Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers - Wikipedia

All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} 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 Actors and filmmakers. 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.

Evan Hofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to meet the eneral notability guidelines for biographies of living persons. Also, the character description (in-depth) for the role (previously misspelt as "roll") of Dex Heller seems mildly inflammatory and violating of the encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy. Having one notable acting role⏤for which no stand alone article exists for⏤does not seem to be a valid reason enough for a living persons article to exist on the encyclopedia. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dettric Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, previously CSD A7. WP:TOOSOON - wait until Jones becomes notable. Prior versions draftified, WP:DRAFTIFY implies that this might not be unilaterally returned to Draft. Even so I suggest deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and salt the mainspace : Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jones lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for reviewing Dettric Jones' Wikipedia page. I understand and acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the page's compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

  Although Dettric's role in films and TV series may be considered minor, Jones is still a public figure with a verifiable presence in the entertainment industry.  credits include:

  - Ozark (Netflix, 2017)

  - Raising Dion (Netflix, 2022) - Season 2, Jacob

  - The Watcher (Netflix, 2022)

  I respectfully argue that the page should not be deleted solely based on the criteria mentioned. Wikipedia's guidelines also emphasize the importance of documenting emerging artists and public figures.

  Considering WP:TOOSOON, I propose:

  1. Merging page with a list article (e.g., "List of American actors") or a relevant category.

  2. Marking page for improvement rather than deletion.

  This will allow the page to remain while ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

  Thank you. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC) — AnonymousContent33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: One episode appearances and uncredited ones do not amount to notability here. Sourcing is also not coverage beyond confirmation of these roles. Long way from notability. SALT should be applied Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Seymour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

If you cut through the excessive promotional language and the name-dropping that has no connection to the subject's direct work, what we have here is a non-notable filmmaker who made a few obscure films. A few of the filmmaker's movies have their own articles, but I will leave the notability of those articles to another editor. With this article, I am under the belief that Mr Seymour himself does not appear to meet the basic level of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Gsearch is social media, his university, Rotten Tomatoes, imdb, then off into un-RS. Hardly any hits in Gnews. I suppose being mentioned in the one book could be important for notability, but there is nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Citations were included as external links. Then they were commented out. Someone moved them to Talk:Thomas_Edward_Seymour. It seems that there are sufficient links to satisfy "Notability". Those "external links" need to be included as in-line citations. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "external links" are nearly all press releases or fleeting mentions in non-notable websites. The headlines given to the links do not correspond with the actual web pages, and they fail to compensate for the WP:BIO problems. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

