Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

WP:DSACTOR

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:

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|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.

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

Ikmal Amry

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

Sources presented for this actor do not show that they meet WP:NACTOR. Thie foreign language Wikipedia article is similar to this and with just about three sources. Before search did not show anything beyond trivial mentions in what look like gossip blogs. Mekomo (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Malaysia. Mekomo (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple source about Ikmal involvement in Malaysian cinema. He already appear in Indonesia TV, thats why i know him and also from Soloz: Game of Life Ryan Nambou (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahana

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

I struggled to find sources with significant coverage during my WP:BEFORE searches, and those in the related articles in other languages did not seem especially helpful. I therefore submit that notability is not established, though I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if suitable sources, maybe in not in English, can be found and added to the article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be saved as the person is really notable and famous. The person SunloungerFrog did not dig well to find sources. --Jazzbanditto (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog ? Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog why to delete a honorable and trusted person? Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if the article can be properly sourced and referenced, I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. I just couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage. If you can, that's brilliant! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the person is famous and will have more sources than now, just wait a little bit fellows. Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you check the first two notable films of he filmography, she has lead roles in them but the sources mention her as "Agana" https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bNNQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mxMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3363%2C2414868 l https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aNhOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4368%2C464823 So improve and rename? -Mushy Yank. 19:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio De La Torre

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

No good coverage can be found, not notable person according to the Wikipedia's general notability guideline Taking off shortly (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and California. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef El Deeb

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

WP:BLP of a media entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for media figures. As always, founders of television channels are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this is referenced entirely to a mixture of primary sources and glancing namechecks of the subject's existence in coverage about other things, with no evidence shown at all of any GNG-worthy coverage with him as its subject.
There's also been some conflict of interest editing in the past, as the article has been edited numerous times by "Yeldeeb", and was first created by an anonymous-IP WP:SPA with no other edit history at all besides this (and thus likely to have been either the subject himself, or an employee he paid to get him into Wikipedia). But of course, even people who do properly clear our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to create or control their articles themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Television, Egypt, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTFB. If the person has an undisclosed financial or personal interest, or it's an autobiography, and it's not disclosed before an AfD, that is independent reason to delete. See a recent example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlton Wilborn. I just disclosed that my ex's friend has an article up for deletion, and I'm not !voting for that reason. Substantively, I don't see a lot of coverage about the subject, as opposed to his fee-based satellite-TV show. None of his other many projects have gone anywhere. This just looks like a LinkedIn profile, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Lee Guy

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

I declined this article's nomination for WP:BLPPROD because it now is minimally sourced (after having existed unsourced for six years). However, I failed to find anything more substantial in a WP:BEFORE search, and as such I believe notability is lacking. ^Complex/_Rational 23:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^Complex/_Rational 23:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Could not find one thing via engine search except movie database listings. No reviews, no interviews, nothing. Roles in 3 WP linked movies are not significant, one not listed. The term "cameo" in article is strictly promotional. Maineartists (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced for 6 years, and when prodded, 3 unreliable sources were added. This is not a serious effort to rescue. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalija Ugrina

AfDs for this article:

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

None of this passes RS or GNG. Probable vanity page. Already deleted once. Nswix (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Croatia. Nswix (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has Murder in the First in her filmography as Brooke, no mention of her on the article for the show. Other roles consist of extras such as Hot model. Citations include her profile on a modeling agency website. Seems like a vanity page to me.Kylemahar902 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Authors. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- stoshmaster (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brandon Field

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

Non notable actor. Lots of small parts but no significant roles in notable productions. (Significance of parts is puffed up in the article, "significant" part in Lotus Eaters (film)? No) Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lots of interviews where he talks about himself but not much else. Closest is the GQ piece on the Winehouse hologram tour where he is mentioned a few times but that's not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Vik

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

Non notable film maker. No notable productions. Lots of awards but none are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Wonderland is straight PR with no by-line. Forbes plethora of top howevermany of whatever are not significant. LA Weekly is straight PR. Same with Flaunt. There is a big push to promote her but Wikipedia is not a venue for that. Spam built by a cast of SPAs, UPE and socks. Telling is the representation in the opening sentence. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Czech Republic, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What about the awards here? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quote from above "Lots of awards but none are major." There are a LOT of festivals, award ceremonies, award farms, whatevers that hand out or sell a lot of awards, at times making up categories so they can give everyone an award. Listing awards is not enough, they has to be something significant about them. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that this is an attempt at WP:PROMO but I don’t agree with the impression that winning awards is insignificant. I have no opinion on the notability of this topic in question and would not !vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't agree with an argument that hasn't been presented. That's useful. Good for you. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shewmaker

