvassing. In addition to Cakelot1's note, it appears even some established Wikipedians have been directly contacted off-WP with exhortations related to this AfD (no direct links per WP:OUTING). I would suggest that, in the absence of the clearest and most unambiguous Delete/Keep determinations, the closer consider a No Consensus close on grounds of discussion spoilation. That will allow the discussion to be reopened fresh in a month or two. Chetsford (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources Isaidnoway posted, I'm somewhat troubled by the American Banker source. Any WP:SIGCOV must also be WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject to count towards notability, and much of the American Banker article is filled with what Malmgren has to say about herself, rather than an independent reporter writing that about her, and this gives me some pause. In other AfDs I have participated in (both biographies and companies) I have seen similar articles being dismissed as not being independent of the subject. The Mondaq article is an interview, clearly enough; the RUSI coverage looks fine, though I'll note my general scepticism towards sources by think tanks. The three shrinkflation sources are mentions without sigcov (and the NPR article is partly an interview of Malmgren), and so is the Bookseller article (and I don't think that a "Book of the Year" award would satisfy ANYBIO#1 anyways). The Financial Times source given by Eddie891 seems to be the best source at hand. This leaves arguments for NSCHOLAR#7 on which I am ambivalent, and overall I don't find myself entirely convinced that Malmgren passes WP:BASIC. On the other hand, I would be fine if the article is written on the basis of the RUSI, American Banker and Financial Times sources (the material would pass WP:V in such an article). A rather weak delete but I wouldn't object to the article being kept either.
For avoidance of doubt, I note that I have not been contacted by any of the people involved in the canvassing efforts mentioned above. Java Hurricane 06:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEPENDENT has nothing to do with how often a subject is quoted in the source. Profiles of this type often include extensive direct quotes to flavor the text with the subject's words. There's absolutely no reason to doubt it was authored by an "an independent reporter". Feoffer (talk) 12:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic is becoming increasingly relevant in the zeitgeist which makes it's nomination for deletion suspicious. Why would we remove a page that people are increasingly trying to find? The fact that the removal is controversial alone should be enough to keep it. We are not supposed to gatekeep or editorialize our content. This removal smells editorial. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=pippa%20malmgren&hl=en N1ywb (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We base our decisions on whether or not to have independent articles not on if something is in the zeitgeist (see WP:ITSPOPULAR), nor because editors think it important (WP:ITSIMPORTANT); nor because lots of people are searching on google for it (see WP:GOOGLEHITS). Nor do we void discussions because some editors think it's controversial (see WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT). We base the decisions on our existing Policies and guidelines, and in this case that seems to be a failing of WP:NOTABILITY. If you want to know why WP:N exists see WP:WHYN. I will also remind you that AFDs are not votes and keep/delete comments are weighted based on their basis in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well pointed. Not an editor issue, but a policy matter. There is clearly something wrong with the policies if it is allowing for such an absurd to be justified. Here is an opportunity for the editors to be the change and suggest the policies are reviewed. And question yourselves: How low are you willing to go because a policy tells you to ? 2405:6E00:2455:483D:6C47:75FF:FE79:ABAF (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an opportunity for the editors to be the change and suggest the policies are reviewed. Incorrect. An AfD discussion is not the forum for policy review. Notability has guidelines anyway, but there are policies as well. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is not the place for this discussion, so this will be my last reply. Not sure if you did not understand the point or don't want to... I will make it clearer: My point is that editors are justifying being obtuse and negating facts because of policies. Policies that won't change themselves. They are the ones that should see that and push, in the right forums, for the policies to be fixed. 2405:6E00:2455:483D:6C47:75FF:FE79:ABAF (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are good reasons for WP:GNG, most experienced editors know that and are likely to have no appetite to significantly change it. This is especially the case for [[[WP:BLPs]]. Generally editors advocating for change have little experience with Wikipedia and/or misunderstand it's purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a dearth of WP:SIGCOV sufficient to psas the high bar of WP:BLPSOURCES. Most of the sourcing is PR ('trade'), WP:PRIMARY and MENTIONs. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 13:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi's reasoning. If we are going off policy, there is not enough WP:RS WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still not convinced that she doesn't meet NSCHOLAR C7. She has been quite widely cited as an economic expert/commentator. Examples of articles based on her comments are Australian Financial Review (2016), The Irish Times (2013), The Australian (2020), Financial Times (2017), BBC (2016), The Times (2017). It is also definitely possible to write an encyclopedic and verifiable article on her; in addition to sources like the FT profile I linked above, we have a number of smaller articles chronicling things she did, i.e. [26]. I also don't think the American Banker article is the most amazing source ever, but I also really don't think it fully PR. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious keep. Probably should do something about user Chetsford and their sockpuppets that keep proposing these deletions. Suppafly (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
/sigh/... I'm assuming that I'm somehow one of the sockpuppets that "keep[s] proposing these deletions" since I PRODed Cordell Hull Institute (which you also created). And yet I'm voting Keep here. What do you make of that? Please drop the unsubstantiated aspersions, and focus on content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't actually thinking of you, and don't care about the cordell hull article, I don't think I even looked at the rfd after noticing that their site isn't active anymore. I will publicly apologize for casting aspersions though. This cabal of people proposing deletions for anything that the UFO crowd on reddit find interesting are quite annoying though. I think the UFO people are silly, but these anti-UFO people are worse and their dishonestly in these discussions are is downright harmful. Suppafly (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about WP:AGF is that it requires you to Assume good faith, which accusing a bunch of unrelated people of being in a cabal isn't. If you're incapable of making comments without imagining people who disagree with you being part a conspiracy, I would recommend you don't make said comments. AFDs are, after all, not a SOAPBOXs for you thoughts on other editors, but for discussion of the possible deletion of the article grounded in policy (something that I note, thus far in this discussion, you haven't done). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably should do something about user Chetsford and their sockpuppets that keep proposing these deletions." Suppafly -- for your benefit, and those of the canvassed legions, I'll grant myself the indulgence of one off-topic response to the accusations being made against me off-WP (some of which were mentioned on last night's edition of Coast to Coast AM [27]) and migrating here:

(a) I am not a sockpuppet,

(b) I do not edit Wikipedia 19 hours per day, 7 days per week [note I average 15 daily edits; using surveyed averages, that equates to about 45 minutes of daily editing],

(c) I am not being paid by the Skeptical Inquirer nor am I in any contact with Susan Gerlich,

