Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Women. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

Rasha Thadani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject looks non notable. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON Zuck28 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Larsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable pageant titleholder, fails WP:GNG { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 15:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above, couldn't find any sigcov in Danish language sources.
Noah 💬 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Junlper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no substantial or notable coverage about the twitter account itself. All the sources talk about the twitter account glacially in passing from a group of posters, or goes into marginal coverage about a phrase they used. None of the cited references are substantially covering the page itself. Scuba 02:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not commenting on the deletion, but should be noted that a semi-popular twitter account has called for the page’s deletion. Any new user voting on this, make sure to review previous discussions and infer an opinion from there. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang, talk about bad timing on my behalf, I guess that's what I get for not having twitter myself. Scuba 03:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    •Comment OP Here (i’m the semi popular account), i added a notice down below saying this, I should’ve of phrased my reply better. apologies for any trouble i’ve caused, i have no idea how wikipedia works so i hope you get this message) 2001:56B:9FE0:99A2:40DD:52BA:8C87:9EA3 (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the deletion of this Wikipedia article. The account in question seems to lack the notability and significance required for inclusion in Wikipedia. While it may have been a fixture in a niche online community for a time, its impact appears to have been fleeting and unsubstantiated. The claim to have coined a couple of popular internet jokes, even if true, doesn’t seem sufficient to justify a dedicated Wikipedia article, especially when there’s no credible evidence cited which supports the claim. This sort of anecdotal notoriety is better suited to discussions in forums or social media threads than a permanent spot on Wikipedia.
    Moreover, Wikipedia’s purpose is to document subjects that are verifiably notable and have enduring relevance, supported by reliable secondary sources. This inactive Twitter account's history of trolling and "shitposting" is far from unique or influential in the broader context of internet culture. Keeping this page sets a precedent for hosting articles about countless similar accounts, which would dilute the quality and purpose of the Wikipedia. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support this nomination and vote to Delete this page. Like others said the Goblin mode and Snickers dick vein articles already exist(their notability I personally also find questionable), otherwise this person is not notable aside from having a few rabid fans(and haters) that poison any discussion pertaining to them. Immensedata (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•Keep Frankly, I agree with reasoning behind this nomination (and the last three nominations), but Patar knight convincingly made the case for keeping it last AfD--I can't really put up an argument against what was laid out there, and I would encourage would-be deleters take a look at it. I would support pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself, though. Theodore Christopher (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patar Knight's response is not convincing when referring to BLP1E and certainly doesn't hold up in 2025. I still believe the article should be deleted because the Patar's argument overstates the junlper’s significance. The so-called "in-depth" coverage from sources like Rolling Stone or BuzzFeed News is more about the viral moments—"goblin mode" or the Snickers dickvein controversy—than Junlper. Junlper is not the focus of these pop news articles; the viral posts that junlper claims to have originated are. This doesn’t meet the standard of notability required for a biography, where the subject needs to be covered in a sustained, significant way as a person, not just as the source of a fleeting internet joke.
Patar's argument also leans heavily on the idea that being central to multiple viral moments negates BLP1E, but not every viral event has lasting cultural weight. These moments might have been funny or memorable in the moment, but that doesn’t mean they are significant enough to stand out against other internet jokes and be immortalized on Wikipedia. Otherwise, we’re opening the door to articles about every niche internet figure who happens to trend for a day or two.
This feels like an attempt to stretch the guidelines to justify Junlper's inclusion. The coverage cited, even if there’s a fair amount of it, doesn’t make Junlper notable in a way that fits the purpose of Wikipedia. Viral internet content thrives in forums and social media, but Wikipedia is meant to document subjects with enduring cultural, historical, or encyclopedic value. This article doesn’t meet that bar. Delete. 184.190.157.40 (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does not require someone to participate in multiple notable events, only that they are discussed in the context of more than one event, which is clearly met here. Goblin mode is not the same as the Snickers Dick Vein hoax, nor was she banned for either of those things. In respect to the other two prongs, the article subject still runs an active podcast and posts on both Twitter/X and Bluesky, and was central to the three aforementioned events, so it's 0/3 on the criteria.
The proper frame of reference to analyze this is though the normal notability policies and the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and for people, WP:BASIC explicitly allows repeated insubstantial, but non-trivial coverage to meet the notability threshold (though I would argue the article contains multiple instances of substantial indepth coverage especially around the aforementioned big three events). -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Pruning some of the more promotional/not notable material apparently added by JunIper herself" would probably leave this article even more barren than it already is. Doombruddah (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is incredibly unlikely that she has been editing the article. The one account that plausibly seems to be hers has never edited the article. In fact, it has never edited Wikipedia at all, only the Commons. Also, as I understand it, she regards this whole thing with a mixture of amusement and embarrassment. (I mean, that's fair.) --DanielRigal (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (edit conflict) It's close for me, but the repeated coverage addressing the individual behind the account and reference to their interactions with other notable people getting picked up in RS media/scholarship leads me to believe that, against all odds, this person is notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your mention of RS scholarship made me check google scholar, and funnily enough there do appear to be scholarly articles based off this person's writing 1, 2. Having trouble accessing the full text of the second one, but the first one, which is a scholarly account based off one of her tweets, is interesting from a notability perspective. Arguable this and other coverage pushes toward notability per WP:AUTHOR #2, though that requires diving into whether "posting" can count as a body of work and I don't think that's necessary as the subject already meets GNG. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The academic commentary from July 2024 in the second link is cited in the article in the suspension section. It's accessible via the Wikipedia Library! [1]. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've already said my peace, but to reinstate:
If you are to keep this, it should absolutely be re-worded, it reads like parody. "American shitposter"? Really? Catturd is the only other article on this website (and i don't like it there either) that uses this word to describe a person. I would argue she isn't really known for much outside of just another leftist twitter account, and this article is probably the only place that defines this user as being known for "goblin mode", a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else. Even that isn't very notable, it was chosen from weak competition such as "metaverse" and an irrelevant hashtag. It was also chosen from an online poll, which are usually not trustworthy. This leaves the titular "snickers dick vein", the shortest section of the article, as their second claim to fame. I don't think this is notable; people lie all the time on the internet. The "backlash" lasted less than a week before being fact-checked by Snopes and clarified by Snickers themselves the next day. That leaves us with a few viral tweets that some journalists thought were worthy of using. Not really notable.