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

Non-notable actor/comedian. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show anything of value, and there isn't any coverage from reliable sources on this subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. Could even be eligible for speedy deletion under A7. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Limited coverage, this was all I could find [1]. It's an interview. Otherwise, sourcing in the article is confirmation of performances at comedy clubs. Long way from meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if WP:GNG could to be met, I believe that the author might have an undisclosed Conflict of Interest which would prevent them from creating this article. This is based on the author's username and from multiple past edits of repeatedly adding Alex Shewmaker to the Elk Grove High School (Elk Grove, California) article over the past four years. I note that the author has a COI notice from today on their talk page from another editor wondering the same (notice was triggered by creating this draft). Zinnober9 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, California, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. This is a person who is unknown and hasn't toured widely outside of his medium-sized city. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Cochran

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

I couldn't find sources that pass WP:GNG through a WP:BEFORE search and I don't think his roles are significant enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Suonii180 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Suonii180 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Brishty

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable model/actor, no main roles, second runner-up of non notable Veet-Channel i Top Model 2012, a before finds virtually zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN. The article now cites 15 reliable, independent sources (mostly in Bengali or offline). And I haven't even attempted to describe what she's actually notable for – her roles in 100+ television shows. Meets WP:BASIC (first bullet point) and WP:NACTOR (second bullet point – prolific contributions). --Worldbruce (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samreen Kaur

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

I couldn't find a strong reason why this subject meets the notability criteria outlined in WP:ENT. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've added references to it. And I'm surprised that the editor who tagged it for deletion discussion without any research. And another thing article has been approved by the New Pages Reviewer. Behappyyar (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Behappyyar: Getting marked as reviewed after an article is nominated for deletion does not mean it is “approved” by NPR. This is a process where every article sent to AfD, as long as it has no copyright or other speedy deletion violations, should be marked as reviewed. When we NPRs send articles to AfD, we also automatically mark them as reviewed. GrabUp - Talk 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay👍🏻 I've added references. Now, Let's see what the result will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will change your decision. When the article was tagged for deletion, it lacked references to movies and related to the subject see here, but after that I added references to it, which you can see here. Now it has improved considerably. I hope so, that you will reconsider to change your vote. Behappyyar (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Chauhan

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

The actress does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources and has not appeared in any notable films, hence fails WP:NACTOR. Taabii (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Taabii (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Josh

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

The subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR, while the creator made a list of the Filmography, but have not cited the WP:RS to support it. I searched about the subject on google but got nothing that can establish notability. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, India, and Chhattisgarh. Taabii (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Pass WP:NACTOR as an Indian, I know that they have worked in many popular movies listed in the filmography pass.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 15:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@S-Aura 'as an Indian'? does every Indian pass WP:NACTOR? Can you pls cite some reliable sources in the article? Taabii (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
S-Aura obviously refers to him/herself being Indian. :D -Mushy Yank. 16:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean to say that I have personally seen him in many movies as an india viewpoint, but I am trying to find better sources. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pass WP:NACTOR because he has played a significant role in a popular movie’s but need more WP:RS. Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More than half of the films in the subject's filmography do not list him in the cast section or place him far down in the cast hierarchy indicating that he would not have had a significant role, so he fails NACTOR. Fails GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV about this BLP in reliable independent sources, ultimately leaving us with nothing to write about. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta Surendranath

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

Sources are unreliable and PR stuff, fails GNG and NACTOR. GrabUp - Talk 06:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Advertising, and Himachal Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:NPRODUCER. The claims should be backed by the reliable sources. Taabii (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve updated the page and added more reliable sources and learning to improve the page further more, ur help on this topic/page would be much appreciated. Heloise327 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Heloise327:Please don’t add SPONSORED PR articles to the article and claim that you added more reliable sources to prove notability. The StoryBoard18 source (whose reliability is unclear) is a SPONSORED article, as its tags clearly mention “Advertising” and “Brand-Marketing.” Additionally, the Times of India article you added is an INTERVIEW, which does not count toward notability. Please refrain from adding promotional content using such sources, as you did in your last edit. GrabUp - Talk 18:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for pointing it out, I’ll try to avoid doing that, also will the deletion go away if the article is updated properly… 182.56.209.33 (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes can you please lift the deletion now 2405:201:A:80AA:CCFA:F72E:656F:182A (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes you suggested, can you please lift the deletion Heloise327 (talk) 09:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m continuously working on improving the quality of the page and adding reliable citations, just need a little time to get a hang of Wikipedia as I’m a newbie editor, would really appreciate ur guidance and help on this. Heloise327 (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Heloise327 I'll try to help. Taabii (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 182.56.209.33 (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taabii@GrabUp please help me improve Aarti Gupta Surendranath’s article Heloise327 (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhlach family

AfDs for this article:

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

I am revisiting this article as part of a failed bundled nomination of Filipino family articles created by User:Carl Francis. Since its creation, it is nothing more than a genealogy of the Muhlach family. In fact, it doesn't even try to explain the family's significance or importance. The "List of members" section contains a family tree that is mostly based on a diagram created by ABS-CBN. I suspect that original research or synthesis might be involved during the tree's creation, although I am not sure. Other than the family tree, there's only a very short lead section and a couple of references. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philippines, Lists of people, and Actors and filmmakers. EJPPhilippines (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I suggested a Close during the last discussion per WP:TRAINWRECK, I do agree with the nom's reasoning on this particular article. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTGENEALOGY states that, "family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." But this article functions merely as a family tree presentation and fails to demonstrate the notability or significance of the Muhlach family at least in a broader sense. This article is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arlyson Lanoa

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Arts, and Journalism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG . Monhiroe (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Collares

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

All sources are unreliable or don't demonstrate notability. GNG is not met. Skyshiftertalk 14:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Brazil. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: no indication of notability.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator should explain why the references are unreliable. Several seem to be mainstream news media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The few "mainstream" ones do not give significant coverage while the other ones are merely blogs. Skyshiftertalk 20:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S M Kayum

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

Highly promotional bio for a Bangladeshi filmmaker whose first film, Antorborti (also nominated for deletion), has not yet been released. At best it's WP:TOOSOON, but either way this filmmaker fails WP:NFILM and WP:NCREATIVE, since none of his other works are significant. The sources are almost entirely unbylined tabloid news from Bangladeshi outlets that have the same WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems with undisclosed paid placement. On top of this, almost none of these sources provide WP:SIGCOV of Kayum. In my search and review I found no qualifying sources for WP:N. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Poetry, and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: See AfD about film. -Mushy Yank. 09:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Kro

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

No SIGCOV sources were found, failing GNG, and there are no significant roles in these films, failing WP:FILMMAKER. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER -Samoht27 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Kandy

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. The article is also littered with fake references FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have edited the article a bit. She at least meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NCREATIVE, though I have not checked for reviews of all the films she has produced (there is a list in an earlier version of this article, but the current article only names two she received award nominations for in 2022). The sources do provide coverage of her, as suggested by their titles: "Zoom sur la meilleure scénariste de la RDC : Belinda Kikusa Kandi dit « Bellevue », la Femme sage"; "Belinda Kandy dit « Belle Vue », apporte une nouvelle touche dans le cinéma congolais"; "Bellevue KANDY | 50 Femmes qui inspirent"; ). "L'actrice comédienne Belinda Bellevie Officiel est à deux doigts d'instaurer un nouveau record historique dans le cinéma congolais". (Note both her professional and real names used with variations in spelling.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dai Ying (producer)

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

I strongly believe that Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENT (Entertainment Industry-Specific Notability) due to her leadership role at iQIYI, her involvement in award-winning productions, and significant media coverage. Below are the key reasons why this article should be retained:

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[2] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[3]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the underrepresentation of Chinese women executives in the entertainment industry on Wikipedia. While Western executives frequently meet notability guidelines, there are very few articles on Chinese female media executives, despite their significant impact on the entertainment industry.

Wikipedia has a well-documented systemic bias issue, particularly in terms of gender and geographical representation. Studies reported on Wikipedia have shown that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s coverage. As mentioned by the co-founder Jimmy Wales, as a newcomer female editor, I'm hoping to be encouraged by writing about notable women in my lifetime even though I work 12 hours in a restaurant. Wikipedia is an inspiration and gives me hope one day I can also work in an office.

Women in Chinese entertainment and business leadership are often overlooked, despite their contributions to global media.

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[4] These include:

The Bad Kids – A highly acclaimed suspense drama that became a cultural phenomenon in China, gaining high ratings on Douban (8.9/10) and sparking widespread discussion.
The Long Night – An award-winning drama that received the Best OTT Original Series Award at the Busan International Film Festival. The show was also broadcast on NHK Japan.
"Dr. Tang" – A notable medical drama highlighting China’s advancements in medical technology.
War of Faith - Captured the attention of overseas markets

These productions have been recognized both domestically and internationally, which strengthens Dai Ying’s case for notability. She has produced over 30 dramas. The dramas she produced has received 7 wins and 2 nominations.

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

Dai Ying has been interviewed and featured in various reputable media outlets discussing her role in shaping China’s streaming industry. These interviews and articles provide independent, in-depth coverage of her work, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources.

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines as:

She holds a top executive role at a major streaming company (iQIYI).

She has produced multiple award-winning, widely recognized dramas.

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

Based on these factors, I urge editors to reconsider the deletion nomination. I am most willing to learn and would greatly appreciate sharing on feedback on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Heureuxl 18:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuxl is the creator of this article (posted by Nominator). Rosentad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Neutral, ~~I agree that [5] [6] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent.~~ (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity and well-understood on this.

Heureuxl 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: Source [4] actually originates from Qianlong.com (here) and is not an official Sohu release. It's most likely a commercial press release, as it's very promotional and doesn't have the reporter's name on it. Source [5] is actually posted by a Sohu self-media account. It is self-published content. They are clearly not independent of the subject. Rosentad (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [7] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [8] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [9], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

Thank you for your feedback. But just because it's reported by a sohu self media account, how does it say that it's self published content when it's a media report? Please let me know so I can improve my 3rd party sources selection for the future. Also, how can I further improve the article? Thank you both.