The subject of this BLP may have directed a few Pakistani films, but he clearly does not meet the basic GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've added Find Sources links for his other name above. Maybe that helps? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. It seems that this was on my watchlist due to a previous version that got deleted. I don't remember that at all so I'm looking at this as if I was seeing the subject's name(s) for the first time. There is some notability here but I'm not sure whether it is enough. The Google News hits show multiple sources talking about his movies and, to some extent, about him. His films exist and they get reviewed, sometimes quite poorly, so it is not just puffery. I can't easily tell which sources are Reliable though. There has been controversy about one of the films which may even have been banned to some extent. Based on the English language hits I'm very much on the fence. It's not an obvious delete but I don't see enough to say keep either. I Google translated the Urdu version of the article to see if there was anything there that was helpful but it doesn't say much of anything and none of the sources there look any better than the ones here. If an Urdu speaker was to search for better sources then they might or might not find something that pushes this over the line to a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR and WP:CREATIVE pass with multiple films written and directed, that received significant critical coverage- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, about us pages and other misc/non-specific coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:SICOV? Ruccc (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruccc, Scoop creep mean WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Ruccc (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources from article and WP:BEFORE do not meet the minimum guideline. Could not even find three sources that satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could not find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've done a quick search in a Swedish media archive and there seems to be plenty of (significant) Swedish newspaper coverage. I'll make time at some point in the coming days to go though the most promising hits and add them to the article (or retract this statement if it turns out that my first glance was mistaken). /Julle (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is a long history dating back to 2007 associated with this title, including articles about this person that were cut down to redirects, redirects from this person to a company, and articles about a fictional person. If this person fails biographical notablity, a redirect should be kept as an alternative to deletion to preserve the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Shroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks significant independent coverage and mostly relies on promotional content, particularly for Matrix Fight Night. The tone suggests potential paid editing, violating Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Rae Ibay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Local politician with no inherent notability. Only one reliable source cited; others are IMDB, a self-described blog, and something that cites wikipedia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Articles of members of city councils of major cities are kept.Djflem (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest of keeps Ibay's membership in the Manila City Council has been mostly nondescript until recently. Elections are in May 2025, and this early, politicians are jockeying for positions. Ibay is a councilor representing the youth as the city president of the Manila Sangguniang Kabataan (youth council); normally, such councilors are the council's committee chairperson on youth and sports. However, she was unseated recently and this has caused controversy if that was even allowed. So her notability is on this WP:1E, but this is not the last time we'd see her as a politician. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep for the reason as HTD's. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Hasan Shishir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER. Producing non notable films doesn't justify notability, and that's the opposite to the page creator's stance. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Sources included seem to be a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (or university newsletters), and the content is almost entirely promotional in nature. Meets criteria for an A7 or even G11 speedy delete. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Searches do not produce any WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangerthings7112 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Filing this on behalf of Strangerthings7112, who made a malformed nomination attempt. Left guide (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject was part of an important lawsuit dealing with libel and people who were once famous but later in life were not. Significant coverage of Wood was found so her notability is not WP:INHERITED from Elvis. Added sources including newspaper articles, books, and law journals. Dr vulpes (Talk) 13:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not significant coverage, and Anita Wood was never famous. Practically everyone in the Elvis world was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another; the one you cite is no more important than this lawsuit involving Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden. Ginger Alden had much greater media visibility than Anita Wood, appeared on countless magazine covers and even published a memoir, yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. How do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? It's a double standard. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Dr vulpes. Also sorry for accidentally closing it, I misclick. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No worries I misread an AfD the other day and closed it by mistake. Dr vulpes (Talk) 18:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only references on Anita Wood are just mere mentions about her being Elvis' nonexclusive off-and-on girlfriend but you can't make an article out of that. So it fails WP:GNG. There is some coverage out there, but none of it is direct or significant. WP:GNG states "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" thus why she fails it. No notability except for casually dating a celebrity. And we all know that notability is inheritable per se. Elvis' fiancée Ginger Alden had far greater media visibility than Anita Wood and even published a memoir yet Alden's Wiki page was deleted because she too does not meet the criteria. The only reason Anita Wood's Wiki page hasn't been deleted is because hardly anybody knows it exists. For those of you who oppose this deletion, how do you justify deleting the Alden page but not this one? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote, Strangerthings7112, your deletion nomination is considered your Delete vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC))[reply]

  There's an entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life.

  • Barrett, Jonnita Brewer (2012). Once upon a time: Elvis and Anita: memories of my mother. Jackson, MS: BrewBar Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9858056-0-9. OCLC 823306179.

  Her defamation lawsuit is an important part of the law surrounding public figures right to privacy over time.

  • "John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc". United States Court of Appeals. 1976-09-13. Retrieved 2008-12-31.
  • Dato, Robert M. (1983). "The Effect of Passage of Time on the Status of Inactive Public Figures". Federal Communications Law Journal. 35: 235.
  • Duhart, Olympia R. (2002–2003). "When Time Stands Still: An Argument for Restoring Public Figures to Private Status". Nova Law Review. 27: 365.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
  • Kaminsky, Alan (1981–1982). "Defamation Law: Once a Public Figure Always a Public Figure". Hofstra Law Review. 10: 803.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)

  And this list of the databases, including the library of congress, that she appears in for her music.

  Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those links copy the verbiage straight off Wikipedia (i.e. WP:MIRROR). I see nothing in WorldCat or the LoC about "her music" (the only music she did was uncredited backing vocals); her sole reason for inclusion seems to be her daughter's book. Ginger Alden also has an entry in the Library of Congress and WorldCat so again, these do not demonstrate notability. And as I've pointed out, practically everyone in the Elvis world, including Ginger Alden, was involved in some lawsuit at one point or another. Who's to say that Anita Wood's lawsuit is more "important"? Nothing you've provided constitutes WP:SIGCOV. The book you cite, written by her daughter, was published by a small local independent publisher in Mississippi whose only noticeable publication seems to be said book (whereas Ginger Alden's book was published by Ace Books, a major house in NYC). Since Ginger Alden's page warranted deletion, Anita Wood's most certainly warrants deletion too. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Miniapolis:@SNUGGUMS:@Robert McClenon:@Davey2010:@Clarityfiend:@Johnpacklambert: Since each of you deemed the Ginger Alden page worthy of deletion, I request your input on deleting the Anita Wood page. Anita Wood is without doubt less notable than Ginger Alden so I see no reason to keep the page. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the Elvis in Australia page has copied some material from Wikipedia, but it's the rest of the interview that follows which is what the source is being used for. The other one is her obituary so and I'm not seeing anything copied over. Unless I'm missing something. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might note that Anita's hometown newspaper is the only outlet to report her passing. Had she met notability criteria the news would've been picked up by wire services. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr vulpes: Strangerthings7112's point immediately above actually may have some merit. If her obituary was only published in one local paper, there's a reasonable chance it was paid for by the family, which would disqualify that source from counting towards notability. WP:OBITUARIES may shed some light on this and other related issues. Left guide (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't examined those sources in-depth yet for SIGCOV, but from a cursory review "John L. Brewer, v. Memphis Publishing Company, Inc" appears to fit the description of WP:RSLAW#Official summaries or syllabi which seems to be treated as a primary source, so likely doesn't count towards notability. Left guide (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide I only put the court case in the AfD to help anyone looking at the law journals since it uses her married name Brewer instead of Wood. Personally I get kind of annoyed when reading law journals because the text is super tiny and sometimes OCR won't catch the case names correctly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that entire book about her that covers her relationship with Elvis but also the rest of her career and life (link) was authored by the article subject's daughter, so clearly a WP:COISOURCE, not independent. Left guide (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:@Strangerthings7112: If you want to gain traction in persuading the community to delete this article, at a minimum you're going to have to cut out the "Alden" arguments per WP:OTHER. It's not relevant here; each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Also, as a side note, please refrain from posting comments to the AfD log page; I've had to clean up after you a few times. Instead, keep all of your commentary on this page, thanks. Left guide (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:@Left guide: It's not really a matter of WP:OTHER when one takes into account the fact that the Wikipedia entries for Anita and Ginger came into existence for exactly the same reason: that they dated Elvis. Unlike Linda for instance, neither woman has any notability outside their connection to him. And Ginger was unquestionably more significant in terms of coverage. So if Ginger's page got deleted, the standard should be upheld. Anita's page simply failed to get noticed when similar pages were being scrubbed. It has to be pointed out that Marco Garibaldi, June Juanico and Danny Keough all formerly had Wiki entries as well. And all were deleted on the same grounds: no notability outside their connection to Elvis. So to argue that this page should be kept is like saying Mary-Kate Olsen deserves a Wiki entry but Ashley Olsen doesn't. Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strangerthings7112, you have been advised already to stop bringing up Ginger Alden's article in this discussion and now I'm saying it a second time. The fact that this article was deleted has no effect on whether or not the article on Anita Wood is kept or deleted which will rest on its own merits. We don't compare articles in AFDs and there is no official precedence. Please critique the sources and not the subject and do not BLUDGEON the discussion and comment on every argument you disagree with. You nominated the article, have put forth your point of view and now it's time to hear from other editors. Repeating your view over and over again will not convince anyone to agree with you, it will just irritate people. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strangerthings7112: If you're really this motivated to delete the article, all of that energy might be better channeled into creating a source assessment table (or simply a bulleted list summarizing your view of each source if you're unable to work through the table coding). I for one, am curious to see a thorough analysis of all of the sources, and might be persuaded to !vote delete (I only nominated this as a clerical courtesy and haven't yet taken an official stance on the subject's notability), because from a cursory glance I've seen at least three or four sources that are disqualified from notability for various reasons, and ref-bombing is a very real possibility since there haven't yet been quotes of the source material provided by the keep !voters. Left guide (talk) 05:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just added and sourced a little of her background before she met Elvis. I have also added information from the Texas State Archives. Texas-based disc jockey and news media reporter Eddie Fadal first met Elvis, when Elvis had his basic Army training at Fort Hood (renamed Fort Cavazos) in Waco, Texas. He is well known for his close friendship with Elvis. According to Eddie, everyone believed Elvis and Anita would marry, and were really surprised when Elvis married someone else. There are images in many Elvis bios, where Elvis and Anita were spending time in Eddie's house. Graceland has often hired Eddie for fan gatherings at Graceland. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what? It doesn't constitute notability. There is no reason for Anita to have a Wikipedia page. If she has one then Ginger Alden's deleted page should be restored. For that matter, Danny Keough and Marco Garibaldi's deleted pages should be restored. Then what....a Wikipedia page for Currie Grant? The Stanley brothers? Cliff Gleaves? Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for User:Strangerthings7112 - Why are you canvassing users who have no historical association with the article to participate in the AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robert McClenon because ten years ago you voted to delete or redirect the Ginger Alden article. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject has had significant coverage by reliable sources in two ways that are almost unrelated, as Elvis Presley's first girlfriend when he was a celebrity, and as a figure in an important civil law case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To answer the question about Ginger Alden, I looked at the article at the time that it was nominated for deletion in 2014, and the article at the time that I !voted to Delete or Redirect. I said in 2014 that the article was poorly sourced and did not establish general notability. It had no sources at the time it was nominated, and four unreliable sources that had been added in the next days when I !voted on it. This article has 18 sources, and I see that some of them are reliable. So any comparison between this article on Elvis Presley's first documented girlfriend and the cutdown article on Elvis Presley's last girlfriend is questionable, comparing a crab apple and a Red Delicious apple. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Music, and Tennessee. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it looks like Dr vulpes has restored the Ginger Alden article. I'm not sure how that will influence this discussion since the nominator's argument rests on the fact that the Alden article was redirected (not deleted). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The current Ginger Alden article has better sources than the one that was cut down to a redirect. As I said above, my object to the previous Ginger Alden article was mainly that its sources were rubbish. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. There is definitely coverage to pass WP:GNG. 185.189.253.223 (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm assuming I was canvassed because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginger Alden too, Anyway keep per Dr V and everyone above, Meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: So I found the time to dive into the sources in-depth and I discovered this newspaper article focused on Wood, this one focused on her involvement in the legal case, and this book which contains 45 mentions of her. I believe WP:NBIO is met here, even excluding the law journals which I don't have access to. Left guide (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renz Nathaniel Cruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unclear if there's enough here for WP:CREATIVE/GNG. Most of the sources have him name-checked as a member of the musical ensemble, but I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This person has barely done any professional work, let alone had a notable career. Strong delete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he clearly isn't notable. Tavantius (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SIGCOV and the socks chiming in on this discussion aren't helping their cause. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• To all of the new editors to Wikipedia, first "Welcome!" Secondly, Wikipedia determines whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted not based on a vote count but based on whether or not notability can be established by reliable, independent secondary sources. They can't be "passing mentions" but provide SIGCOV (significant coverage). So, your pleas to save this article or accusations against other editors or Wikipedia won't have much impact but if you could find additional sources from mainstream new sources (not blogs or social media) could help establish notability and influence whether or not this article is Kept or not. Wikipedia is governed not by editors' opinions but by policies and guidelines and this is how we determine what articles should be Kept and which ones should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Account creation dates: User:Ixo490: 5 hours ago, User:Thompson.walkins: 3 hours ago, User:Editlife1tr: 3 hours ago, User:Loewemathers: 2 hours ago, User:TOOLINK: 2 hours ago. Northern Moonlight 09:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• As an uninvolved administrator, I have taken actions (including page protection and collapsing seemingly-canvassed participation from brand new editors), to restore order and remove disruption from this debate. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly seems like a talented artist who could merit an article at some point, but right now, the notability just isn't there. To anyone canvassed to come here: deletion isn't a punishment, it's just that Wikipedia's purpose is to recognize notability, not help create it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wish him well, but (agreeing with CoffeeCrumbs) WP:TOOSOON. Narky Blert (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - first, and most importantly, notability is not established. Secondly, the article was written by an obvious WP:SPA who created the article in their own sandbox two hours after opening their account. Thirdly, the number of other SPAs flooding this discussion with pwersonal attacks and assumptions of bad faith doesn't inspire confidence. If the article subject was truly notable there'd be no need for all that. It seems to me the subject or their friends or fans are involved in this. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In agreement with all the real voters above. Upon inspection, I think his OperaJuan operation might be closer to notability because they have received some media notice in their country. But since this article is about Mr. R.N. Cruz, he must achieve notability via reliable media coverage, and so far he's only in self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