Not to make a "give into bullying" argument but if an article has been nominated for deletion so many times with so many close votes, you should probably just delete it already. Doombruddah (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
a term which is only really known for being Oxford's 2022 word of the year and not much else is not as strong an argument as you appear to think. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it is when that "award" is only selected by public poll, and hasn't been relevant in over 2 years. It has exactly zero cultural significance FullMetalKaiju (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selected from a shortlist prepared by lexicographers from Oxford University Press [2] It's not purely a public vote. One of the other choices was "metaverse", which was such a big thing that one of the biggest companies in the world renamed themselves to get on that (poorly thought out) hype train. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "metaverse" was not strong competition, and I don't think it's any surprise that people chose a meme word over a marketing term. Doombruddah (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously this is not a typical encyclopedic article, but I stand by my (extensive) arguments made in the previous AfD. BLP1E does not apply and the sources show continued and in-depth coverage over several years that meet our notability standards. Also, after the last AfD (which was only four months ago!), I found an academic commentary, not a peer-reviewed article, but still subject to some editorial oversight, analyzing her suspension through a critical theory lenses from July 2024. [3] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that any of the sources cited provide in depth coverage about the account itself. Scuba 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you explain why The Business Insider [4], Rolling Stone [5], or The Messenger [6] would not be in-depth coverage about the account's activities? If you're talking about the person behind the account, there is some coverage as seen in the Personal life section, but that isn't the basis of notability, which is the posting. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, Internet, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ 06:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia needs to have some standards for who gets an article. A random person with an extremely small internet following should not automatically get a Wikipedia page. Also, putting something in the "Chicago rat hole"? That's noteworthy of putting on an online encyclopedia? Please delete this page.--JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth StabroTalk  Contribs 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass notability guidelines, the only thing she is known for would be Goblin mode, and that part of her article can be merged into the other article. Everything else is unnoteworthy and is only suitible of a fandom wiki, not Wikipedia. Jenkowelten (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She is not known for only one thing - in addition to Goblin mode she has been in the news for being banned from Twitter. This was covered in the news, in reliable sources. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have seen far more notable people have pages deleted for lack of notability. It is additionally fairly transparent that large portions of this article were written by its subject. O5225 (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth StabroTalk  Contribs 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @O5225, we already know which account she has previously edited under.[a] I'm wondering, therefore, which of the major authors of the article (viewable here) you are accusing here of being a WP:SOCK (which would get them blocked). And if you have no actual evidence, perhaps try to Assume good faith and make some actual arguments grounded in policy. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clear WP:SIGCOV from Insider, Rolling Stone, and Buzzfeed News. The articles are all about different topics so it doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E. Note: I saw the viral tweet calling for the article's deletion, but did not see the AFD until coming to the page to read the article out of curiosity. ~Darth StabroTalk  Contribs 13:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Anything potentially relevant about this person should be merged to Goblin mode, clearly not relevant by themselves and does not meet notability guidelines outside of a very small niche. News articles will take any viral tweet and write headlines for a week, doesn't automatically make the twitter account notable. Too many primary sources too. Also, what on Earth is that part about the Chicago rat hole? jolielover♥talk 15:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also like to add, small mentions in articles do not warrant a page. Some sources mention her as a footnote, like the Vox article about the Hogwarts video game, saying "this person on twitter thought this" how on earth is this remotely relevant or notable? jolielover♥talk 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a misunderstanding of out notability guidelines. WP:BIO says at WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. Some sources do indeed only trivially mention the topic in passing, but for the things that she actually derives the bulk of her notability from, that is markedly not true since they are in-depth articles focused on her specifically (e.g. Goblin Mode/Insider [7]; Snickers/Rolling Stone [8]; Ban/Messenger [9]) -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article clearly does not meet any kind of encyclopaedic standard, there is an already-existing goblin mode article and beyond their involvement in that phenomenon the person covered is not worth an article. SelketCadmium (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to cite any Wikipedia notability standards (WP:NOTABILITY) that you believe this person does not meet? ~Darth StabroTalk  Contribs 16:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article contains multiple reliable sources, and is well-cited. Most of the news items have been archived in order to allow easy access to the articles. The best three articles are Messenger [10], Insider [11], and Rolling Stone [12]. In addition there are (minor) mentions from additional reliable sources including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Guardian. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple reliable sources does not automatically mean an article is warranted; most sources in the article only mention the user in a fleeting footnote, even simply linking a tweet. An alarming amount of sources are also primary ones from the user themselves (See their tweets and the Chicago rathole bit). People can have dozens upon dozens of sources and still not have an article, like Errol Musk. This particular Twitter user is often just mentioned as "oh, X topic is trending on Twitter today, let's link some popular tweet relating to the topic", like this source which literally just links the tweet, provides no additional commentary (and you can't even see the tweet), yet is linked as a source to the "In March 2023..." sentence. The source literally does not support that sentence at all. Though at face value it looks like a well cited article, it really is not. jolielover♥talk 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The three news sources I highlighted are not fleeting footnotes, but are news stories entirely centered on Junlper. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a core of good, in-depth sources around the main sources of notability that you have consistently refused to address. Not everything in a biography is going to be about notable events. It is perfectly fine and normal for some biographical content to come from cases where the coverage is more minimal (and therefore contribute minimally to notability).
    The primary sources are used to cite statements that meet WP:BLPPRIMARY (i.e. post is supplementing an RS story) or are WP:BLPSELFPUB statements. They aren't factored into the notability calculus and don't need to in order to meet WP:BASIC.
    The Errol Musk analogue doesn't work because if the Musk family was not famous, but Errol had the same amount coverage, he would probably have his own page. But per WP:NOPAGE, even though he's notable, the level of coverage can fit into the parent page without issue, which isn't the case here.
    The reason why you can't see the tweet, is because the original account was permanently banned later that year, which the articles explains quite well and with in-depth commentary for news and academic sources. In any case, the tweet is visible in the archived version. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reads closer to a fandom page than an Encyclopedic article. A majority of sources are either junk, fluff, or primary tweets themselves (most secondary sources simply mention a single tweet by the person and do not focus on them), and the ones that are by reputable sources barely make the standard for notability. Goblin mode is its own page, and a single tweet about a "dick vein" does not notability make, regardless of coverage (if anything, it should simply be on the Snickers page.) DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Many of the topics in this article are not relevant to anything important and anything relevant about Junlper should just be merged with the Goblin Mode article. Some sources in this article are also unreliable (such as X (formerly twitter) and Bluesky. Other references are articles in news outlets such as Vox and The Washington Post with only minor mentions of Junlper. 156.57.118.166 (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The cited sources focus on fleeting viral moments rather than providing substantial coverage of the individual. Any relevant content could be merged into related topics (which in this case may also not meet notability standards), but this standalone page lacks the enduring significance required for inclusion. Dynamokankaku (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page has already survived several deletion requests and no new arguments or Wikipedia page policy violations have been made. The page has already met notability guidelines and nothing has changed since last deletion request other than the passage of time. Slippery slope arguments are also not particularly relevant when determining the proper application of Wikipedia policy. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    the page has not met notability guidelines, hence why it keeps getting proposed for deletion. Not sure how on earth it keeps surviving, especially since the last deletion attempt had more delete votes than keep votes. Scuba 19:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Articles for deletion is not a vote. The guidelines for discussion clear say: "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please detail how you believe the article fails to meet any specific provision of WP:NOTABILITY? Thank you. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while trying to avoid WP:NOTAGAIN and understanding that WP:CCC, I'm failing to see what has changed from the keep of just three months ago. I'll repeat my position from the last AFD that on balance there seems to be just enough sources to scrape past GNG in my view. Obviously this passes WP:BLP1E as well. The closer should also be aware (and probably already is) of a lot of canavasing on both sides of this. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely agree with the last part there. I wasn't canvassed but I did see this first off-project. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does having 100,000 followers on twitter for posting memes really qualify you for a wikipedia article? If we keep this, we lower the bar so much that you could justify making an article for basically any niche internet micro-celebrity. If we really need to put a biography of this random shitposter on Wikipedia it can be a little blurb under the "goblin mode" article. Gore2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gore2000, it may surprise you to learn that our Notability guidlines have basically nothing to-do with follower/viewer/subscriber statics (see WP:ARBITRARY), but instead on whether or not somebody has been covered by reliable sources. It is quite possible for somebody with 100 followers to pass WP:GNG while somebody with Millions doesn't; we simply don't care about these metrics. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So breifly being mentioned in a few news articles years ago justifies giving someone a Wikipedia page? Because that seems to be the logic here. What exactly is the person notable for? JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be specific, WP:GNG says A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Reasonable minds can differ on the Significant coverage question (and indeed I think it just about scrapes by), but new editors need to keep in mind that AFDs aren't votes, and their contribution is liable to be weighted lower by the closer if they don't refer to existing policies and Guidelines (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions may be worth a skim for common pitfalls). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not surprising and I never assumed so. If we want to talk about reliable sources, almost none of the articles are solely about this twitter user, they only mention her in passing when talking about other subjects. I'd be willing to bet that this is a vanity article, especially considering how meticulously it documents her various accounts and when they were banned from twitter, using her own tweets as sources. Gore2000 (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said above it's probably best not to cast aspersions about the authors of this article (list) of being sockpuppets, without any evidence. Focus on content.
    Failing WP:SIGCOV is an argument that can be had, although as I also said above I think there's an adequate amount across multiple events to add up to scraping by that requirement. Quite a lot of these articles give more than a passing mention, and are actually about June (e.g. [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) although the amount of WP:INTERVIEW content mediates that slightly. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I just don't think so. Firstly, Making memes about a snickers "dick vein" doesn't constitute notability. Neither does creating the viral "goblin mode" meme, or posting funny clapbacks on twitter and then getting banned, even if they do get brief moments of coverage in media. Secondly, even if memes on twitter were enough to be considered notable with adequate sources, there are a total of six sources that directly concern Junlper instead of briefly mentioning one of her tweets. Among these articles are posts from a tech blog and a BuzzFeed interview. Meanwhile, other sources are just her own tweets. Thirdly, the article is full of irrelevant information and random trivia. Why does there need to be an image on the article of her placing coins in a pothole in Chicago in reference to a viral internet meme? Why does it list what accounts she used and when they were banned? Why does it have a list of memes she tweeted that got even the slightest amount of media attention? Why does it have her profile picture? She's not notable, but even if she were, none of that is remotely relevant. This article reads like a post on a fandom wiki. Gore2000 (talk) 23:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it isn't that any specific meme etc. constitute notability, it's the collected coverage in sources of the twitter account/owner which makes it notable (in the estimation of quite a few people here). Just to be clear, it doesn't really matter if the coverage is for something that we think is stupid or trivial, the fact of coverage (and it's nature and depth) is what will decide the fate of the article. I and others think there is enough coverage, you don't. As I said this is on the line, but I'm yet to really see an adequate WP:ATA for any content not related the goblin mode, which might help me side with a WP:MERGE/WP:RDR/WP:DEL.