Heureuxl 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Producers are run of the mill, and do not get an encyclopedia article unless they pass both WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Almost all producers are just managers of money and other resources. They are not creative people. If they are involved with the creative process, then we have a whole Guideline for that. I don't see how the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited," or has been "known for originating a significant new concept," etc, or theory, or technique. The only argument is the subject had "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Turning to significant coverage about them, I find it lacking. Compare Lorne Michaels. Bearian (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Marc Rives

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. The sourcing is very weak, and I haven't been able to find anything better. The great majority of the edits have been made by the WP:SPA User:RJMarco, which from the name seems to be the guy himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Arts, Morocco, and France. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with nominator's reasoning, the lack of WP:RS is especially concerning as it is also a BLP. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 01:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I think it should be drafted. He has won a lot of awards including the order of merit - Ordre des Palmes académiques which is major civilian award which likely makes him notable. The art as well, if they can be proved to be a museum or permanent collection would pass WP:NARTIST. There is lot potentially if it could be proven. There is lots more. The article itself is a mess and needs a significant copyedit and it also needs sourced. Some time in draft would give that space. If there is not enough coverage I could stubify it. scope_creep^Talk 09:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being a recipient of the Palmes académiques is not likely at all to make someone notable. More than 6,000 people receive this medal each year, and it used to be almost two times more until a few years ago. BilletsMauves^€500 13:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Keep: significant coverage in a reliable and independent media outlet, addressing the subject in depth and directly (3 articles) https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/jean-marc-rives-expose-a-leveil-normand_54969366.html https://actu.fr/normandie/bernay_27056/sur-murs-leveil-paysages-jean-marc-rives_9291390.html https://actu.fr/normandie/ferrieres-saint-hilaire_27239/eure-ce-peintre-international-sort-un-livre-pour-apprendre-a-dessiner_60960106.html + (not really independent nor in depth) https://www.paris-normandie.fr/id521597/article/2024-05-11/dedicace-de-jean-marc-rives-la-fabrique-de-la-risle-de-beaumont-le-roger A drastic cleanup is due, though. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards RJMarco (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The changes made are minimal on links or inaccurate statements and I did not create the article. I do not know who created it. This article should be checked and formatted before thinking about deleting it in my opinion.

Kind regards

RJMarco (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and New York. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Issacvandyke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Filmwizardtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
@Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth opening a SPA, if you are interested - they've been editing for a while and as far as I can see, it looks like one would pop up as efforts to create an article were declined at AfC or elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI is already open, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His film is releasing in less than a week from now, I say we wait for for a few weeks to see the press that comes to from it, it has been increasing in press recently. is the article written in the best format? maybe there should be some improvement. but, I believe that there is enough for this stay on wikipedia. Ulyssesgranted (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Ulyssesgranted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Want to note that all of the keeps so far are from new accounts, and most are SPAs. No one has yet linked a single source, so I would like to remind new editors that establishing notability on Wikipedia requires you to have reliable sources that back up your claims. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but the part where they say to wait makes sense. Draftify until release (I would have waited until release to initiate this, but that's just me). And, btw, the NYP is considered "marginally reliable source(s) for entertainment coverage"; not usable "for controversial statements related to living persons" but NOT "generally unreliable". (I'm not saying it's great journalism.) Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about the NYP; I was trying to simplify my comment by saying "generally". To clarify, the NYP source in question looks like it falls under WP:NYPOST instead of WP:DECIDER, because it is not entertainment coverage, as far as I can tell. The NYP's site lists it as a "Health" article, and not under any of their 6 entertainment categories. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think a very valid question to ask here is whether or not this individual would be notable outside of their film (assuming that will pass NFILM by the time the AfD closes). Here's a rundown of the sourcing:

Plex: Routine database listing at best. Cannot establish notability.
AMC Theaters: Also a routine database type listing. Releasing into theaters doesn't make a movie automatically notable, no more than releasing direct to home video makes a movie automatically non-notable. Cannot establish notability.
Production company website: Primary source, cannot establish notability.
Thrillist: This is better, but part of the issue here is that the bulk of the article is written by Castro himself. There are a couple of paragraphs not written by him, but this does make me question whether or not this would be seen as a primary source akin to interviews. Now, I don't necessarily think that interviews are incapable of establishing notability, but it's a pretty widely held opinion on Wikipedia that interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability. Given that the paragraphs are an opening to Castro's article about himself, I would say that this would be a very weak source at best and at worst, a primary one.
NY Post: As another has said, this is a weird area. Only the entertainment section is considered to be usable, but even then it's only marginally usable. This was published to the health section, not the entertainment section. It's not being used to back up anything controversial, which is helpful, but the fact still remains that this isn't an entertainment article. It's an article written about Castro as it pertains to his fitness business. At best this is another very weak source and honestly, I am extremely uncomfortable with using the NYP as a deciding factor in establishing notability.
Podcast: This looks to be a WP:SPS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I looked to see if the show or its host (Vincent Lanci) were cited as RS by other RS, but there's nothing out there. I have to assume that this is a self-published source that cannot establish notability. Even if it wasn't, it's an interview and as such, would likely be seen as a primary source anyway. We could probably use this to back up non-controversial claims, but we can't use it to establish notability.
Tapology and NYU athletics: These cover Castro's collegiate athletic career. I'm not hugely savvy with NATHLETE, but offhand it doesn't look like he passes WP:NCOLLATH. These could be used to back up basic info, but not establish notability.