(d) I am not a CIA asset, a government-controlled AI, and I was not involved in the JFK assassination; nor am I an agent of a breakaway civilization trying to suppress antigravitic technology,

(e) I do not work for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or Klaus Schwab; I am not a member of the Bilderberg Group nor am I a 33rd degree Mason

I am happy to address any other questions on my Talk page in order to keep this discussion on topic (the retention or deletion of this article). You can also request a sock/meatpuppet investigation at WP:SPI, an investigation as to whether or not I'm a Pleiadian at WP:AN, or an investigation as to if I'm a CIA plant at WP:DRR. All of these options provide you ample opportunity to freely raise your concerns outside of here, AfD. Chetsford (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ibtehal Abu Saad

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

WP:BLP1E Cabayi (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Microsoft#2020–present: Acquisitions, Xbox Series X/S, and Windows 11, last sentence about the 50th anniversary. I doubt that event is notable since it seems like ye regular burst of NotNews coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename -- this is an oversimplification of BLP1E. BLP1E requires three things for deletion -- first, the subject is known for only one thing, second, they are low-profile, third, the event is not significant or their role was not substantial. Her role was very clearly substantial. We can debate whether the event is significant, but given it got so much news coverage, I would say it is worth keeping. This article should be moved to a title like "Microsoft 50th anniversary disruptions", not deleted, to comply with BLP1E. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The event isn't that significant either per WP:ContinuedCoverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Nichols

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

Declined prod. No coverage to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relies on a single source, and has a large lack of information. Fails WP:BLP. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
100% honestly I expected to find a source for this article in my WP:BEFORE - it seemed very likely that there would be some kind of hit in a local paper - but nothing pops up on Google. The DE Wiki article sources don't fix this. Delete it is. FOARP (talk) 09:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A trivial mention here that is also primary (top of page 10). [28] But yes, there is a very surprising dearth of even the routine stuff you would expect. I wasn't going to !vote, as I would have been content to allow soft deletion, but then realised it is a declined PROD so that option is not available, so delete it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Australia at the 2004 Summer Olympics: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 12:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage of her in book 3 of 100 Australian sports stars of the 21st century [29] and this article from the Sydney Morning Herald from 1997 [30]. There may be coverage in an article in The Australian in 2004, but I can only see the first sentence [31]. There is biographical info in the SMH article which can be added to the article, and I'll see if I can find a copy of the book. There is also some info about her post-Olympics life in the book Be Your Own Boss [32], pages 68-73 - much of it is an interview, but there's an intro para with information, and it also gives details to use in searching (her degree in sports management, for example). RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Boudreaux

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

I've nominated this individual's nonprofit organization for AfD as well, however I think that the subject of this article itself is not notable either. I've searched the subject up - and it seems that a majority of the sources available are interviews (primary sources) or instances of WP:BLP1E (for their work with the Miracle Foundation, the nonprofit they started). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and United States of America. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG: 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4. Other profiles that I'm not as sure about: [33], [34]. These all offer significant coverage in reliable sources. A career is not one event. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the sources tell the same "origin story" so we are lacking enough beyond that to for this to be about her. I understand why NOM is calling this blp1e, although I don't think that's quite correct. It's as if the article for Zuckerberg only had sources that talked about the invention of FB in his college dorm, and nothing after that. The potentially significant UBS source fails - the link is to a general page and I find nothing under her name. Lamona (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with WP:BLP1E, and it seems that Caroline Boudreaux meets WP:NBASIC. What guideline are you referring to when you say the sources tell the same origin story? Hmr (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBASIC asks for "multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" ... I read that as saying that if they all have the same content, they are not intellectually independent. Also, none that I can find give much basic biographical information, nor information that covers the years that follow the founding of the organization (except two talks that aren't usable sources). I don't see that there is enough info for a stand-alone article. It may be possible to cover her in the article on the organization, if it meets basic. Lamona (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources provided by Eddie891 give WP:SIGCOV of the subject in reliable sources from different years (2007, 2015-16). They provide biographical details about the subject as well as information of the founding of the Miracle Foundation as well as details of how she advocates for orphans internationally. Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Lamona. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theodora Taylor

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

Not sure this meets WP:NATHLETE and I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for it. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy since the article is very new. These are the only decent sources I can find [35][36]. The second of those two isn't independent, since she was affiliated with Team GB for youth olympic festival. Subject is very young, I think it's likely they will meet WP:GNG and/or WP:NATHLETE in the future but today it seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Zzz plant (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. The article does not conform to WP:SPORTCRIT which is why I don't favor draftification. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable by WP:SPORTSBASIC 🌊PacificDepths^talk|contrib 04:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing appears to confer notability. Second choice, Draftify: this unsourced bullet list is not an article fit for mainspace. PamD 08:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom, the subject fails WP:NATHLETE, and the sources are sparse. It also fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:SPORTSBASIC. I agree that it's a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the article, as it stands, is not ready for the mainspace.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No WP:SIGCOV. Svartner (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Only able to find one secondary source (see Zzz plant's reply), which is not enough for notability. WP:MINORS also applies. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AS PER NOM. Lacks notrability as well as well as WP:TOOSOON WikiMentor01 (talk) 09:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with some of the other things that have been said. Also, she is only 15 so it's ridiculous for her to have an article this early since she also lacks notability. If she gives up swimming as an adult and becomes an accountant, this will not age well as an article. It needs a stronger foundation. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadagat Huseynova

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

Not notable person. Most references are hard to analyze. Not related and ambiguous citations and mostly not a single reason for a notability. Yousiphh (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yousiphh (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Azerbaijan. Shellwood (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Default Keep: Comment. I am reluctant to support such an ill-prepared nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or Draftify as references are primary or verify routine details like subject attended a conference. I cannot find any evidence of an academic track record, although if most of her papers are in Azerbaijani they might not be in ResearchGate or Google Scholar which only show five and two references respectively with minimal citations for the subject. I cannot find the subject in Orcid or Medline. I cannot find any evidence that the subject received the Taraggi Medal, which might be the basis for notability although I'm not familiar with this medal. If the editor who created the article wants to take it back to draft to verify details I'd be OK with that but as it stands article is not ready for the mainspace and fails notability. Nnev66 (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Chunga-Kutama