    As to your last point, they're really clean-up issues, which per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, really shouldn't come in to it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – most of the references are about internet trends and only mention the user in passing as opposed to actually demonstrating notability DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 23:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- How many people with 15 minutes of fame on the internet deserve a wikipedia page? Junlper doesn't fit into any of the Notability Guidelines. There was only one event that garnered her attention, a spat with libsoftiktok, so why not just include her name on the wikipedia page for Libs of TikTok? Meme scholar0 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't one of her "events" have a whole article about it! Why wouldn't that be where it's redirected? Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. There is currently an off-wiki canvassing campaign to WP:BLUDGEON this thread into getting the page deleted. The subject clearly meets WP:GNG, with 1, 2, 3. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As has been discussed before, this article being nominated for deletion again around the same time a (relatively not viral) post was made about it was just coincidence. Doombruddah (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not alleging bad faith on the part of the nominator by any means, I don't think Scuba intended this. However, the huge number of votes on this thread from IP users and users with few or no contribs are indicative of the canvassing, and that's the only real difference between this thread and the three previous AFDs for this article. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are an awful lot of WP:SPAs here, which is normally a sign of some sort of off site coordination. The post I've seen seems to have quite enough engagement that the WP:CANVASSING concern is serious, and looking at the replies and quote re-tweets should give some understanding of the extremes of feeling this person has stirred up in certain corners of the internet. Junlper herself also bluesky-ed [?] about this article which is why I warned about canvasing from all-sides here.
None of this justifies a speedy keep (imo) but it's laughable to suggest it won't have some effect. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all the canvassing my thought is it's a bad idea to be having this discussion now. If there really needs to be another AFD for this article (which is already on it's fourth AFD, a bit ridiculous IMO), we should at least be waiting for all the off-wiki attention to die down. This thread has already become incredibly clogged with WP:ATA arguments from inexperience users and is borderline unusable. The combination of the inability to have a productive discussion mid-canvassing and the three previous AFDs was the basis for my speedy keep vote. Apologies that I could've explained that better in my original comment. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can trust the closer to be able appropriately weight the obvious non-policy based WP:SPA !votes. And we still have a week (possibly weeks with relists) of time for more experienced editors to way in. If the canvasing at MKuCR4 didn't cause that one to be voided I think we're not going to here. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any voiding will be done at closing. For example, the second AfD was basically a non-consensus result because of the canvassing. Looks like the post is over 150k views now, which is crazy. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here
  • Keep. The nomination is very unclear but it seems to fundamentally misunderstand the article. This is not just about a Twitter account or a "page". (I am not even sure what the nomination means by "page".) This is about a person and we have adequate Reliable Sources to show that she is notable for multiple reasons and that, taken together, those add up to sufficient notability. These are not all passing mentions, as some have claimed. She does get a lot of passing mentions but there is sufficient substantial coverage too. There is the 2022 dedicated interviews by Buzzfeed News and Business Insider and the Rolling Stone article. That's three very solid sources where the coverage is substantial and primarily about her or her activities. OK, but is it sustained? It's not as intense as 2022, but we have The Messenger and The Advocate covering her in 2023 and NBC News in 2024. It's not the highest level of notability but I think this is more than enough for an article. Notability is not temporary so it is not like she could have become any less notable since we last had an AfD on this and came to that conclusion. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Not seeing any real sustained coverage. The sources that do exist are mostly pop culture esq articles that don't really cover the individual. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is my source assessment per the sources given above:
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes ~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER Yes Two paragraph ~ Partial
No WP:INTERVIEW Yes WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS Yes Obviously, It's an interview No
No WP:INTERVIEW Yes WP:VOX Yes No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes ? Unknown
Yes Yes ? Unknown
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}}.

Here's the source assessment for the article itself:

Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes No No mention, just a link to his tweet No
Yes Yes No Same with the Washington Post one No
Yes Yes No No mention No
Feels like an inteview Yes WP:VOX No WP:TRIVIALMENTION No
Yes Yes No Brief Mention No
Yes Yes No One sentence that discussing the subject itself No
Yes Yes No just the tweet No
Yes Yes No just the tweet No
Yes Yes No just the tweet No
Yes Yes No just the tweet No
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION No
Yes Yes No No mention No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I'm leaning towards Weak Delete per assessment above Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to The Advocate, while I don't see any specific WP:RSN discussion that gave a definitive conclusion, the times it is discussed seem to show it is generally thought of as reliable. The Messenger (going of the wiki page) less so. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None the less 2 sources seems to not meet the criteria for WP:SIGCOV, well at least for me Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Looking at the first table, I'm not sure where the red Xs in the GNG column come from. They are not automatically supported by WP:INTERVIEW. The two main points of WP:INTERVIEW are to be aware that interviews repeat claims made by the interviewee without fact checking, making such claims primary sources, and also that PR pieces are very often disguised as interviews. It says "A multitude of interviews with a breadth of styles shows a wide range of attention being given to the subject and can be considered as evidence of notability. Elements of interviews include selecting the subject, contacting the subject, preparation of questions, and writing supplemental material such as a biography." I think the interviews here are more of the good sort than the bad and can't be anything less than a "Partial", maybe more. I'd also point out that The Advocate (magazine) is a print magazine and, to quote the article, "the oldest and largest LGBTQ publication in the United States and the only surviving one of its kind that was founded before the 1969 Stonewall riots". It may not be listed on WP:RSPS but there is a good reason to assume it Reliable. I think that's a green tick in the GNG column. The Messenger (website) was a troubled publication but it was a genuine attempt at a news site written by real journalists. I think that's a "Partial" in the GNG column. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the second table and I see a whole column of red and also at least one misgendering. I'm going to AGF and assume that this is just sloppy work. Please go back and edit that if you want us to take it seriously.
Until then I'll just make the general point that not all sources are there for GNG purposes. Some, most even, are there to verify specific content in the article. Junlper gets a lot of brief coverage and passing mentions. Some of them get used in the article for specific valid purposes. Passing mentions may not add to Notability but they can never subtract from it! --DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As someone who regularly uses Twitter, there are far more notable twitter accounts than her who don't have pages. Millions of people know who right wing troll End Wokeness is, but we have no article for them, likewise notorious account Kirawontmiss is infamous on the app and yet again-no wikipedia page. I really do not think this person is notable, Wikipedia is not KnowYourMeme. If we cover her, there's countless other twitter accounts with similar or greater reach who should be considered for articles. Claire 26 (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evan Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This TikTok commentator bio doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. There is a little bit of routine coverage of her viral TikTok video in sources that are not considered reliable, like WP:DAILYMAIL, WP:NYPOST and WP:FOXNEWS. Nothing here seems to meet SIGCOV imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She's not notable because of her TikTok, she's notable for her political commentary which she both publishes with news outlets and other news outlets publish about her commentary. She's actually been a commentator on Fox News itself on TV a bunch of times. I think it's legitimate to say that Fox News is not a reliable source (I think it's rated as yellow) but I think it is notable when somebody is on Fox News regularly because a lot of people see that. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just looked through all of the citations again and none of them are "routine coverage of her viral TikTok video" -- they are actually covering her writing from The Free Press and Newsweek. I didn't cite her own writing in the article because I figured that would be a primary source rather than a secondary source, but here it is for your reference:
September 18, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-raised-millions-democrats-dnc-i-realized-theyre-party-rich-opinion-1955377
October 7, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/i-worked-democrats-years-billionaires-have-unfettered-influence-opinion-1961471
October 28, 2024 - https://www.newsweek.com/democratic-party-most-racist-organization-america-opinion-1976128
November 9, 2024 - https://www.thefp.com/p/democrat-fundraiser-evan-barker-i-voted-trump
Fox News appearances:
September 20, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362232260112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6362202718112
November 11, 2024 - https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-party-consultant-who-voted-trump-says-liberal-friends-turned-back-her
November 12, 2024 - https://www.foxbusiness.com/video/6364601436112 and https://www.foxnews.com/video/6364625064112
For the article itself I've cited other people talking about her writing or her TV commentary as secondary sources. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ruthgrace: her own articles don't help to meet WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNALIST. Appearing on Fox News or Fox & Friends also doesn't create notability either, although a lot of people watch it. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a lot of people seeing a subject on the news wouldn't make that subject notable. It's true that left-leaning news outlets are more likely to be considered reliable on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that subjects covered regularly by right-leaning outlets not notable. Ruthgrace (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Khalaf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod that was redirected. Another editor and myself opposed redirect here Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_9#Nancy_Khalaf LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar you restored the article and took it to afd before the rfd closed, and did so as the rfd's nom. try to not do that. i know from experience that closing rfds as nom for any reason besides withdrawing is a pretty bad idea lol
Ali Holman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines and lacks proper reliable sourcing OhNoKaren (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination
Nayyn (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schantz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soodabeh Davaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a deletion request filed on behalf of the subject who has contacted us via VTRS 2025011410006473. Professor Davaran states "The page contains inaccurate information that could harm my reputation. By Wikipedia’s policies and my right to control my personal information, I kindly request the page's removal."