NC less than a year ago but given that two editors have since been blocked, It think Asif needs another look. I'm unable to find evidence she meets N:ACTOR. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unreliable sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Good catch. The last AFD was closed as non-consensus due to socks, despite it being a clear delete at the time. A year later, I still don’t see how this meets NACTOR. Those claiming it meets NACTOR need to realize that simply stating it isn’t enough and it falls under WP:ATA therefore they must demonstrate how the subject meets NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NACTOR says "may be considered notable" based on roles, not "is considered notable" (my emphasis). We still need the significant coverage and I cannot find enough to show notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)
• General comment: The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read, it recommends not to cite a guideline without explaining why one thinks a subject meets its requirement. For ex. ’See WP: XXX" not good. But "Meets Wp:XXX because YYY", good (especially if one adds sources). Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw, :D-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please don't do that to established editors, which we all are @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 20:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do what, exactly? Quote ATA? Are you joking? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: comply WP:SIGCOV. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 181.197.42.215, I’m dying to know how you came to this conclusion? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rina Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Read past the headline, per WP:HEADLINES. There is SIGCOV of her as a fashion model and actor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it’s enough if she meets GNG, which she does. A subject meeting GNG does NOT have to meet particular requirements of SNGs. That would be absurd. The articles (some on the page and plenty more available online) mention her sister but focus on her and constitute significant coverage addressing Rina directly and in depth, in reliable media outlets, which is precisely what is required. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Dua Lipa. There isn't much coverage of her as someone other than Dua's sister. Frost 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: given the existing coverage; a redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Albania. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per arguments presented above. -AlexBachmann (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I stumbled upon this article as I was deleting articles created by a sockpuppet of Asphonixm but I see the article is being improved and is the subject of this discussion. But if it wasn't being worked on, it would likely be eligible for a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: If we compare the state of the article since it was last edited by the sock and after the involvement of multiple editors, I do not see any substantial edits made on the article. The changes made so far seem to include removal of maintenance tags, fixing minor errors like references, paraphrasing sentences, switching "British" to "English", and adding categories—none of which amount to substantial content contributions. Therefore, Asphonixm's sock remains the major contributor. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am the one who added sources to the page (yesterday, I think) and I am sorry but it was a significant change. I did it to prove she meets GNG. Who is the "major contributor" is not what matters, what matters is whether there is/are (a) "significantly edit"(s) by other user(s). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm surprised to see Liz suggest CSD 5 eligibility extended until recently in the face of demonstrative notability and involvement of other editors (myself included) well before the sock was caught. Mushy Yank has made such substantial edits in the last 48 hours that I wonder if Ckfasdf believes that a sock only needs to be a majority contributor for CSD 5, rather than the only major contributor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, but I don’t think Liz suggested eligibility extended; quite the opposite, I would say (Liz clearly indicates the page is being improved), and her note is just for information, to prevent any CSD nomination, or at least to make things clear. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, I didn’t notice Mushi Yank’s edits in the last 48 hours. However, on 28th September, I did suggest CSD G5 because that sock puppet was the main contributor, and it's worth noting that this sock puppet is notorious for creating biography articles. Pbritti disagreed, which is why we now have this AfD. My stance remains unchanged: she is only known because of her sister, as evidenced by all the sources that prominently mention her sister in both the headlines and the content. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. I had deleted some other articles created by this sock but decided this one was not eligible due to the contributions of other editors to the content creation which wasn't the case with their other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen-Craig Aristei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nom as AfD1 closer since, while not a G4, it does not seem the issues raised in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen-Craig Aristei have been addressed sufficiently. Should the consensus remain draftify recommend move protection. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Entertainment. Star Mississippi 22:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to all who participated: @SafariScribe @TarnishedPath @Spiderone @Timtrent @Rkg5514 @Bearian @Andy Dingley Star Mississippi 22:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think other editors were accommodating because it was the Creator's first article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys -- added section regarding SCA's management of Survivor, from a primary source text (Jim Peterik's memoir). Being GM of WB Music, discovering a multi-platinum act, additional management of acts across the late-70s and 80s I think establish his notability. I've cited contemporaneous news stories (Billboard, Cash Box). He's not David Geffen, but so few of us are... Rkg5514 (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have added information and citation regarding SCA's role in placing a number one hit single with David Cassidy in '73. Trying to alleviate concerns SCA was not associated with any substantial hits... Rkg5514 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. What is your connection with Aristei? Star Mississippi 01:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to bludgeon, just wanted to keep this space apprised on changes. Relationship is, served as copy editor on a manuscript in which he was featured. Rkg5514 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Move protect. I have been always fine with protecting articles, especially move protection. My record has been absolutely clear for 17 years. Thank you for the ping. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The edtior who moved this back to mainspace had their chance to demonstrate notability prior to moving it back to mainspace and they've failed.Draftify and Move Protect and guidance provided to the editor that they must utilise AFC on this subject. Only one source has anything more than passing mentions and that's a blog (hosted by WordPress). The rest of the references only mention the subject once or not at all. There's only one article I can't access which is reference 6. I was unable to find anything else through doing searches which demonstrates notability. TarnishedPath^talk 02:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify and Move Protect: Nothing to verify notability has changed. As a key tenet of Wikipedia WP:V must be demonstrated. The creating editor's ambition in returning this to mainspace exceeds Aristel's claim to notability. While AFC is not compulsory I believe they should be given firm guidance to await a review. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't much like this article. It's mostly a big list of notable bands with no obvious reason to connect them to the article subject. However I do think that basic BLPN is being met, so I'd keep it.