Now, having gone through this, it looks like there are only two sources that could potentially be used to establish notability: Thrillist and NYP. The first is almost entirely written by Castro, making it more or less a primary source. The second is questionable as it's labeled as a health article rather than entertainment. Even if both were seen as usable, they're both extremely weak sources. To me, this doesn't establish how Castro is independently notable outside of the film, assuming that it passes notability guidelines in the future. This means that if the film does eventually pass NFILM, there's a choice to be made: have an article for the director or have an article for the film. There's not really enough notability to justify two articles, again assuming that the film eventually passes NFILM.

I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm inclined to argue against notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That didn't take long. What's in the article is what's out there. I even looked with Newspapers.com to see if there was any older sourcing. This guy just isn't independently notable of his movie, which is of questionable notability itself.

So... assuming that the film passes notability guidelines, the question here is whether or not we should have an article on the film or the director. In cases like this, I'm generally more inclined to retain the creative's page. My justification is essentially this: it gives us a place to cover any of the person's future work as well as other things that never quite tally up to passing GNG/NBIO on their own. This not only gives us slightly more content, but can also pull double duty in that it sometimes can help prevent people from creating articles on borderline or non-notable topics. We have one decent article instead of a handful of questionable ones.

However that's assuming that the movie passes NFILM once it releases. If it doesn't, then this will be a delete or draftify on my end because what we have is extremely weak. I'll go ahead and wait for the end of the week to make an argument for or against, just in case the film pulls a Hail Mary on us. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CU Note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - many of the accounts who have commented above are confirmed socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. It's awfully wordy for an encyclopedia article, but not so terrible that WP:TNT applies. I edited down one paragraph. I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, based on the mediocre sourcing. The upcoming film might be a hit, but we are not a collective psychic. My experience over almost 18 years here is that if Sockpuppets swarm a discussion, it's probably a losing proposition. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, userfication is a valid result. Bearian (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no objection to draftify. The film has been released and there is no additional coverage. Given that the film is currently non-notable, this makes this article non-notable as well. I have no objection to this getting draftified along with the film article but I'll be honest in that I don't find it likely that notability will be established for either before it gets deleted due to draft age. As mentioned above, we only have two sources that could remotely be usable. One of them is an article that is almost entirely written by the subject (but with a couple of paragraphs before that, introducing him). The other is a NY Post article, but published under their health section instead of the entertainment one, which makes it likely unusable. Both are extremely weak sources at best, hence why I don't personally see either as usable and why I was hoping for the film to pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Morriatti

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Promotional, resume-style article. Sources include an interview with a former Forbes contributor, paid articles masquerading as legitimate, and trivial, non-substantial coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Michigan. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 08:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nominator. Even ignoring the tone of the article, all I see when searching for sources are passing mentions, and a single interview. - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

[10]https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickdaso/2022/05/29/michael-morriatti-a-seasoned-wme-entertainment-executive-launches-his-new-technology-and-entertainment-venture-firm-called-envisioned-capital/

[11]https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/how-celebrities-like-addison-rae-got-famous-during-the-pandemic/

[12]https://www.c21media.net/news/5x-media-grows-roster-of-creator-economy-talent-after-hiring-michael-morriatti/

"Meanwhile, Michael Morriatti, an entertainment executive and angel investor, aims to combine the best of entertainment and technology. He recently launched Envisioned Capital, a venture firm that invests in promising projects in the entertainment and tech worlds. “I’ve always been fascinated by the impact of these two industries, so I dedicated myself to finding the most disruptive stars in entertainment and the most innovative technology companies,” says Morriatti, who shares that his goal is to build strong representation for future names in entertainment and produce top content in immersive ways by using the latest technology and formats." -Variety

these were just from searching for 3 and a half minutes, there is enough press on him to be able to write a at least a stub on Wikipedia, he's involved in major films, has major press from major platforms like Variety, Deadline and even multiple on Forbes. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , just from reading this discussion, then doing my own research, I also believe that this qualifies for coverage on Wikipedia. This is just from researching and I found a few standalone articles including the Forbes one mentioned. I also found that Morriatti attended and was invited to the 66th Grammys and is close connections with Universal. JohnathanQuince (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I believe the article should just be written better in your honest opinion as only a few of these major articles were mentioned in the article. JohnathanQuince (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please only post your verdict once in an AFD discussion, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 07:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If these are the strongest sources, I don't see any of these passing WP:GNG on their own:

Forbes - Author is "former contributor", meaning it's not reliable per WP:FORBESCON

Us Weekly - Interviews are not secondary sources, and the intro does not seem like enough in-depth coverage. I also cannot tell is this is an affiliate article or not, since it looks like US Weekly allows for paid-for articles.