I am satisfied that the request received is from the subject. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the subject’s request for page deletion. Professor Soodabeh Davaran has highlighted valid concerns regarding the accuracy and neutrality of the information presented on this page. The current content disproportionately emphasizes retracted papers without providing proper context or notable, balanced information about her broader academic contributions. This imbalance creates the appearance of an attack page, as noted by others in this discussion.
Furthermore, as Professor Davaran herself is not a widely recognized public figure under Wikipedia’s notability standards (e.g., WP:NPROF), her request for removal aligns with her right to safeguard her professional reputation. Wikipedia should prioritize neutrality and fairness, avoiding the appearance of bias or harm to individuals without clear public interest.
Given the lack of independent, reliable sources establishing the subject’s notability or the significance of the retractions, retaining this page is not in line with Wikipedia’s purpose. I respectfully request that the page be removed to prevent further harm and ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s guidelines. Ali.ghodrati20 (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Grand Switzerland 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I would draftify this, but it is too old. This page cites zero independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and I could not find any in my BEFORE search. Toadspike [Talk] 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate alternative is probably a redirect to Miss Grand International 2024. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively it could be merged with Miss Grand Switzerland Nayyn (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Evah Destruction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Drag performer fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject is not notable, then the page should be redirected to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3, not deleted altogether. Thanks, ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gharida Farooqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Mainly covered in gossip media and controversy like "child abuse" is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Gheus (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makenna Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, almost all the cited sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Has been identified as such since June 2022, without improvement. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Colorado. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 2022 AfD discussion was keep, with the condition that the flag on notability was added. I have added some sources, where the best coverage is the 2019 article in the Fort Collins paper (though I note she is from Colorado). She has minor mentions in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post (now in article). I have not replaced all the citations to YouTube, though I agree with the 'unreliable source' flags for them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I now have access to the Wired magazine article, and that is also significant coverage. My inclination would be to delete the other items that are sourced to YouTube or primary sources, but I think they can remain for now in case someone else finds better sourcing. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim feminist views on hijab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of sections of Muslim feminism and does not meet WP:GNG; most sources in the article do not mention feminism/Muslim feminism at all. Helleniac (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Serbezova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails SPORTSCRIT. Courtesy ping Geschichte JayCubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leýla Kuliýeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, her achievements as athlete are not much and as an official her position is not something special to make attention. no much coverage about her in general. Sports2021 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prisca Coborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NBIO. NBIO requires that biography subjects be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" I am just not seeing evidence that this person is particularly remarkable or passes WP:GNG. The last source (The Coborn Centre for Adolescent Mental Health website) doesn't have any coverage of Coborn. Eastendtalking (archived copy [19]) looks like a self-published website that doesn't count towards notability. The History of County of Middlesex source only briefly mentions Prisca in a couple of sentences in the context of her founding the school and I would only consider it passing coverage. A search on scholar brings up no additional sigcov [20]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up additional sourcing. I am now Neutral on deletion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women. History, United Kingdom, and England. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Some brief mentions [21], but I don't see any biographical info, or much of anything to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A rare case of a pre-20th-century, non-noble woman who achieved lasting memory for her actions. There are book sources, of which the best is a 1900 documentation of Bow Church, which adds her death date from her memorial and the detail that she was the daughter of a minister there. Her name was also memorialised at St Barts. There are at least 3 spellings of her married name (and some confusion with "Priscilla"), but the main problem with the article was it had been expanded by an IP in 2017 with a slab of essayistic and unreferenced prose, and a secondary problem is Google Books can't handle composite volumes with repeated page numbers (or books with a slab of unnumbered plate pages, I suspect). I've fixed the article up with more references, but I don't think we should set the bar very high for biographical details in such cases. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have found and added more information and sources, and there is a bit more info to add. As the sources show, there was coverage of her in the 1880s, 1900 and 1910s. The Bow Church website in fact gives her name as Priscilla, and the WP article Priscilla states that that is the English version of the Latin Prisca, so they are variants of the same name (and Latin forms were often used in church records in the 1600s). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Additional sourcing has been added, and other issues with the article are fixable.Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Josseline Louise Marie da Silva Gbony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable diplomat; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NPOL. (Ambassadors are not inherently notable.) Sources in this article and in de-wiki are a mix of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs and WP:ROUTINE coverage; I find no WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aishwarya Rutuparna Pradhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find significant coverage about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Brick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable person per WP Journalists Cinder painter (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Capolicchio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find reliable sources about this BLP. Clearly fails WP Anybio, WP Journalists Cinder painter (talk) 12:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carin Götblad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP Anybio, WP Npol. She is the Swedish Coordinator against domestic violence - not sure this falls under "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" Cinder painter (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Police, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have improved the article's sources and now meet at least WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC. For the nomination, there is nothing in the article that describes her as a politician or solely being an activist. Many of the available sources describe her as a "regional police chief". Mekomo (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have questions regarding WP ANYBIO, namely: how the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field or which a well-known and significant award or honor has been received by her? Cinder painter (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to remove some of the sources which were not about her. Some more should probably be removed, but Icakuriren, Chefstidningen and Femina do contain significant coverage. This is sort of a strange bouquet of sources, but there are probably more; also, the Swedish Wikipedia version tells of some awards she won. Not one single decisive award, but a combination of what we have available leads me to say weak keep. To clarify: the regional police chief position is above county level. Geschichte (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage in the Swedish article sv:Carin Götblad. Some of it could be used to improve the English article. Sjö (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She also has an entry in Vem är det which I think counts as a standard national biographical dictionary per WP:ANYBIO [22]. Sjö (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot more information in the Swedish article which could be incorporated, along with the sources. There certainly seems to be lots of coverage in Swedish. Some of the awards listed in the Swedish article do not seem to contribute to notability, but some appear to be. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anna Mannheimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable WP Journalists, nor WP Anybio Cinder painter (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Olofsson (TV journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Swedish journalist failing WP ANYBIO and WP:JOURNALIST Cinder painter (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Payal Dhare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 06:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion may not count, but yes APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@APenguinThatIsSilly Kindly clear your stand, Keep, Delete, Redirect or a Comment. Taabii (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Delete, I agree with proposer. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Might have been best WP:PROD'd, but the notice may have been removed for no reason. APenguinThatIsSilly("talk") 21:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting the prime minister is WP:SINGLEEVENT and I cannot establish the relevancy of Gaming Creator of the Year etc. Perhaps redirect somewhere or delete. IgelRM (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable award. The sources with significant coverage do not have any bylines and the sources with bylines are interviews. Not enough independent reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anne-Marie von Schutzbar genannt Milchling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The significance of the article is not shown. Only genealogical information. An ordinary representative of the minor nobility. RobertVikman (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Leo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Article is written like a promotional resume and for that reason alone should be blown up per WP:TNT. The sourcing does not pass WP:GNG. It's possible she might pass WP:NAUTHOR if some book reviews can be located but I wouldn't support keeping this unless it were stubified or rewritten to remove promotional language. 4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ky Dickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I checked the first 26 sources for any sign of passing WP:NBASIC. Nothing. The sources are all either interviews, promotional press releases/churnalism, passing mentions (credits), or primary. Not convinced that this passes WP:NDIRECTOR either. Most of the Awards and recognition section are non-notable awards. Two of her films have articles, but notability isn't inherited. qcne (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it also before I did significant editing it was clear that it had been written by the subject herself 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:C79:3693:EC66:C21B (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unnoteworthy and largely written by the subject of the article without disclosure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kydickens Internetronic (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All edits by that account were immediately reverted (not that other edits to the article couldn't have been COI). Nardog (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I’m also skeptical as to whether the two films mentioned that do have articles even deserve them too 2A01:4B00:88BE:DF00:D083:FA22:6B14:99A1 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The primary reason this article is of note to me is that since late 2024, Dickens' primary claim to fame (notoriety?) has been The Telepathy Tapes, a podcast that I do not think I, as an autistic person, can talk about objectively.