What I don't like are all the things that are mentioned, but not explained - like the Survivor litigation. That's no use in an encyclopedia. I don't even know what a 'song plugger' does? It seems to be someone who plugs songs (i.e. written sheet music) to generate cover versions by popular artists. But IMHE (in the UK), the term is more commonly someone who plugs recorded songs to generate airplay and sales. An article, even a short one like this, is far from complete until such loose ends are tied off. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sassa Gurl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

References are lots and lots of clickbait, non-bylined PR articles, social media driven sites and other PR. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 27 September 2024 (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 Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but you're just being biased by saying that the article is clickbait. Did you check the references? I think you didn’t, because as you can see, all the sources cited are based on facts, and their content supports the statements in the article. Besides, those references come from reputable news media outlets, specifically in the Philippines, and you can search and verify them yourself. 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rc ramz: Where did I say the article is clickbait? I never said the article is clickbait. If you mention it again I'm going to have you up WP:ANI for barefaced lying. The references are clickbait. I checked the first block and about 6 in the second block. They are all PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

reference rather... 🌼𝓡𝓬 𝓡𝓪𝓶𝔃🍁 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: there seems to be enough coverage about her, including https://preen.ph/131124/sassa-gurl-will-not-let-you-define-her ; https://republicasiamedia.com/whats-happening/sassa-gurl-dazzles-with-new-single-maria-hiwaga/ https://entertainment.inquirer.net/534754/eugene-domingo-believes-in-sassa-gurls-potential-to-be-the-next-kimmy-dora and so on; https://tribune.net.ph/2023/11/06/smokey-manaloto-eugene-domingo-sassa-gurl-headline-takeshis-castle-reboot, https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2024/07/12/2369452/working-fantasy-icon-marian-rivera-dream-come-true-sassa-gurl https://pop.inquirer.net/355283/on-misdirected-hate-and-missing-the-point-the-discourse-on-sassa-gurl-and-loonies-feud etc, it sometimes includes interviews, but it certainly indicates some notability, I would say. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Out of over 30 references in the article, less than half are either probably clickbait articles and/or are dribble from PR or social media driven sites. Such issues can be fixed by adding or changing relevant details to references (adding direct quotations, author fields if any and so on). Some references will eventually be changed (https://www.philstar.com/tags/sassa-gurl can be changed to a particular article in the PhilStar website like https://www.philstar.com/entertainment/2022/05/05/2178259/sassa-gurl-reacts-bashing-white-castle-calendar-girl for example) or dropped altogether. As for significant coverage, I'd say that Sassa Gurl has received some coverage in mainstream outlets while in terms of notability, I'd put article's subject in the same tier or class as Mimiyuuuh. -Ian Lopez @ 18:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has significant coverage. -Object404 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:52, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Follini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Serious COI with a history of sockpuppet editing (perpetrators now blocked). What is left is still a largely promotional article about a minor businessman who has dabbled in film production. Not notable enough for an article. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Businesspeople. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 10mmsocket (figures you're not brave enough to use your name) - Minor? Have you produced an Oscar winning film - Slingblade? Have you developed the firt $1 Billion Opportunity Zone? Have you built the first North American coworking camouses - 4 - for media production? Are you a Professor of Real Estate? Do you publish the #1 most subscribed wealth newsletter in the world? Were you represented on wikipedia when Jimmy Wales begged us to participate 18 years ag? No need to answer bc the answer to ALL of the above is, sadly for you, no. But CJ Follini is and has done all of the above and more. So maybe if you did more indepndent research and didnt live such a small, sad life then you would be much better at censorship or the lack thereof. Suzannep33 (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any argument you make loses weight when you sink to making personal attacks (WP:NPA) Worse still is making insults from a newly-registered account setup for just this purpose. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotional article Isla🏳️‍⚧ 11:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doniyor Kayumov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. He has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry lack WP:RELIABILITY.