C21 - Questionable source. Reads like a press release. It's mainly based on quotes or info from a non-independent source (5XMedia, the company Morriatti works at and the article is written about).

Variety - "Partner content", which I assume means paid-for. - Whisperjanes (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU note Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HHamidcastro - Issacvandyke and JohnathanQuince, who have commented above, are socks of the article's author. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Telle

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

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 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 Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hardcore Gamer and The Gaston Gazette are being discussed below so I will skip over those.
Variety: Telle is mentioned and quoted in the article, although not the subject of the article.

GamesRadar+: An interview with Telle, she is frequently interviewed, but that does not make someone notable.

Pushsquare: Not the highest of sources, tertiary reporting on a video with her.

TheGamer (2 times): Not the highest of sources, checking the opinion piece: Praises her acting in Double Exposure, significant but not sure how opinions count for notability.

The Gaston Gazette: Appears to be the events section of a local newspaper, Telle is mentions giving a concert, not WP:SIGCOV

The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media mentions: I don't think should have need an article on everything that gets ongoing mentions and I believe these can be covered on the Life Is Strange article.

IgelRM (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The subject does not need to be the source's main topic for coverage to be significant. I believe the article passes the WP:GNG. (And, to be clear, Push Square and TheGamer are considered generally reliable per WP:VG/S.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheGamer is definitely considered "Situational" per WP:VG/S? And Push Square is similar to Nintendo Life, a enthusiast blog that I would evaluate differently for notability.

I would agree that the subject does not need to be the main subject of coverage, but could we also agree that from your long list just Variety and TheGamer seem relevant for this evaluation? IgelRM (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TheGamer is "situational" overall, but in this situation is considered reliable: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Same goes for Push Square. All references are relevant, and I evaluated all of them when making my judgement; I firmly believe the subject is notable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I was just familiar with the Screen Rant note above in that table. (Although I find the note, "experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247.", citing VG247 in particular bizarre, but this is getting outside this discussion)

I poorly worded the sentence on Push Square, what I meant is that I don't think Push Square can count for GNG alone and was not commenting on reliability.

Unfortunately we aren't getting further anymore, are we? IgelRM (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that bizarre—VG247 has been considered a reliable source for at least 14 years—but you're right, that's a discussion for elsewhere. And no, I don't think this will go any further—nor does it have to. I stand by my initial judgement. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local newspaper coverage does count for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the article is written as a feature on a local person, it's clear to not be sufficient. IgelRM (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 hardcore gamer articles this and this, while the first is mostly an interview, there are 3 paragraphs of intro about her, which can be used towards notability. The 2nd article has a couple of quotations but is not an interview. The policies say that when someone has multiple articles from one website, they can be combined. Provided, we combine these, we can count as one full good article towards notability. Also don't forget WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple sources can be combined to show notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (you accidentally linked the same article twice) your argument. From the interview article, I see one paragraph that mentions her but not WP:SIGCOV:

"While the quality of the writing and dialogue have polarized critics -- although the title has vastly improved in these aspects with each episode’s release -- the voice acting is a factor that has remained consistent and brilliant throughout every episode, especially when it comes to the on-screen chemistry shared between the voice actresses for Max and Chloe Price: Hannah Telle and Ashly Burch respectively."

"Hannah Telle Reveals Life Is Strange ‘Definitely Exceeded All of my Expectations'"

This piece paraphrase the interview that ran the week before.

Hannah Telle ‘100 Percent’ Interested in Reprising Role for Life Is Strange Sequel

This reports on the interview she gave the fan-made Blackwell Podcast. She is quoted for answering she would reprise her role. The article then switches to the producer saying there will be new characters. Not SIGCOV combing the 3. IgelRM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What is considered deep or significant coverage can be subjective, but reliability of sources is objective and only changes very slowly. I see a great multiplicity of good news sources and I'm strongly inclined to keep. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to User:Rhain above, if not please be specific? E.g. what I see is coverage from The Shelby Star, Variety and TheGamer. IgelRM (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to knowledge the continued effort working on the article by the editor since my nomination. Unfortunately, her role in Two Pints Lighter (2014) doesn't push this over WP:NACTOR. IgelRM (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Louis Tordini