I agree that WP:TNT would be the least circuitous route to a quality Biography, if some iteration of the article was permitted(?) to remain in the database.
Also, I want to make sure I understand Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process § How does the deletion process work? correctly. The page was proposed for deletion on January 12, so if the vote to delete the page is unanimous (which of course it might not be), it could be deleted on the 19th. Is that correct? Thank you for your help!! Finalgirlfall (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Finalgirlfall, that's correct. On the 19th or 20th (usually), an uninvolved administrator will look at the discussion and determine if there is a consensus to close the discussion. If there's not, they'll relist the discussion for 1-3 additional weeks, checking in each week to see how the discussion has evolved. Otherwise, they'll close the discussion and take whatever the consensus action is (such as deleting the article). Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Christine Egan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from being there at 9/11 and dying, there is nothing notable about this person's career. Was a working nurse. No lasting notability, 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily meets notability requirements; newspapers.com brings up articles about her in major Canadian newspapers even before her death. Not "working nurse"; was a leader in nursing in Nunavut and has a scholarship named for her. One might just wonder why you chose a queer non-American woman to nominate for deletion above the dozens of other victims who are actually less notable - but were American. --BasicBichette (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Coppen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️✉️📔) 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo 18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine daSupremo 22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo 19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Idoghor Melody, I removed the tag because the subject clearly meets notability guidelines, and I second what Spideog has stated in support of keeping this article. Describing the subject merely as a "flagbearer" significantly downplays her notability, as Spideog rightly pointed out.

I find it surprising that the nomination suggests the subject fails WP:NPOL. The guideline clearly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. While it’s true that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", this individual exceeds those basic criteria, given her prominent leadership roles and national recognition, including her election as National Chairperson of a political party and being named Female Politician of the Year.

I would kindly advise the nominator to review the relevant notability guidelines again. This article demonstrably satisfies both the specific (WP:NPOL) and general (WP:GNG) notability standards. Repeated nominations for deletion without fully considering these criteria risk discouraging valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: All what I am seeing here is WP:BLP1E. 98 percent of the Sources provided in the article are about her campaign as the flag bearer of a party to participate in an election that she did not win. 99 percent of the sources lack WP:SIGCOV and cannot be used as WP:GNG sources. Only this vaguely discusses other aspects of her life which is also tied to being a flag bearer. Also, if she had won the highest National Award of Ghana, I know this article wouldn't be in AfD. She won a non notable award, given to her by her political party. I tried to check for process of the award and could not find anything on the internet. From the above, it is very clear that this subject fails WP:NPOL and the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055
    I’m surprised by how you reviewed this article according to WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. If 98% of the sources truly lack significant coverage, I wonder whether you conducted an independent review beyond the sources already provided in the article to assess the subject’s overall notability.
    Additionally, I find the repeated misinterpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV concerning articles that clearly meet the criteria quite concerning. The subject may not have won an election, but WP:NPOL explicitly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" can be notable. It also clarifies that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", but individuals in such roles can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. This subject, with significant coverage and recognition in Ghana, meets these standards.
    I’m genuinely curious as to how your reviews are being conducted because the criteria seem to be applied inconsistently, leading to confusion and frustration.
    To conclude, I believe the notability criteria in this case have been misinterpreted, and these types of reviews are discouraging and potentially misleading.—- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12 can you list three references that significantly covered the subject? Almost all her coverage both listed here or online are either about her ambition to become the president or receiving non notable awards. However, I came across a source that would have shown something better though seems like her CV with this statement According to her curriculum vitae... Yet only this cannot convince me to vote a keep. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055, I’m not trying to convince you, and I won’t attempt to convince you to vote "keep." As I stated earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how your reviews are being conducted. I would kindly advise you, as a reviewer, to carefully revisit the relevant notability guidelines, specifically WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thank you. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 13:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12 I think you are the one mixing things up here. You don't have to shift the post, provide the three references that meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV if you truly understand the guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ibjaja055, I am neither mandated nor obligated to provide the three references you’ve requested to prove my understanding of the guidelines. I’ve already shared my submission and reasoning for why the article should be kept.
    As I mentioned earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how you review articles based on these criteria, and I’ve offered my advice accordingly. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Robertjamal12, you are not mandated nor obligated to provide the three references that @Ibjaja055 requested, but you can express concerns about their !vote on this discussion. Nice one! Idoghor Melody (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Firstly, it would be very unnecessary to reply to my !vote, especially if you're going to be saying what you already said above. The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Please don't BLUDGEON this process. Discussions are for building consensus, not for confronting everyone who disagrees with you.
NPOL#1 says that only when a politician or judge has been elected to hold an international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office or when the politician is a member of the legislative bodies of these levels, whether they have assumed the office or not, would they be presumed notable. Not when the person was only a candidate of the election, the person has to win the election. This does not include winning a political party's primary elections. Even though leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, they are subject to the same content policies as any other article and this subject fails the general notability guideline (see a detailed source analysis below).
NPOL#2 says that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage (emphasis mine) can be presumed notable, and that means that the politician must have been written about, in-depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, now, I don't see any of that in the coverages Nana Akosua has received so far, most of these sources are either routine coverages or cookie cutters. Below is a detailed source analysis of why Nana Akosua obviously fails the general notability guideline too.
EDIT: Also, the "Female Politician of the Year" award is a non-notable award.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
~ This is Ghana's Broadcasting Corporation, a national news corporation. Would it be independent of a presidential election? Of course not. And besides, this piece is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Yes No This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject. No
No I will initiate a..., ... she stated, For us in the CPP..., ... she added. It is also evident that this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. No I don't see a reason to think a site that anyone can register on to post news (UGC) is a reliable source of information for English Wikipedia. No Again, this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject. No
No Speaking with Etsey Atisu on GhanaWeb TV's Election Desk, Nana Akosua, who is also the National Chairperson of the CPP, stressed that... No This piece lacks a byline and that is very unprofessional of a news org. No Another WP:DOGBITESMAN. No
Unaccessed, this is only a database. No No clear editorial oversight]. No This is only a database. No
Yes Yes No This is another WP:DOGBITESMAN. No
No No No clear editorial oversight. No No
Yes ~ There was no consensus on whether the paper is reliable in itself, the last time it was discussed. And even though there is a Board of Directors of the company that owns this paper, there is not clear editorial oversight of the website itself. No Obviously, not of substantial coverage about the subject here. No
Yes Another WP:DOGBITESMAN. ~ Ditto No The single-sentence about her is insufficient substantial coverage. No
No Addressing the media at the party’s headquarters in Accra, the Chairperson of the Party, Nana Akosua Frimpomaa said... This piece is entirely dependent on the subject. Yes But of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN. No No
No Ditto No Ditto No Nothing like a substantial coverage on the subject here. No
Yes Yes No A political party's primary election result, another WP:DOGBITESMAN. No
Yes Yes No Ditto No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to respectfully raise a potential concern regarding WP:CANVASS. While appropriate notification aimed at improving participation is encouraged, WP:CANVASS warns against selectively notifying users in a way that might influence the outcome of a discussion. In this case, I’ve noticed that several editors have joined the discussion with similar reasoning and viewpoints in quick succession. This has raised questions in my mind about whether notifications were issued in a manner fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, which requires neutrality and transparency when notifying users. I’m not making an accusation, and I recognize that notifying editors of discussions can be helpful when done correctly. However, to ensure a fair process, I would appreciate it if participants could clarify whether any notifications were issued and, if so, ensure they complied with WP:CANVASS guidelines.

Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 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! 05:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given this article's inclusion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Wilson, Soft Deletion is not possible for this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Pennington (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shaun Cassidy#Personal life perhaps? Procyon117 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hila Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see enough reliable sources that talk about Klein in depth. The few sources in this article that are not gossipy or clearly unreliable are either centered on the youtube channels she co-hosted with her husband (H3 Podcast, H3H3productions) or the fashion company she founded (Teddy Fresh). Although the podcasts and the company could be notable, she is not. It is possible that this page could be redirected to any of those articles. My source eval is the following:

Alternatively no objection to discuss a merger here either. I assume we can't unless the debate is broadened early on and in consensus. Hence the procedural keep. gidonb (talk) 04:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are suggesting a Merge, please identify an existing target article. I also don't see grounds for a Procedural Keep which typically is invoked with an inadequate or bad faith nomination and that is not the case here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Liz, the merge target is right there: Ethan and Hila Klein! Hence the reference to Darth Stabro. I explicitly have built on his excellent input. Please provide a reference for what you describe as "typical". Also please explain why an opinion can't be atypical. "Typical" includes by definition space for exemptions. Every case is different. I clearly say alongside no objection to discuss a merger here either. When relisting an article or in the closure of AfDs, it's better not to concentrate too much on one participant so not to put anyone on a pedestal. Unless there happen to be positive things to say. Praise is hardly ever a problem. The procedural keep here is to allow a broader and constructive discussion on the Ethan and Hila Klein content, while not dictating in any way what Badbluebus must do or badly reflecting on the nomination. The nomination was in very good faith! I believe that the content can gain from a broader debate, possible through the merge procedure, yet I provided multiple options! gidonb (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kara Mupo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 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! 05:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sommer Ray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Her page is barebones and you can't expand it with anything that isn't promo content. She clearly isn't notable enough. Strawberries1 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the subject matter being irrelevant or useless, Strawberries1? As long as it is SIGCOV of her, it doesn't matter what we think of the subject matter - the fact that there's coverage about who she's dating or that she had a podcast is fine to count towards WP:GNG as long as it meets the other requirements. And your personal beliefs like Taylor Holder being "a nobody" definitely aren't things that we can consider when assessing notability. The only requirements are that that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is there one of those requirements that you think isn't met here? MCE89 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The subject passes WP:GNG's multiple non-trivial guideline, and that's all there is to it. This may be the most common debate on AfD: Whether an article that is barely notable is instead not notable...but "barely notable" by definition means notable. This article is about a very minor celebrity who nevertheless has made the news. -Markeer 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Markeer, WP:N says even notable topics can be deleted if they fail NOT or aren't encyclopedic. BLP also requires we use the highest-quality sources. I would argue an article that can only really contain a timeline of someone's dating history based on pure tabloid churnalism does not warrant inclusion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't really a hill I'm going to die on as I'll re-iterate that I believe the celebrity to be a minor one, but to address your argument that BLP requires highest-quality sources, I'll remind you that, intuitive or not, both People Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter are listed in green ("reliable") on Wikipedia's list of Perennial sources (and Cosmopolitan is yellow for situationally reliable). I happen to personally agree that I would not trust those news sources on e.g. critical political news or world affairs, but Wikipedia consensus judges them to be reliable sources when discussing celebrity news.-Markeer 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly attached to this either, I just wanted to point out that per NOPAGE and NOT the existence of coverage doesn't mean we have to include the subject of that coverage in a standalone. I interpreted your !vote as leaning toward the "sigh, I guess we have to have an article" direction and figured the above was worth pointing out. I think a decent argument can also be made that the depth of the coverage is also very lacking (gossip about IG posts suggestive of relationships). Regarding People, the last major discussion on it was in 2014, about the magazine rather than the online posts, and the gist of it was leaning more toward "probably reliable for straightforward facts, gossipy material on celebrity relationships is likely UNDUE". I'm of the opinion that there's still a difference between RS and high-quality RS, and articles on BLPs should be based on the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The People article is basically entirely just relaying what she's said, no secondary discussion. The Seventeen and Cosmo "articles" are tabloid trash—essentially nothing encyclopedic in either of them. Nine has almost zero info on her that isn't in quotes. THR has about one sentence on Ray, the rest is announcing a podcast she cohosts. Same with WWD, about some "vitamin gummies" racket she's the "face" of. Per NOPAGE, coverage existing does not mean we have to have an article! JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little to no serious third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk)
  • Delete — (moderate) — Fails SIGCOV, and -- while it may not be immediately apparent given the vast number of articles apparently out-there -- I believe the vast majority fail WP:RS. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE may also be an issue, here. I would also take issue with what certain editors consider SIGCOV; SIGCOV is defined as "...address[ing] the topic directly and in detail... and is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Further, I would also contend that we're getting into WP:NOTGOSSIP territory with many/most of these sources. I would second JoelleJay's contention that the encyclopedic aspect of Wikipedia must be respected and acknowledged and that WP:RS is indeed a fantastic hill to die on, if any. MWFwiki (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we could expand it with more information on her role in Save the Kids coin scandal. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    She had no role beyond giving it a small endorsement. Strawberries1 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and the sources seem to fail the analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of WP:SECONDARY. Being such lazy regurgitations of primary sources (social media mainly) also makes intellectual independence questionable, in the same vein as interview responses. I don't believe this meets our inclusion criteria even without leaning on WP:NOT. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Xenia Benivolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This art critic and writer does not appear notable. She has written a lot as a writer which is in the article but that is all. 🄻🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for writers and critics. Benivolski has contributed to major publications such as The Wire and Frieze, received significant recognition through the national Gallery of Canada, and been involved in notable projects. There is coverage of her work in reliable sources, such as Artforum and e-flux Journal. I am happy to improve the article by adding these citations to address the concerns raised. Adeline2018 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this another week on the off-chance that those source improvements are in the mail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pincus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 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! 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have looked at her artist's file in an art library and found enough ephemera and clippings to confirm the accuracy of her CV under "Exhibitions" on her own website. There isn't a lot of information about her in english since she left Australia for Germany in the late 1990s. She has been interviewed by Australian press and looks like occasionally exhibits here but I haven't found any of her works in the collections of the major government galleries. As mentioned in previous comments she might meet German wikipedia's standards for notability. I don't make a keep or delete comment one way or another on principle because I disagree with wikipedia's biased notability criteria for Australian women artists.LPascal (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noémie Silberer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 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! 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I've added updates and removed the outstanding issues in the article.
Nayyn (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree that the first article has SIGCOV, as it is almost entirely just reporting what Silberer said/felt. Only the first sentence and part of the penultimate sentence contain secondary coverage. Everything else is routine news or non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cindy Carquillat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. While she did finish in first place at the 2004 Swiss Championships, her score was too low to be awarded the title of Swiss Champion. I found this one article where she was mentioned in passing as now coaching. I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage". Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some news articles: [43] ("Kurioses ereignete sich bei den Frauen. Cindy Carquillat belegte zwar Rang 1, der Titel wurde ihr allerdings nicht vergeben, weil sie in den Kür-Noten nicht den erforderlichen Schnitt von 4,8 erreichte. Dies ist bei den Frauen noch nie vorgekommen, seit sie 1931 erstmals am nationalen Championat zugelassen worden waren."), [44] (about her qualifying for the Junior Worlds in 2005).