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Source #1 and #2 are dead links, source #3 does not appear to be reliable/no WP:SIGCOV, source #4 is relatively better and OK, source #5 is again no WP:SIGCOV, and sources #6-9 are either dead links, or aren't reliable. Also, a significant contributor to this article has a WP:COI (they are the subject themselves). WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, Africa, and South Africa. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the edit is myself. Rina Chunga, Its all factual RinaChunga (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is based on reliable and independent sourcing, see WP:IS. If you want to write about yourself, try LinkedIn or a blog. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RinaChunga: Kindly disclose that you are the subject of the article. Also Autobiography is strongly discourage on Wikipedia see WP:AUTOBIO. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:TOOSOON (if I am being extremely generous). Most of the mention comes from gossip publications and Fails WP:ANYBIO. Being on the Forbes list is not sufficient to meet notability especially as she is not on the 30 under 30 but on one of the 30 lists of 30 under 30 (900 people in total) and for the moment she has achieved nothing of note. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirthak Saha FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Bligh

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL and current sources do not help to qualify for WP:GNG. There are no sufficient independent sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject to establish the minimum GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, and Canada. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article could use some further expansion, but Vancouver is a global city of the type whose city councillors are presumed to pass WP:NPOL #2, and the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association — as I often point out in AFDs on municipal politicians, we need to see content about the person's political impact (specific things they did, specific effects their work had on the development of the city, etc.) rather than just "she exists and serves on the budget committee", and content already present and sourced in the article already fulfills exactly that higher test. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat As asked at Orr's AfD, NPOL does not cover municipal politicians or councillors whatsoever, was there a discussion somewhere that said councillors from "global cities" are presumptively notable under the same NPOL that doesn't give provisions for people of that status? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NPOL #2 ("local political figures") absolutely covers municipal councillors: mayors and city councillors are literally who that criterion was written for. It's also a longstanding consensus, upheld by hundreds or even thousands of past AFD discussions on councillors in cities like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, London, Paris or Berlin, that city councillors in global cities are much more likely to cross the notability bar than city councillors in non-global cities — the article does still have to be more than just "So-and-so is a city councillor who exists, the end", but city councillors in global cities are very routinely kept so long as the article contains some useful and properly sourced context above and beyond "person who exists", as this one already does. See also WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For records, I replied here as I prefer consolidating conversations. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For records, I said above that, direct quote, "the article already contains some content about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association". That, right on its face, is exactly the kind of content that NPOL #2 is looking for. In what sense is there a functional distinction to be drawn between "coverage about her" and "coverage about things she did in office", in order to claim that coverage about her role in the downfall of the Non-Partisan Association fails to contribute NPOL-building notability? Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable and passes WP:NPOL. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 23:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her notability is demonstrated by the coverage from independent, reliable sources present in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Shannon Durig

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

Doesn't seem to have enough sources with SIGCOV. I found this with sparse coverage, this with moderate coverage, and this. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Theatre, United States of America, and Kansas. LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a ton of coverage in the Kansas City Star, see [37], [38], [39]. I think that's one element of an ideal three to establish GNG. Will see if I can find dig up more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Daily News also published a two page spread upon her 1,000th performance. I'm still probably at a Weak delete, but maybe someone else will find a bit more coverage. Maybve there is a world where this could be redirected to the musical's article, but her name isn't really there in any substantial way right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Amos

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV, sources for notability are mostly not WP:INDEPENDENT. Three are articles from NASA, Amos's longtime employer; two are from LDS Church-owned outlets (Deseret News, Church News) shortly after she began her term as a mission president for the LDS Church; one is a deadlink to SpaceRef; and one is a local news article about luncheon at which Amos was among the attendees. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, Engineering, and Spaceflight. Jbt89 (talk) 06:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Improve - I feel like she might meet GNG. I added a few more sources which just support the positions she held at NASA. Jessamyn (my talk page) 18:05, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a profile of Amos and her spouse in The Advocate in 2020 and a brief one in the Salt Lake Tribune in 2021. I think we could use these to expound upon her activities as mission president. Best, Bridget (talk) ~~04:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)~~ 11:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mostly per the sources mentioned by Bridget but I also feel that the Desert News has enough editorial independence to contribute to notability in cases like this. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still undecided. The only source of length that I've found is from the BYU Idaho news about a talk she gave. Much of it is quotes from her talk so I think it should be considered similar to an interview. The other, from the Deseret News, is already in the WP article. I don't know if we can consider that latter "independent". Lamona (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comment on sourcing would be useful, keep !votes at present all prevaricate somewhat on the lack of strength and independence of sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Stokes

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Most cited sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT, a fact overlooked in the 2019 deletion discussion. Sources establishing notability consist of two articles from the Deseret News (Stokes sat on their editorial board, and one of the articles is announcing that fact), two human-interest stories from the Salt Lake Tribune (at the time they were written, party to a Joint Operating Agreement with the Deseret News [[40]] and operating out of the same building), and two interview transcripts on Mormon-themed blogs (possibly independent, but hardly WP:RS or WP:SIGCOV). Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. Jbt89 (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to your bias assessment of independent sources. While it is true the Deseret News should not be considered independent for this subject, the Salt Lake Tribune is a separate legal entity and there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that maintain its independent status. "Mormon-themed blogs" are also not an exclusionary source just as "baseball-themed blogs" would not be exclusionary to create interviews independent of Major League Baseball. I agree completely in efforts to require independent sourcing, but for a pioneering woman of color this article meets the requirements--and has already been reviewed as such in the past. Fullrabb (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Illinois, and Mississippi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:39, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deseret News. That is where Catherine M. Stokes redirects at present. Given that the original AfD did not note the lack of independence amongst the sources combined with the fact that a search of sources via the Chicago Public Library and at the State Archives revealed that contrary to one contributor's assertion, there is not in fact a substantial amount of content from her time in Illinois. The articles gave her the title of manager and assistant deputy director in the state's Office of Health Care Regulation. The lack of being listed in the Illinois Blue Book at any point makes me wonder if Deputy Director was her final title or if they rounded up in her editorial biography. There is a reason that Catherine M. Stokes redirects to the Deseret News. This should too.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am looking for sources and also for possible merge or redirect targets. There are several articles on African-Americans and the Mormon church - Black Mormons has a list of notable Black Mormons which includes several people whose articles are currently at AfD, so including them in that or another article in some way may be a useful ATD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Doan

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

~~I am the creator of this page. I have felt kinda guilty about this for a while because I think I did a terrible job at it. My reasons for deletion are as follows:~~