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

Non-notable author article, which somebody claiming to be the subject has been editing Orange Mike | Talk 05:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Things That Hang from Trees, unless that page also goes up for deletion. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. The film based off his book received made up in one day awards for an independent film. I see no significant coverage of him, his book, or the film. The only review of the derivative film on Google news is from Slant here. His page (I refuse to call it an article) is close to WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to rescue. AgusTates (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

References are mostly of brief primary account (interviews), and the rest do not center around her. WP:NEWSORGINDIA might apply to some sources. Overall, the sources do not establish the grounds for a standalone article on this individual yet. X (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She might pass WP:NACTOR for her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. So (weak) Keep; Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her role in several distinguished films substantiates her qualifications as an actress. But this article needs more substantial coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaavya Sha

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

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per references from The New Indian Express, The News Minute, The Times of India [13], [14] and her work in many notable movies as mentioned in the article. Behappyyar (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more references to it. And Despite this, it is incomprehensible to tag for AfD after a senior editor has already reviewed it. Behappyyar (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There certainly seems to be more than just passing coverage in the Times of India sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WP:GNG, significant coverage from reliable for establishing the notability of a topic. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 08:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ipigott and S-Aura, would you mind mentioning the WP:THREE best sources or the sources you think help the subject pass GNG or NACTOR? It would be great to see a source analysis, as all I could find is routine coverage and nothing independent of the subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loudspeaker (2018 film). Clearly the only named member of the cast and her only lead role [15]. DareshMohan (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: To Loudspeaker (2018 film), the better option. Claims notability in someway but lacks sufficient reliable sources to fully support this claim.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV easily. Here are a few more mentions [16], [17], [18] Tau Corvi (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tau Corvi, Indiaglitz is unreliable and the other two sources are not independent. There seems to be no coverage of the Paisa movie mentioned in the TOI source or about its director. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeraxmoira🐉, please explain why Indiatimes is not independent, I don't get it Tau Corvi (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those are interviews and interviews are primary sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that this can be classified as an interview [19]. And this is even more so [20]. Anyway, you call these sources not independent, and I still don't understand why. In my opinion, the links I provided demonstrate how a major Indian media covers the life of an actress (her wedding and debut in cinema) Tau Corvi (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think they are independent sources? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any indication that IndiaTimes is affiliated with Kaavya Sha. If there is, please point it out. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So by your understanding, IndiaTimes is not independent only if it is affiliated with Kaavya Sha? Please read and understand WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY, WP:INTERVIEWS and Indiscriminate sources before dropping your two cents in an AfD discussion. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very informative. I just don't think that, for example, the announcement of a film with Sha, in which her commentary is given, can be considered an interview. In my understanding, this is first and foremost an article about her debut in cinema. Tau Corvi (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Kavya Shah to Tamil, item number to good roles	No byline		~	✘ No
Actress Kaavya Sha talks about being grateful	Interview	~		✘ No
Kaavya Sha debuts in Bala’s Thaarai Thappattai		Independent blog	~	✘ No
Mr & Mrs Ramachari Actress Kaavya Sha Bagged Her Next Flick	Press release			✘ No
Kaavya Sha gets married to producer Varun Gowda		~	Video coverage of her marriage	✘ No
Mr & Mrs Ramachari actress back in action	Press release	~		✘ No
'Loudspeaker' review: A cheesy, forgettable film			Passing mention - Review	✘ No
Kaavya Sha signs her next in Sandalwood		~	Routine coverage	✘ No
Kaavya Sha turns television reporter		~	Routine coverage	✘ No
Rachita, Bhavana To Shake A Leg With Sudeep In ‘Mukunda Murari’			Passing mention	✘ No
'Loudspeaker' movie review: ‘Simple’ game leads to complicated situation			Passing mention - Review	✘ No
Mookajjiya Kanasugalu Movie Review : Jnanapith Award-winning novel comes alive onscreen		~	Passing mention - Review	✘ No
Kaavya Sha shoots with Santhanam for the Tamil film Paris Jayaraj	~ Interview	~		~ Partial
In memory of Puneeth, guests at Kaavya Sha’s wedding will be able to donate their organs	Interview	~		✘ No
Kaavya Sha to debut with Paisa	~ Partial Interview	~		~ Partial
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}}.

Per WP:GNG, even if we consider multiple publications from TOI group as a single source for the purpose of establishing notability, we would still require two more good sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loudspeaker (2018 film): Source analysis by Jeraxmoira provides a clear and insightful overview. Charlie (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for redirect as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Loudspeaker (2018 film). RangersRus (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Loudspeaker (2018 film). After discounting WP:NEWSORGINDIA not much is left. Gheus (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