    Keep. After all, she did finish first in the national championships. Per WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG too. (She competed almost 20 years ago, she definitely had something written about her in the media back then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be something here → [45], but the site doesn't open for me. (I'm tired of this, many sites seem to block Russian IPs, it's impossible to search like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The first source provided has a few sentences, the second one is an article about her, albeit a very short one about her qualifying. The third one that blocked the IP appears to be about changes in the scoring system and is not about her. This SUBJECT appears to be below SIGCOV levels at the moment. In addition I have found a couple of brief mentions in the french media sites la region and arcinfo but well below what is needed to prove GNG. I will have another look later at this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      There are 94 hits for her on e-newspaperarchives.ch. Most look minor but may need a french speaker to judge as some appear to be longer.Canary757 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very far from SIGCOV. Both articles mentioned above are routine event results, from the same news site, and the latter is a couple-sentence announcement about a junior career event so is even further from counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 12 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! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Annmarie Hanlon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 20:30, 6 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! 23:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Caminos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Nönnig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:30, 6 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! 08:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silvia Dimitrov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: That nomination falls under arguments to avoid. See WP:IGNORINGATD. Explain more. Also describe WP:BEFORE efforts and confirmation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deleting this person would create 14 redlinks across the site on various pages related to figure skating and various events. This person is notable.
Nayyn (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would create zero redlinks; the links are removed. If you believe this person qualifies as notable, please provide evidence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lara Johnson-Wheeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to see why this biography is notable. I understand that she is the daughter of a former British Prime Minister, but that isn't enough for a page in its own right. I can see that there are mentions of her in the media which she has participated in (i.e. she is not private person as such). However, I can't see why her biography is in itself notable. There is nothing about her life that I can see that would justify this page if it wasn't for the fact that her father was a British Prime Minister. Now that a few years have passed since her father was a Prime Minister, maybe it's clearer than when this article was previous nominated for deletion in 2021 as to why it isn't notable. It's interesting to note that on the page for Boris Johnson there is nothing about her apart from her name. Maybe a sentence about her in his personal life section might be sufficent rather than this whole article? Seaweed (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of sources brought to this discussion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the person who created this AfD I think maybe a little bit of information about her in the Boris Johnson article (more than just her name) would probably be sufficient. My concern is that I just don't think there needs to be an entire article about her. If she wasn't Boris Johnson's daughter, I'm sure there wouldn't be an article about her. With the greatest respect to her, her biography doesn't inherently meet Wikipedia's notability.
Seaweed (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've now added a very short sentence about Lara on Boris Johnson's article, copying two references from this article over there. Seaweed (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Starovičová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 10:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deleting this person would create 16 redlinks across the site related to different figure skating topics. They are notable according to WP:Sportsperson
Nayyn (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would create zero redlinks; the links are removed. If you believe this person qualifies as notable, please provide evidence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lucia Arrascaeta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentinian rhythmic gymnast. Article was previously draftified in June. JTtheOG (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the inclusion criteria, No traces of any significant coverage. it's already obvious that the article is weak and hence should be deleted, just like Aona1212 has said. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 00:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Forte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 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! 07:23, 11 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! 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 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! 20:59, 9 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) 02:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Huidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 1 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! 08:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Azad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being a mayor does not pass WP:NPOL, Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided. There has been substantial editing activity since its nomination so a source assessment would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional relist before potentially closing this as No consensus. As far as WP:NPOL goes, it also states Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage can pass so does this "press coverage" exist? And, no, there is no "bright line" guideline for mayors and it is definitely not dependent on how big the city/town is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the sources that have been added since nomination represent adequate SIGCOV to satisfy WP:BASIC, even if individually none of them have a great deal of depth about the subject. WP:NEWSORGINDIA also doesn't mean that Indian news sources are inherently bad or unreliable — it just says that Indian media outlets often include poorly labelled sponsored content and press releases, which I don't think really applies here. There also seems to be a plenty of local coverage in Hindi, but I'm hesitant to weigh that too heavily given that I don't speak the language and am relying on Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with MCE89 that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not relevant here as only 4 of the 13 sources are from Times group. Also the coverage was regular, from 2017 with news items appearing every year for over five years, thanks to her controversial acts. I just added one more controversy. Will await the decision... either way... Davidindia (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Li Xuantong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:26, 1 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! 07:27, 8 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! 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yu-seong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:15, 1 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! 07:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This → [65] and this → [66] are lengthy articles about her and her twin sister (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae).
    That's enough for me. But if you aren't satisfied, you can search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=김유성+2009&tbm=nws. I've only looked at the very first page of results. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentThis has originally been created as a WP:TOOSOON but the first article provided provides a good amount of info (the second seems to focus more on the sister) and as she is likely to enter senior events imminently I think it might be too hasty too delete the page so Draftify may be an option here unless more sources are found.Canary757 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: Concur with Canary757 that while the first source appears to have some decent coverage there isn't nearly enough elsewhere for this subject to meet the guidelines. Per WP:YOUNGATH, athletes such as Yu-seong are only notable if "they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I don't think that is the case yet, but as it appears to be a likely possibility I think it makes the most sense to draftify for the time being. Let'srun (talk) 16:07, 11 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! 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Drescher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 7 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! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's another article about her in the same publication as above [69] which is about her junior career again. She appears to be mentioned on here [70] but it appears to only be a ciouple of lines. I have found lots of passing mentions ( such as [71] ) but no WP:SIGCOV so leaning towards Delete unless someone else can find something better.Canary757 (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tina Albanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think she meets WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 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! 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Gülke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shrug02 (talk) 00:29, 12 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! 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy Batchelor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification of an article on a non-notable actor. There is no reliable source for the WP:OR claim that she was the oldest-ever actor who had appeared in Doctor Who (not that that is even a claim to notability). The source for this claim appears to be a Doctor Who wiki. She fails WP:NACTOR as her handful of roles appear to be minor parts, and they are sourced to IMDb, an unreliable source. She fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. There are a couple of articles in a hyper-local village newsletter ([75], [76]), another WP:SPS ([77]), and a self-published as-told-to quasi-autobiography. As for WP:ANYBIO #1, I looked into her Fellowship in the Royal Society of Arts, but it's not a rare honor (there are 31,000 active Fellows) and can be acquired by online application and payment of a fee. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971: Hello. I understand. However, what I do not understand is how some articles such as this one are accepted but not others. This seems like discrimination. There are people as notable as Peggy Batchelor or less notable than her who have pages. Please explain. Spectritus (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not discrimination in any way. It's about independent, secondary, reliable sources. IMDB isn't a reliable source. Wendover News is not likely an independent source. Peggy Batchelor's as-told-to, self-published autobiography is not a reliable, independent, or secondary sources. Pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't make Batchelor any more notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971: Doesn't the fact someone wrote a book about her make her notable enough? Also, may I ask how users are supposed to find sources if Wikipedia condemns almost all of them?
The author wrote a book "as told to" her, which means it's basically Peggy Batchelor talking about herself, and thus not independent. And the biography was published by AuthorHouse, which is a vanity press and thus it's a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source and not reliable. English Wikipedia does not condemn almost all sources; it has specific standards, and the ones you used in this article don't meet them. If you have questions about individual sources or sourcing more generally, please visit WP:RSN. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Zero coverage found for this individual, acting roles are minor, would not pass notability for actors. A voice role in Doctor Who isn't the stuff of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She was featured in only 1-2 episodes of each TV show she was in and played relatively minor roles in films. The article itself seems to be fixated on the (likely original research) trivia of her having once been the oldest person who had been a cast member of Doctor Who, which as we discussed in this AfD, isn't particularly relevant or notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I agree this would be better in draft space. She also had a stage career, which has not been included in the article yet. I am sourcing and adding references and information, and will then consider whether she meets notability guidelines. If she is, the article needs editing, as it reads more like a eulogy than an encyclopaedic entry. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Spectritus (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having found and added sources, I think that she does meet WP:BASIC. There are multiple, independent sources, some substantial, some less so, but they add up. There is coverage across her life in both national newspapers and local papers around the UK (around England, and also Northern Ireland and Scotland). The article could still use some work - I'll work on the lede and info box. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, I cannot view the many British Newspaper Archive links you added since I don't subscribe and it's not available through the Wikipedia Library. However, I looked at a few of the other links you added and they don't seem to add up:
    None of these adds up to WP:SIGCOV. Can you better characterize the British Newspaper Archive sources so editors can properly evaluate them? Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote, I think that she meets WP:BASIC - "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." The number of times a source is referenced gives an idea of the amount of detail in the sources - the profiles of her published in newspapers in Tyne and Wear and Cambridgeshire are particularly detailed, while the Belfast source has a bit less. There is more detail in The Stage article about the drama school she founded in Essex that I have not included. There is coverage over many years - 1925, 1938, 1947 all deriving from her appearances at the Wembley Tattoo; 1946-1966 in stage shows; 1970s-1980s as founder of a drama school and as a nationally recognised adjudicator.