1. Most of the article is based on an web source from the Headbanging Moose, which I realise now is unverifiable/not an interview. In one recent search I found it was citing text from a Tumblr interview (alas that too was inaccessible). Either way; bad source, which makes up most of the article. Also, Hergirlrock and trishdoan.com are primary sources

2. Most of the reliable source coverage about Trish concerns her departure from the band in 2008, or her death in 2017. I feel both of these can be explained just as well in the Kittie band article or in other related articles (i.e. the documentary stuff)

3. When I made this page, I thought I was doing so primarily because I though Trish was an underrated bassist on Funeral for Yesterday and I wanted them to be known for other stuff outside of their struggles. In hindsight and in other words, I was trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I am kinda more accepting of the fact that shit things do happen to people. I recognise the feelings I had at the time (aka when this was made; 2023) reflected my life situation which I didn't think I had a way out of at the time, and as such my edits were kinda projections of that mentality. I'm in a better place now (in part thanks to Funeral for Yesterday, actually) but I still feel as though I failed. If I made things worse, I am sorry.

~~// Chchcheckit (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, South Korea, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kittie. Thanks to the nominator for being honest. Per Wikipedia's rules for the notability of band members, evidence is needed that Trish Doan accomplished additional notable things outside of Kittie, but that just didn't happen. Info on her early bands and day jobs are fan trivia but don't pass the notability test. On the other hand, her achievements within Kittie, and sadly her death and how it affected the band, are Kittie-specific and can be adequately described at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I lean more towards Redirect then: the point about how it affected the band is very much described on Fire (Kittie album) and Doan has mentions in two other album articles (FFY and I've Failed You) anyway. // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep well sourced article. If the page cannot be kept, it should be redirected to Kittie. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article should be kept in tact, so the page should not be deleted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
understood Chchcheckit (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't think deletion is an appropriate decision given the nominator's rationale, and I don't think merging the article is better than the status quo of keeping the article as it is because the rationale doesn't make sense. Paraphrasing but "I think this section can be covered in another article so we should get rid of the whole article" isn't convincing and doesn't make a clear connection to deletion policy. The sourcing seems mostly fine to me because most aren't unreliable and of course a niche musician is going to be covered mostly by outlets in their niche. Having reporting after certain events isn't a disqualifying factor at all either; I'm not sure what is meant by that. Yue🌙 06:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the sense that most of the text used to make the body of the article is based on unreliable sourcing so it's like Chchcheckit (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge with Kittie: In solidarity with the page creator, Chchcheckit. There are three sections individualizing Trish Doan from her band. "Early life" is based on two sources and both seem to be dubious (hergirlrock.com. and THE HEADBANGING MOOSE), especially as primary sources for this section. "Return to Kittie and Kittie.." is based on self-published source (robmccallumfilms.com) and has a nice but brief sentences on her depression. "Death" is the best section, but it would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death. Most of the information backed up by reliable sources can be merged with Kittie. LastJabberwocky (talk) 10:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "It would be sad article if 90% of it is about the subject's death" is NOT a good reason to delete the page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  which is not the point Chchcheckit (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  If a significant article can be written about the death, the page can still remain. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Then it is settled Chchcheckit (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it would be better to fix a problem rather than delete and run away from it. I realise I am being a fucking coward. // Chchcheckit (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cassidy (musician)

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

No apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising. The majority of the page is unsourced solo work. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, California, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There are bunch of independent sources on her with SIGCOV, but not all of them may be reliable. This, this, and this for SIGCOV. And these ones for individual claims: [41] and [42]. Only searched Google news. LastJabberwocky (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep while this article has enough sources to meet WP:BASIC, it's in desparate need of a re-write to remove promotional language and non-cited/non-verifiable content. Nnev66 (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this subject does not seem notable on her own, but maybe as part of Antigone Rising as an AtD. like so. I can't see any reliably sourced information here, but if there is it can be merged. Jdcooper (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV in this article: The Seattle Times (2005) and New Jersey Herald (2017). There are other RS's that have only a paragraph or few sentences that I believe also contribute to notability. I acknowledge it's a close call but there is reliably sourced information in the article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The Seattle Times article is about Antigone Rising again, and the NJ Herald is a fluffy interview piece about a local musician which includes the text: "Arguably, Cassidy's biggest moment of fame so far came in the early- to mid-2000s when she was doing 250 shows a year with Antigone Rising." I still don't see any sigcov, or indeed notability, outside the band. Jdcooper (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct that this person has had "no apparent notability outside of the band Antigone Rising," and there is a reliably-sourced information here. Specific concerns should be listed and the opportunity for added citations and/or editing should be allowed. Whiplashmash (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roshena Campbell

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

Unelected candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. All sources currently pertain to her candidacy in the 2023 Aston by-election where she was unsuccessful. Sources relating to her local government role do not provide significant coverage. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Politics, and Australia. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Melbourne is a big city. Its council members are likely to be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the Lord Mayor but other than that, no other local government members have inherit notability (in my opinion). GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only is the Deputy Lord Mayor of Australia's largest city an inherently notable position, but contrary to the claim in the nomination it's also an elected one, which she won in 2024: we even have an article about it at 2024 Melbourne City Council election. She was previously also elected to the council in 2020 and that election, too, is notable enough to have an article: 2020 Melbourne City Council election. Last but not least, it's trivial to find WP:RS that do not involve the 2023 by-election, and here's a selection:

Jpatokal (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Wikipedia:POLOUTCOMES, mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". While she is not Lord Mayor, she is a citywide elected official as Deputy Lord Mayor and ran on a ticket with the incumbent Lord Mayor. The City of Melbourne (population 149,000) is a regionally significant city. That fact, combined with the coverage shown by Jpatoka, tells me that the subject LIKELY warrants an individual article depending on the specifics of the position (i.e. powers/responsibilities). I would need to know these before voting. If this were purely a city councilor who ran in a by-election, I would be a delete vote, so I'm really staking this on citywide officeholder with a real job in regionally significant city who has the coverage Jpatoka has identified.--Mpen320 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For context, since Australian municipal structures are a bit odd: the lowercase-c city of Melbourne is Australia's largest, with over 5.2 million people scattered across 31 "local government areas" (LGA). The uppercase-c City of Melbourne is the LGA covering the entire city center, and while the population living within the LGA is relatively low, its Lord Mayor & council wields outsize influence because they directly control zoning etc for all the largest businesses, restaurants, nightlife, transport hubs etc etc, and they're also the closest thing there is to a leader of the entire city.