• Uz24: It is an online portal, as clearly stated on its about page and such is not a reputable source.
• Qalampir: The article does not discuss Kayumov's work as an actor; instead, it focuses on his controversial calls for violence against women.
• Sport.uz: This unreliable blog covers Kayumov's challenge to a Kazakh MMA fighter to face off in a cage match but does not substantiate his notability.
• Hordiq: The article has been deleted.
• Savol-javob: This is a Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
• Malumot: Also a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
• Uz Daily: While potentially more reliable, this article raises suspicions of paid content, as it merely lists 15 trivia points without discussing his career in any detail.
• Aniq.uz: This tabloid source reports on a video Kayumov made after allegedly being snubbed by Sitora Farmonova.
• Yuz.uz: This entry appears to be an interview, also potentially paid content, discussing Kayumov's personal plans ("to take his parents on the Hajj pilgrimage and buy a new car for his dad") rather than his career.
• Peoplenews: This online blog no longer has the entry about Kayumov available.

Additionally, Kayumov has publicly stated in a video podcast that he needed a Wikipedia entry to obtain a verified mark on his social media profiles. In the video, he states that he actively sought out local publications like Kun.uz to get articles written about him. He also mentions that in Uzbekistan, such publications can cost nearly 10,000 USD. He was negotiating to reduce this cost to 1,500-2,000 when the English Wikipedia entry was created – supposedly independently from his actions. Given that a flurry of articles were published right before his entry was created, I doubt he did not pay to have them published.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uzbekistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Atticus Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article should be deleted. The article highlights his film career, but his career is WP:TOOSOON. He has had three uncredited TV roles, one credited TV role 3 years ago, one uncredited movie role, and two credited movie roles. It is premature to give this actor a Wikipedia article. The article does not demonstrate GNG with its sources and it is reasonable to assume someone with such a small filmography could not meet that standard (yet). While his parents are two very talented actors, but notability is not inherited. Mpen320 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:DIRECTOR as director of at least 2 notablle feature films, so that deletion is not necessary in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The criteria for WP:DIRECTOR to which I believe you are alluding is the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series). Neither of his films has been covered in this way. The films do not show up on the Box Office Mojo grossing lists. Forty Winks is an 80 minute movie (barely a feature) and has four reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Atrabilious, which is at least a full length film, has a whopping five. For context, Paddington 2 has 251 reviews. Neither film's gross shows up on Box Office Mojo, so they were not widely released. Depending on what one can find about Atrabilious, it would be just one single thing and still not meet WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, his films have received coverage the way that is required. Yes, it is less than Paddington 2, which received less than Citizen Kane..... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And 80 minutes is CLEARLY not barely the duration of a feature film (>40 or 58 min), btw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also Wp: Oneevent does NOT apply to artists and their work, whereas Wp:Director DOES apply even if one film is concerned (and here you have 2, anyway). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should be able to demonstrate that coverage by providing links in your responses. Also, I assume at this point I am being trolled because Citizen Kane has 134 critics reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. That is such an unnecessary lie.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious??? I'm telling you Citizen Kane received more coverage than Paddington 2 , which everyone knows, and you feel compelled to check the number of comments on Rotten Tomatoes and call that "trolling" and a lie??? Just educate yourself. I will make no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see now that I 1) got a little too wrapped up in this and 2) should have not read your thing so literally (i.e. more not equalling more reviews, but rather general SIGCOV). If you have any sources, as I said, please provide.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Leaving this here: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure this comment is necessary, given the page history. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:23, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this on all pages where I get pushback on deletions.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As creator of this article, I’m humble either way if it gets kept or deleted. I also want to say that I find it interesting about the WP:TOOSOON argument considering that the two films Parker directed were released while he was still a teenager. The Film Creator (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. An explicit call out to that in the article would help the case of anyone seeking to keep it and makes a much better argument than any of the above. Ultimately, it does not change my vote as I think neither films has gotten the coverage to warrant the director having an article nor do I think the director meeting GNG.--Mpen320 (talk) 18:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No @Mpen320, if the two films meets our guidelines for films (WP:NFILM), then the director may be notable per WP:NDIRECTOR. It doesn't matter how short the article appears to be insofar as Wikipedian keeps WP:STUBS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Sources 4 and 6 are about the director, 4 is rather short though. 6 is good. Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Also coverage of a film of his in Playbill, [1]. Critical notice is about all you can ask for to meet director notability requirements. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NDIRECTOR as he has directed two notable films. I see this as a great stub article although more sources added to the article would be good. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one film as POSSIBLY notable given its cast. The other one I'm struggling to see as notable. I make that point in my nomination.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Mister Venezuela 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (but he had some significant roles in notable telenovelas, so not opposed to Keep if other users suggest that outcome)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I initially found this lacking per NBIO, as per the nominator, and draftified this so other interested parties could improve it, but an editor deemed that incorrect per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. So just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete However, if good sources are not found for all the content (which is not that much, it should not cost much...) then there is a risk that other sources (databases) will copy us and false information will be distributed thanks to Wikipedia. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean? He is in every series cited (and much more) (I checked and for all I know, he might even meet WP:NACTOR btw). It seems your are raising a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thoughts, I favour a Keep: not only does he seem to meet WP:NACTOR, see SpWP please) but above all he meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Lárez was Mister Venezuela 1999, which seems significant enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Romania. Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, she seems notable in her own country Natlaur (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gheorghe_Hagi#Personal_life -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same thoughts, I've seen Kira Hagi's article and honestly I think the Article still have what to be improved, as the movies she acted in, e.g. 167.250.71.19 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siue Moffat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see any book reviews, or much of anything in sources otherwise. Nothing in news or a general Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see three reviews for "Lickin' the Beaters 2: Vegan Chocolate and Candy" via Proquest, but not much else. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal [2] and Vegetarian Journal [3], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [4][5]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk [6]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - here's another review. Nfitz (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torontow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has played the title character in Sweeney Todd, among other major characters and has been nominated for Dora Awards both as a leading actor and a director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems notable enough to me, given his stage career and existing sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per @Ssilvers. Subject appeared in various plays have sources which support them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. To add to the comments above, his own website says he "is arguably most “famous” for helping remind you to switch modes on your phone in the Air Canada in-flight safety video." This is not a notable person. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: notable existing sources. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:SPA editor has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apart from the CBC story, this article lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable national sources. The subject fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a quick BEFORE finds an in-depth significant media coverage - Ottawa Citizen 2004 (ProQuest 240730536; GNG met with other articles already mentioned. . A lot of other material (224 hits in Proquest!). Nfitz (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a bit of international coverage on the actor, some reviews, even country wide would be ideal. Torontow is an Ottawa born guy and local papers always report on their local folk. It their duty of care, if you like and a well known phenomena. It likely fails WP:AUD. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Asgari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed draftification. I would have returned to draft, but WP:DRAFTIFY dictates that cannot happen, so here we are. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. References are passing mentions that they have made such and such a film 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear @Timtrent, Thank you for your review. I would like to highlight that Nima Asgari is a well-known documentary filmmaker in Iran, recognized for his significant contributions to environmental and wildlife documentaries. He has won several prestigious awards at international festivals, such as the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival in the USA and the Green Screen Film Festival in Germany. Additionally, he has served as a jury member at events like the Matsalu Nature Film Festival in Estonia. I have updated the article with reliable sources and references that showcase his notable achievements and contributions to the field.