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

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least two main/lead roles in notable productions + other significant roles. Can be expanded through sources like https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/1063549-ali-raza (containing an interview; bylined presentation). Declining creation because iit needs improvement could have been OK but not because it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Because it does. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that interview means means much for to WP:Notability, see WP:INTERVIEW. And declining wasn't an option for the nominator, as they said in the nom, this is a disputed draftification; this is an procedurally correct nomination. Follow up @Mushy Yank, I'm just going through the filmography on the article, which two are you considering main/lead roles in notable productions? I'm not sure I'm totally convinced but I could be persuaded to agree. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby CohnOh, no the interview is not to prove notability directly, just an exemple of what can be used to improve the page and verify the importance of the roles. Regarding procedure; I did not say this could not be AfDed (everything can), just commenting on the fact that the nomination's rationale is based on NACTOR, just like the reason to decline the creation at AfC was. Lead/main cast roles in Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri, & Noor Jahan (2024 TV series) ; significant roles (not minor) in Duniyapur (TV series) & Gunah (TV series). I'm leaving it at that. Best, -Mushy Yank. 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)EDIT: +lead role in Iqtidar (see page)-Mushy Yank. 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having lead roles does not make someone inherently notable. They need the significant coverage to support. The references are interviews, puff pieces, or otherwise unreliable. On a side note, this was more than just draftification. It was draftified, then declined, then still moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing the nom, fails NACTOR and GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but "fail[ing] WP:NACTOR", how, please? -Mushy Yank. 12:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it otherwise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the guideline and read the page. It is obviously a pass of WP: NACTOR. See my comment above. -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guidelines and read the page. In my opinion, he did not have any significant roles, in fact filmography section is devoid of any reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant roles????? REALLY? I will assume good faith then.... if you honestly want to check, just click on the links about the series.....I’m leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a mention in a Wikipedia article confer notability? Almost, none of those articles has his role supported by a reliable source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost? Meaning, you find a few that confirm them, after all? :D Again, I am assuming good faith. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the content covered in other Wikipedia articles about the subject does not establish notability. Almost meaning the ones I checked lack reliable sources amounting to WP:SIGCOV. He is a young emerging actor but does not have coverage at the level of establishing notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not about SIGCOV (just read it, it's not long), NACTOR is about significance of roles in notable productions. 2 sources in English almost at random to confirm 2 different significant roles in 2 notable productions: https://www.dawn.com/news/1773436 ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1192720. Again, read my comments above. Thank you. (NB- I never said that mentions in WP confer notability, please read me carefully.) -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".

The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".

Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.

You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean for it to be a subject of contention. I was discussing NACTOR versus NBASIC and you were discussing NACTOR versus GNG. NACTOR uses the term "may" which means there may be significant coverage. GNG uses the term "presumed" which means there is likely coverage. Some cite NACTOR as meaning if they have significant roles then the coverage doesn't need to exist. And, I am not saying that off of a guess - it has been the argument for a select few in many deletion discussions, including one that just closed as delete.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had significant roles in two or three TV series which have Wikipedia articles (so are presumably notable), so he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, he has had significant roles in two or three TV series. NACTOR is enough to keep an article. Jitujadab90 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which roles and where is the significant coverage supporting they are significant?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria such as WP:ARCHITECT, WP:ARTIST, WP:AUTHOR, WP:CREATIVE, WP:FILMMAKER, WP:DIRECTOR,WP:JOURNALIST, WP:POET, WP:PRODUCER, WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, WP:ENT, WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL. And he subject is notable as per NACTOR. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already discussed in this afd that was just closed for a page you created and in the deletion review discussion for that page which is ongoing. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment of Vanamonde93, RebeccaGreen. Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per Mushy Yank. Behappyyar (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddsworld and Edd Gould have alot of disconnected stuff from eachother, and do have their own histories, alot of content involving the show and it's creator reference these articles, so they are definitely in use.

They should'nt be deleted or merged Charliephere (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld: but really not opposed to Keep as this seems to be a WP:CREATIVE pass. -Mushy Yank. 23:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several primary references and the sourcing can improve, but the subject meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or Keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Eddsworld. Not sure about sourcing individually but I think merging together would be good. Procyon117 (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Edd's influence on the indie animation community and Internet as a whole is worthy enough to warrant a seperate article Flixxy0 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Flixxy0: With your permission, I have bolded your position:[21] Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. There's yet to be a consensus on whether this is a keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sourcing is not great, but the article passes WP:CREATIVE.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

Actors and filmmakers

Ikmal Amry

Ahana

Sergio De La Torre

Youssef El Deeb

James Lee Guy

Natalija Ugrina

George DiCaprio

Luke Brandon Field

Eva Vik

Alex Shewmaker

Dean Cochran

Tania Brishty

Samreen Kaur

Monika Chauhan

Harry Josh

Aarti Gupta Surendranath

Muhlach family

Arlyson Lanoa

Erica Collares

S M Kayum

Rajib Kro

Bellevue Kandy

Dai Ying (producer)

Jean-Marc Rives

Hamid Castro

Michael Morriatti

Hannah Telle

Aaron Louis Tordini

Radha Bhatt

Kaavya Sha

Ali Raza (actor)

Edd Gould

Proposed deletions

Categories