As a rough US analogy, it would be like if New York City didn't have a single mayor, but instead had a "Mayor of Manhattan", and there were 30 other boroughs, not 4. Jpatokal (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: As far as I am aware from doing a bit of research the deputy Lord Mayor has the same power/responsibilities as a regular council expect they sub in for the Lord Mayor when they are away. For a bit of context, these are some of the sources available for the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney [43]. GMH Melbourne (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this to be closer to an edge case than the AfD nominator. I appreciate User:GMH Melbourne's follow-up descriptor and relation to NYC. I will note that Mark Levine and the other four Borough presidents do have articles, BUT the least populous borough (Staten Island) has 495,747 residents. Prior to reading the reply, I did find the statutory powers given to Deputy Mayors in Local Government Act of 2020 via the Australasian Legal Information Institute. The Deputy Mayor role seems like an at-large city council member a role whose holder is neither presumed or not presumed to warrant an individual article. Once election coverage is removed from citations and what is offered in the AfD (which is about the elections for which we have the articles 2024 Melbourne City Council election and 2023 Aston by-election respectively, not the candidates themselves), there is one local profile in which the subject provides a substantial amount of content, failing the independent of the subject criterion in GNG. I see us in WP:TOOSOON territory for Campbell. I do not think this nomination, if a deletion is found to be appropriate, this AfD should be used in the event of a recreation down the line if/when facts on the ground change.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your line of argumentation is absurd. Campbell is a notable career politician who has been successfully elected twice, contested a nationally notable by-election once, and was covered by national media even before all this. You can't just wave a magic wand and say she's not notable if you ignore all the sources about four separate elections across five years, aka her political career. Jpatokal (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elections by and large (particularly national government by-elections) are notable events. Participants in notable events (i.e. the candidates) are not necessarily notable for participating nor does coverage of their actions in such events make them notable except for unique circumstances (Christine O'Donnell or Pro-Life (born Marvin Thomas Richardson) in the U.S.) I know Australian equivalents were discussed in the discussion on Wikipedia Talk that you started. I explicitly do not discount an individual article in the future even without WP:NPOL in my determination as your assertion above, that an elected official's political career is getting elected is false. Presumably, if this is the unique circumstance where a local elected official warrants a stand alone article, they would have done things in office other than participate in elections that would be part of their career.
I understand the nominator did not realize the subject was elected to office, but it is not an office that passes WP:NPOL so you need independent coverage. Bullet point #2 is largely quoting the person and thus is not independent of the subject. How would I know that if I ignored it? I have been in multiple AfDs in which you point to the quantity of sources. Quantity is part of WP:GNG, but it is not its totality nor do other considerations such as WP:NOPAGE fly out the window.
You note in your !keepvote Melbourne is the largest city in Australia. She is not the Deputy Mayor of ALL of what can be called Melbourne, just the City of Melbourne as a local government area. Wikipedia's list of local government areas by population notes the City of Melbourne as the 33rd most populous LGA in Australia. The City of Casey is the largest LGA in Victoria. The size of the jurisdiction is not getting you over the top here.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained above, the Australian cities do not work like American cities. The City of Melbourne is far more important than any of the random suburban sprawl LGAs like Casey, and is responsible for things like defining the vision and goals of the entire metropolitan area. This pattern is consistent across Australian cities: Sydney's suburban City of Blacktown (#4 in Australia) is nearly twice the population of the City of Sydney, but Blacktown's mayor is not notable enough to warrant an article, while the office of the Deputy Lord Mayor of Sydney has its own article. Jpatokal (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, I actually do consider what you write in discussions. Did you miss that in addition to asking, I also looked up the statutory powers of the position? I think my past contributions demonstrate not only a strong interest in the subject matter of government and politics, but also the means to research and understand topics. Finally, I have no doubt that the City of Melbourne is more important than Casey. I was replying to the argument made of size, not an argument of prominence. It is Easter weekend so I will be taking a break and letting this AfD play out.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - elected deputy mayor of a regionally important city probably passes NPOL. The rule that unelected candidates don't get articles only applies when they lose election. She won. She lost a different election. Many successful, notable politicians will sometimes lose election. Are we going to delete Franklin D. Roosevelt because he lost election as Vice President? Bearian (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The election she lost was a Federal seat. The election she won is a local councillor which isn’t notable under WP:NPOL. GMH Melbourne (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL. Being the unelected deputy mayor of a city of 150,000 isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect: it's an elected position and she has been elected to it twice. And as explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. Jpatokal (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell hasn't been elected deputy mayor twice. She has only been deputy mayor since 2024. And even then she wasn't elected directly, she only got the position by riding on the coat tails of incumbent mayor Nick Reece. In the 2020 election she ran as a candidate as an ordinary councillor and received only 58 votes - she only became a councillor because of the votes received by the ticket she was a part of.

If Campbell is the deputy mayor of "a metropolis of 5 million people", then how come only 137,000 people were eligible to vote in the election you claim she was elected at? Is Melbourne stuck in the 19th century where only a tiny fraction of its adult population are eligible to vote? Claiming that Campbell is deputy mayor of Melbourne is like saying that Alastair King is the mayor of London. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As explained above, the City of Melbourne is not a "city of 150,000", but the core of a metropolis of 5 million people. A closer equivalence would be the Greater London Authority, although no such body exists in Melbourne. Per The Age, "The lord mayor presides over the Melbourne City Council and is the city's first citizen. Because of the central city's powerful symbolic role, the lord mayor can expect more public attention than the mayor of any surrounding metropolitan or Victorian provincial city. The lord mayor speaks for Melbourne." And remember, notability is not judged on legal powers, but how well they are known. Jpatokal (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell is not the deputy mayor of Greater Melbourne, she is the mayor of the City of Melbourne. These are not the same thing, and therefore the original comment about the population being around 150,000 is not incorrect. Greater Melbourne comprises of 31 Local Government Areas, The City of Melbourne being just one of them. So being the so-called "core" of 5 million people makes no sense. Viatori (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Greater Melbourne is not a legal entity, the Lord Mayor of the City of Melbourne serves as the city's de facto leader. Jpatokal (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the Lord Mayor of Member (nor the Deputy Lord Mayor) has ever exercised power that affected anything outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries. Nor have they represented anywhere outside of the City of Melbourne LGA's boundaries at functions, events, etc. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The population of the City of Melbourne was 149,615 at the 2021 census. Please stop saying it has population of 5 million. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I don't think the article should be deleted, and I think the subject has sufficient notability, but it seems the consensus is that Australian deputy mayor pages should be deleted and even I don't agree with the other keep arguments here. Viatori (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we have clear consensus from previous AFDs that merely having coverage about being a federal/state political candidate or being a local councillor does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. TarnishedPath^talk 12:14, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaye Tuckerman