  I hope this additional information helps in reconsidering the decision regarding the article. Siavakhsh (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Despite the statement above, the additional references aren't at all useful. This is not a review. Reviews are different. This is a discussion leading to potential deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review (and more participation) would help come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree, the sources are not WP:SIGCOV. As for WP:NFILMMAKER, I saw news coverage (but more WP:PRSOURCEs of some film festival category wins, but no reviews of his work in independent, reliable sources that would indicate a pass on WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences ^[1][2][3][4]. for more info

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources presented by @Endrabcwizart are unreliable. Ratopati(1,2) and prixa.net (4) aren't reliable. The only reliable newspaper The Himalayan Times was linked from a tag, which doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mentioned it because there is a substantial information available on this topic. Below are some links to reliable newspaper sources:

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

I believe a more reliable source available on Google . I will also update this discussion with better, more informative sources if I come across them.Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cluer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.

Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.

IMDB Sebastian Cluer for further validation Cliuthar (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but we need sources about him. Simply being named in a list of nominees isn't enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But there isn't any sourcing to be found. I agree he's notable, but having a permastub for lack of sourcing isn't what we look for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Is notable" and "delete" cannot coexist. Gemini Awards and Canadian Screen Awards are an inherent notability lock, meaning that every person with those awards on their mantle must be allowed to have a Wikipedia article. I'll grant that not everybody named in our Genie, Gemini and CSA articles already has an article yet, but everybody named in any of them must be allowed to have an article as soon as somebody gets around to it, and there can be no exceptions to that: it's a top-level national award that nails inherent notability to the wall right on its face per WP:ANYBIO's "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times", which means it's inherently notable enough that it locks notability down even if the sourcing is inadequate. The only legitimate grounds for deleting a Gemini/Genie/CSA winner would be if sourceability were completely nonexistent (e.g. a person whose article falsely claimed a nomination or win that they didn't really have). Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [12]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.