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

Non-notable. AI generated and at least some refs are fake. Polygnotus (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and can we just find some way to speedy these. Btw Polygnotus thanks for the heads up re. ANI, although the guy was blocked by the time I got there :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 18:09, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR as there is only one notable role with some reviews. Redirect to Mamma Mia! (musical)#productions. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of coverage in digitised newspapers about her from her time in Mamma Mia from 2010-2012, certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. She probably also meets WP:NACTOR / WP:CREATIVE with her other performances and her nomination for the Africa Movie Academy Awards for design work on From a Whisper. I'll add sources to the article (and check out the existing ones). No, please let's not Speedy Delete articles like this - there is clear indication of notability in the text of this article; the refs could be improved, but that's the case with lots of WP articles, and is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen Are you basing your !vote on the fake information in the article? I looked at your contributions and the last 7 edits are keep votes for AfDs? It looks like you believe that the article is fine but the refs need to be improved, but in reality the refs are fake and fail verification. She clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. You could quibble about WP:NACTOR, but only because those standards are so much lower which is unfair and should be fixed. In any case, per WP:CONLEVEL such an WP:SNG cannot overrule WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm basing my Keep !vote on what I can see in digitised newspapers (which are also available to WP editors through the Wikipedia Library). If you have looked at my contributions, you will have seen that I put a kot of time and effort into improving articles at AfD, and as I said, I will add sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended WP:OFFTOPIC back and forth

@RebeccaGreen Hm, OK, it was just a bit weird to see 7 keep !votes in a row. I think I am more deletionist than you are. With BLPs I am always extra careful because a bad BLP can be far more harmful than a bad article about a Pokemon. I checked the Wikipedia Library (9 results for their name between doublequotes) and I don't see any sources that can be used (a name in a list is not WP:INDEPTH). Do you have access to the source I mentioned on the talkpage? Polygnotus (talk) 23:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
7 Keep !votes at 20-40 minute intervals - during which I searched for sources. I don't just !vote without checking, and if I don't find much or anything in theway of sources,I !vote delete, redirect or merge. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen You are at 71.2% keep and I am at 87.0% delete Probably because we use AfD for different purposes; I use it to get rid of the trash while you perhaps use it to find things worth saving. Both are valid. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus:, I don't think attempting to discredit someone's vote based on anything OTHER than the merit of their contention is appropriate. Their keep/delete ration or how fast they voted does not discount their !vote.--CNMall41 (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Agreed, and I didn't. As I said, I just happened to notice it and it was remarkable enough to remark upon. In the future, please be more careful before writing something like that, because implying that someone did something they clearly did not is not appropriate, especially in the context of potential false allegations of bad intentions without evidence. Polygnotus (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am very careful and I wrote exactly what I meant. While veiled, you asking if they based their vote on fake information was insinuating they lacked competence. You then proceeded to discuss their voting history instead of their contention. I do not agree with the !keep vote, but they are allowed to have it. You are free to address their contention, but saying things like "it's just weird" then sharing someone's AfD stats is about conduct, not content. If you have issue with my comment, please address at WP:ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to run to ANI every time someone makes a mistake. ANI is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. You just made a mistake. I can just point it out and move on. Polygnotus (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake was made. I stand behind what I said 100%. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is allowed. I can explain something but I cannot understand it for you. Polygnotus (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinions are divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was rewritten but many of the sources used do not support the claims made in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 05:17, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have edited the article, adding sources and info. I clipped the sources from Newspapers.com, so I hope they will be visible to editors who don't have a subscription. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In a 3-decade career, this person has done one national tour, one ensemble role on Broadway, and a few short-running local productions, mostly in smaller parts. Her film career is even less impressive (being nominated for one local design award for a foreign art film does not make someone notable as a designer). Even though she got some press over the decades in local newspapers, she is a pretty WP:MILL actor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, she also played named roles in Summer: The Donna Summer Musical on Broadway, as well as playing roles in several other musicals around Australia and in Shanghai, and in cabaret in New York and Miami. I don't think a major role in a two-year tour of Mamma Mia! (musical) in the US and Canada is run-of-the-mill - it is in fact criterion 4 of WP:MUSICBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Nicolaïdis

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

She ought to be notable but a BEFORE search is only returning material BY her, not ABOUT her. Tagged for a lack of sources for 8 years already. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, France, and Greece. Cabayi (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's well-known in my discipline of International Relations, and her works have over 10,000 citations on Scholar. I would say it's not uncommon that academics have plenty of output and notability in their field without much coverage about them as a person. Completely agree that the article needs more sourcing, of course - but that feels like a better avenue than deletion.

— Arcaist ^(contr ^—talk) 22:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think her citation record is good enough for WP:PROF#C1, but I also found quite a few published reviews, of one coauthored book (The Greco-German Affair in the Euro Crisis, [44]) and several co-edited volumes (The Greek Paradox, [45], [46]; European Stories, [47], [48], [49]; The Federal Vision, [50], [51]; Echoes of Empire, [52], [53]; Strategic Trends in Services, [54]; In the Long Shadow of Europe, [55]). Because they are mostly not authored books I think this only makes a weak case for WP:AUTHOR but there are enough of them to make the case. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article violate copy right rules. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Kalypso+Nicola%C3%AFdis&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citations look to meet WP:NPROF C1; reviews of edited volume further support impact for this criterion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tian Boothe

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

Not a notable person. A lot of the sources are press releases and blogs, and the reliability of AllHipHop, although listed on WP:A/S based on one comment in 2008, has been questioned multiple times.[56][57][58] The article creator appears to have a history of creating articles with COI and paid editing issues. Frost 13:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Jamaica. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:18, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Svartner (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been significantly expanded since the last "delete" !vote. Thoughts on the expansion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep: There a enough sources (most of them seem good), and most importantly sources support her documentary film "You Should Never Tell", awards, and three singles. "musicianwages" doesn't look good. My only concern, does she have enough coverage, or is it WP:TOOSOON, because, in to her personal life, her career feels sparse? LastJabberwocky (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LastJabberwocky In response to "most of them seem good", I encourage you to look at the source assessment table I've made below. Toadspike [Talk] 16:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I mostly banked on the cyprus and euroweek sources, but you right they are just fancy interviews; and interviews don't count towards notability. Haven't yet analysed this kind of journalism. —LastJabberwocky (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – none of the sources cited in the article meet the standards of the GNG of being independent, reliable, significant coverage. I've been having fun with the Source Assessment Table Generator, see my full analysis below. Toadspike [Talk] 16:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://euroweeklynews.com/2021/08/05/film-director-tian-boothe-shares-insights-how-theater-closures-impact-indie-filmmakers/	The article seems to be written by Boothe herself. There is also no byline, so I highly doubt this is independent.		~	✘ No
https://augustafreepress.com/news/tian-boothe-on-writing-e-r-emotional-release-by-melodic-storytelling/	This is written by a "contributor", so it is obviously a paid piece. The tone isn't neutral, either.			✘ No
https://allhiphop.com/music/premiere-alert-tian-boothe-dazzles-us-with-cp-original/	No byline, so I doubt this is independent.			? Unknown
https://indiewrapmag.com/film/film-director-tian-boothe-releases-shattered-dream-remastered-during-production-of-e-r-emotional-release/	No byline and extremely promotional tone indicate this is not independent.			✘ No
https://celebmix.com/celebmix-exclusive-q-a-tian-boothe-plus-new-release-cp-original/	~ This is an interview, so all the parts where she is talking about herself are not independent. This doesn't leave much in the way of sigcov.			✘ No
https://filmdaily.co/craft/tian-boothe/		Unreliable (user-generated) per this RSN discussion: [59]		✘ No
https://screencraft.org/blog/2023-screencraft-true-story-public-domain-competition-semifinalists/			Nothing more than a row in a table.	✘ No
https://thebridgemag.com/director-producer-and-musician-tian-boothe-re-releases-shattered-dream/	An interview, so not independent. The biography at the start, completely out of proportion to the vanishingly short interview, seems extremely similar to those in the paid pieces, so I'm fairly certain it came straight from the subject too.		Only the first two paragraphs are potentially independent; I don't think that's enough to call sigcov.	✘ No
https://raptology.com/2024/05/16/tian-boothes-new-single-cp-original/?noamp=available			This is yet another promotional piece consisting entirely of quotes from the subject or a "review" that's obviously promotional.	✘ No
https://www.musicianwages.com/the-meaning-behind-the-song-shattered-dream-by-tian-boothe/		Obviously AI-generated. Just look at "has not won any awards yet".		✘ No
https://thebridgemag.com/tian-boothe-renaissance-woman/	~ Another interview.		I count three sentences of information in the biography that is not meaningless filler. Not sigcov.	✘ No
https://cyprus-mail.com/2021/08/04/indie-uprising-tian-boothe-shares-how-independent-film-industry-is-gaining-traction	This is an opinion piece written by Boothe, so not independent. It also		It has a grand total of one sentence actually about Boothe.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Amy Hall

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

While her works are somewhat notable, her herself isn't exactly, failing WP:GNG. It's a stub, I get it, but there's so little information on here and almost nothing on Google. We don't even know if she's alive or not. KrystalInfernus (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: She doesn't have any works of her own. She is an actress who has appeared in some notable stage works, but the article does not say what roles she played. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well... if there are reviews of her performances in these works then that would count towards notability per the first criteria. Of course that would require sourcing - I'll see what I can find. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding coverage of her stage performances. Her movie/film roles are pretty much minor and background characters. Offhand, given some of the reviews of her stage performances thus far, she might prefer the article get deleted rather than have a summary of what they've been saying. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards a keep here so far - she's been in some notable performances and has gotten mention to varying degrees. She doesn't seem to have met with any overwhelming success, but there's enough so far that she could probably pass criteria 1 of NACTOR. I will try to keep digging, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:RSs have you found? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've found multiple reviews of plays she's been in. The ones I'm using to count towards notability are the ones that specifically mention her within the body of the review. For example, Reuters, The Spectator, and The Guardian all call her out by name in reviews for Present Laughter and Hall received additional attention from The Guardian for We That Are Left. Her performances were also reviewed by the British Theater Guide, which looks usable - I've seen where it's been used as a RS in academic/scholarly texts published by De Gruyter, Palgrave Macmillan, Taylor & Francis, and so on. There was also a review by the Oldham Evening Chronicle, but that's not as high profile as the others. There was a paywalled review for The Doctor's Dilemma by The Stage. I can't tell if she was mentioned in that or not, so I'm not entirely counting that one.

Reviews for an actor's work can count towards notability for them and have traditionally qualified under criteria 1 of NACTOR. So on that note, I'm arguing for a keep. She's not some overwhelmingly notable stage actor, but she's also not some random who acts in the chorus or only has a single line role. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think that the "reviews" mentioned can get us to GNG. She is mentioned in sources that review the plays, but, for example, the Reuters piece only says this about her performance: Hall is a bit too gushy as Daphne. The guardian has a few more words: Paul Woodson and Amy Hall give lovely unaffected performances as the youngsters trembling on the brink of an uncertain future. but that's all it says about her acting. The British Theatre Guide has one sentence about her character's place in the plot, but says nothing about her performance: The opening scenes show a star struck ingénue, played by Amy Hall, the morning after falling head over heels in love and into bed with our hero. A description of the character is not a review of the actor if nothing is said about the acting. I don't understand these brief mentions to be "significant coverage". Lamona (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I would say she just meets WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in Present Laughter at the National Theatre, London; Blithe Spirit at the Oldham Coliseum Theatre; and in The Shape of Things and The Turn of the Screw at Neath (which I have added to the article). I have not been able to find more roles - part of the problem may be that when she might be expected to have roles and reviews, in the 10 years from 2008/09, there are quite a few publications which were not published digitally and have not yet been digitised (The Stage, for instance, on the British Newspaper Archive, goes up to 2007). I have found an actress called Amy Hall appearing in York in the 2020s (eg [60]) - but is that the same Amy Hall? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some WP:NOTABILITY in the name itself. Upon researching further, the subject is indeed notable with several acting works throughout her career. There might be a need for copyedit and rewriting the article as the intro itself is just a few words in a line.

For actors, we don't have specific described sources but more like sources that give their names

There shall be reliable sources that further strengthens reliability and notability but every outlet is reliable unless COI or considered unreliable

The Guardian, The BBC, The Hollywood reporter, Variety and more are some of the reliable sources already added here

Thus, improving the article is a sure need here including one parameter other than name Infobox but subject itself is notable enough. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lamona. There are reliable sources here, but not significant coverage. The ones that discuss her for more than one sentence are Wales Online (2 sentences), Reuters (2 sentences, if you include one about her character), and a BBC interview (which isn't independent of the subject). hinnk (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Smruthi K

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

Anybody who checks the first two links, they are YouTube interviews from sources that are listed unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources (both Indiaglitz and Behindwoods). The third source is a just a short film link.

Also, she is very low-key, dubbing for films in not the original language such as K.G.F 2 (non Kannada/Hindi version) and Petta (non Tamil version). She only seems to dub in Tamil original versions for Raashii Khanna.

A quick WP:BEFORE yields nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. The subject of this article is not notable, so it doesn't seem like this article can be improved in any way.

WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 02:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Voice actors can certainly be notable per WP:NACTOR if they have had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has voiced lead roles for many notable films, in a variety of languages. The main issue seems to me to be finding reliable sources to verify that she has voiced those roles. The sources currently in the article are not reliable or independent. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for sourcing to be identified (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Domani

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

not notable actress, not meeting WP:ACTOR, Anybio. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. OatPancake (talk) 13:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets Wp: NACTRESS. Can be improved and sourced with sources from corresponding article in Indonesian (and pages about the numerous productions she had significant roles in from the same Wikipedia), for example; the same goes for the awards she won or was nominated for. -Mushy Yank. 19:45, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User talk:Mushy Yank, you'll have to actually produce some evidence and sources here. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Again, I am directing you and others to the Wikipedia article in Indonesian. And so is Kentuckyfriedtucker. This page-and some sources- are two clicks away; you click on the title on top of this page and then on one of the 3 links under Languages. You’ll find some sources. You also have a page in Telugu and one in Malay but with less sources. Through those pages you can explore pages about her roles in notable productions, with sources. Mostly in Indonesian. Or you can do a BEFORE if you don’t like that method. Plenty of bylined articles in Google news about her, some significant, some ”people”-oriented (she might even meet WP: GNG, for all I know but it allows to verify the roles and their significance-it will take you muuuch more time, though) No evidence the nom has done a WP:BEFORE, btw. Ask them -and the user who refers their !vote to their rationale- what they found. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 10:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Tiny detail: I am a bit busy and will probably leave it at that but if you want me to know you replied to a comment I made and respond [which seemed to be the case], please either ping me or leave me a message (or mention my user name; a link to the user's tak page does not create a notification, as far as I know; at least, I did not receive any). -Mushy Yank. 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OatPancake: did you review available sources at all? MarioGom (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are two correlating language entries available where references could be pulled from.--Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Kentuckyfriedtucker, I'm not sure what that means. Please show/link/produce the reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  See above. WP:NEXIST indeed states that "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." (emphasis mine) but that's not the case here: Kentuckyfriedtucker and I clearly indicated where you could find the sources and what method to follow to check whether this actress meets the applicable guideline. As a token of good will (although even D !voters could do it too and nominators SHOULD do a BEFORE and indicate what they found and why they think it is not enough in their opinion), I have added a few sources and links to help navigation and facilitate verification of the importance of her roles in notable productions. But you will also note that the nominator did not address MarioGom's very valid concern. Again, thank you for your time and concern. -Mushy Yank. 12:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am referring to these pages:
    
    Megan Domani
    
    Megan Domani
    
    Megan Domani
    
    My mistake. There are actually three language pages. -- Kentuckyfriedtucker (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. DarkHorseHayhem (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[but, again, her significant roles (including lead roles) in notable productions can be checked through corresponding WP Indonesian pages].[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Showing these sources and explaining why they meet or do not meet notability criteria would be helpful. Complaining that the nom did not do a WP:BEFORE check is not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having a look at the page's recent history before writing your relisting comment would have be a good idea, maybe?@Asilvering I had indeed added quite a few sources, and the AfD-changed template and my comment indicate that quite clearly. Nothing says to "show" the sources both at the AfD and in the article. If such a requirement existed, it would be purely vexatious and extremely bureaucratic. Another user and I also indicated where and how you could find sources and check the notability of this actress, if you didn't want to open the article or do a BEFORE for some reason. I indicated the nominator had apparently made no effort to check existing sources (and had not replied to another user's inquiry about that), whereas they should have and I consider it is a relevant and helfpful comment, in particular given the fact that another user bases their 2-word !vote on the nom's rationale. I also clearly indicated why I believe the actress meets WP:NACTRESS and even probably WP:GNG. So that I am very sorry to say that I very much disagree with the implications of your relisting comment, and pretty much everything in it, to be honest. -Mushy Yank. 12:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be extremely helpful for both AfD closers and other AfD participants if you would spend more time demonstrating and discussing sources in AfDs and less time trying to pick a fight with every other editor responding to them. -- asilvering (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What an unhelpful, inappropriate and unfair comment....SOURCES ARE ON THE PAGE.....and I spent a lot of time adding them in the context of this AfD. The general implications of your sentence are also totally unjustified. "Pick a fight"....what are you even talking about??? Your relist comment was inaccurate. You don't like the fact that I explained why? Fine. But replying with a personal attack was completely uncalled for. -Mushy Yank. 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added verify that NACTOR has been met through many significant roles in notable productions, likely GNG as well. SCTV Awards are also probably enough for NCREATIVE through significant critical attention. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Taylor

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:37, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO and more specifically, I don't think any of the criteria in WP:AUTHOR are made out. Article as it is currently written has WP:NPOV issues, seems like WP:PROMO, and has had an orange WP:GNG tag at the top for nearly ten years, so I'm inclined to delete on TNT grounds even if my brief search for other notability failed me. Flip^and Flopped ツ 01:37, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm leaning weak keep as there are at least three reviews of her book "Faith and Power"; she co-authored it so not sure how that counts towards notability here but there's an argument for WP:NAUTHOR. The last six references in this article are non-primary references and book reviews. Nnev66 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources supporting the article are marginal at best. It reads like a puff piece using marginal sources. A real WP article about the subject would be 2-3 paragraphs at best. Angryapathy (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

Deletion review