    You mention that being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is not a rare honour. Being a Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama is - information online [78] states "The Guildhall School offers the following honorary awards for distinguished services to the School and to the profession: the FGSM (Fellow of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded to distinguished professors, examiners and past students and the Hon GSM (Honorary Member of the Guildhall School of Music and Drama), awarded for services to music or drama and to the Guildhall School. Limited to 100 holders at any one time." That is an indication of her professional standing, in addition to the news coverage about her.
    I am not suggesting that all the sources contribute to notability - 3 of those you link to provide evidence of facts in the article (her appearances in two radio programmes; the date she left the drama school she founded; the facts that she taught at drama festivals as well as adjudicating, and that she worked at drama festivals in Wales as well as England and N. Ireland). RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Info about sources More info about the sources was requested, so here is the text of the main sources I have found from the 1970s-90s. (Numbers are the current reference numbers in the article.) I included quotes in the article from reviews of her appearances in the 1940s and 50s. As I said above, there is coverage across her life (from 1925-2020) in both national publications and local papers around the UK (from the north-east, east, south-east and south-west of England, as well as Northern Ireland).
  • 1 Next to results of the Ryton Music Festival in the Gateshead Post (in north-east England), a photo of Peggy Batchelor and the following text: "Woman in the festival hot seat PEGGY BATCHELOR F G S M, L G S M who has been adjudicator in the Drama Sections at Ryton Music Festival has had a lifelong association with the Arts, gaining basic training at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and touring many countries during the war with ENSA companies. She then became a founder member of Arts Council West of England Theatre Company followed by radio cabaret and other theatre engagements. Eventually she returned to the Guildhall to become a Professor of Drama and an Examiner for the school. She opened her own school in Essex which she named after a professor who had been such an influence on her life - the Ridley Arts Educational School and Studios."
  • 2 In a Cambridgeshire newspaper (in East Anglia / the east of England), with a photo of Pegggy Batchelor: "To judge the drama THE ADJUDICATOR for this week's Huntingdon Carnival Drama Festival and the “Weekly News" Drama Awards is Peggy Batchelor. Her life has always been associated with the arts - her mother sang at Sadlers Wells and Covent Garden and her father sang semi-professionally. She studied at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and obtained her performer's diploma. This where she first met Dame Sybil Thorndike who remained a friend. During the war Peggy travelled the world with ENSA companies both as a solo artist and in plays appearing with such people as Vera Lynne George Formby Gracie Fields and many others. After the war she became a founder member of an Arts Council company in the West Country, the company that fostered the talents of Joan Plowright, Edgar Wreford, Charles Jarrott, Malcolm Pride and others. She was invited to appear in a "Scrapbrook" programme for the BBC with Charles Cochran who had known her when she was a child actress dancing before visiting VIPs including most of the crowned heads of Europe. This broadcast led her to being cast in the "Gilbert and Sullivan" series and from that to two years with the BBC. Eventually Peggy decided to concentrate on teaching. She returned to the Guildhall School where she gained her Ministry of Education qualification. She was invited to become an examiner and then a professor of drama. In 1956 she founded the Ridley Studios named after a Guildhall professor who had been such an influence on her life and two years later the Ridley Arts Educational School. She was honoured in 1973 by being made a Fellow of the Guildhall. It is as a member of the Guild of Adjudicators that Peggy is taking part in the Huntingdon Festival which opened at the Commemoration Hall in the town yesterday (Wednesday). There are still tickets left for tonight's and tomorrow's performances which start at 730pm. They cost £1.50 and can be bought at the door. Seven groups are taking part in the festival of one act plays all competing for the best one act play shield and best actor and actress trophies."
  • 12 In the Bucks Herald (in south-east England), three photos of Peggy Batchelor with the text: "Thrills on and off the stage. The real life of actress Peggy Batchelor has been more eventful than that of the characters portrayed in her theatrical roles. She survived a wartime torpedo strike in the Med and being mauled by a tiger to be reunited with the RAF officer parted from her 40 years earlier by war. She tells ALEC BROWN of her adventures. FOR Peggy Batchelor the thrill of working alongside stars on stage, radio and television could only be surpassed by teaching. But it is her acting career, from entertaining the troops during the war to Shakespeare plays and a television soap opera, that has given her great richness of experience to draw on. Peggy, of Mill Mead, Wendover, has spent more than 20 years teaching drama skills. She set up and ran the Ridley Arts Educational School in Leighon-Sea, Essex, and now teaches at the Arts Educational School, Tring, and privately. She also adjudicates for exams, lectures and gives recitals throughout Britain, Ireland and in Hong Kong. Her career began as a schoolgirl in Leigh-on-Sea when she joined an amateur dramatic society. As a teenager she trained at the Guildhall School of Drama, London, where she is now an examiner. World War Two interrupted her studies and she joined ENSA — the Entertainments National Services Association. It was then she starred alongside big names like Vera Lynn, Gracie Fields, George Formby, and David Nixon, who later became famous as a television magician. “Vera Lynn was fantastic,” said Peggy. She would go off in a jeep and wherever there were a few men, she would just stop and sing to them. “Some of the ENSA artists were just so brave and really great people. You were all the same — nobody was treated as a star, you all worked together.” After touring hospitals in Britain, Peggy went to West Africa and was on her way to Egypt with ENSA when their boat was torpedoed in the Mediterranean Sea. They spent seven hours in a lifeboat before being picked up. “Between all the work and sometimes rather tragic and uncomfortable situations there were also all these great maments of seeing wonderful places and meeting interesting people,” said Peggy. Then she joined a company which toured India, entertaining troops who were stopping the Japanese advance. She got to know the director of the Tatanagor Steelworks and his two pet tigers. She had loved the animals from childhood and often played with the two pets. But one day one of the tigers turned on her and mauled her. in carbolic and a stay in hospital luckily left her just with scars. But she still loves tigers. In hospital she met an RAF officer in the Medical Corps, who comforted her when she was having terrible nightmares. They formed a close bond but were separated by the war. Then, in 1984, Arthur, by then an Air Commodore, traced Peggy after his wife had died. “We knew it was love and we married,” said Peggy. After the war, she had joined a stage company formed from the ranks of the RAF, which included Bob Monkhouse. Peggy left them to join the West of England Theatre Company, whose president was J.B. Priestley. He picked her for the lead in his play She Came to the City. They also performed Shakespeare, Chekov and Noel Coward plays. In the 1950s she worked for BBC Radio in programmes like Dick Barton and Mrs Dale’s Diary, and on stage as part of a comic double act with Benny Hill. There were also parts at the Savoy Theatre, and Victorian variety shows at the Players Theatre alongside budding thespians like Clive Dunn and Hattie Jacques. In the 1960s she trained as a teacher and set up the Ridley School, which she fitted in with theatre tours and television work, including a part in Emergency Ward 10. Her last tour before giving up to concentrate on teaching was with Shelagh Delaney’s A Taste of Honey. Peggy now has an extensive his! of posts, including member of the Guild of Drama Adjudicators, vicechairman of the Society of Teachers of Speech and Drama and vice president of Aylesbury Arts Festival. As a member of the British Federation of Music Festivals, she met the Queen last summer at the federation’s 70th anniversary celebrations. She feels teaching is the most rewarding part of her career. “I feel communicating is so terribly important, and when you can see somebody blossom and gain confidence, it is so satisfying.” But she has not forgotten her past: “It's lovely going on stage and getting applause at the end. Once on stage, you forget yourself completely. I loved it.”
  • 13 In the Belfast Telegraph (in Ireland), with a photo of Peggy Batchelor with two of the competitors from the sonnet recital class: "Festival talent is praised by actress. NOEL COWARD, Vera Lynn. George Formby, Gracie Fields are among the greats with whom Peggy Batchelor has worked. And this week the English actress is judging at Belfast Musical Festival. Yesterday she began hearing the "small fry" - the young children's verse-speaking - and was impressed. "The standards here are always high because of the excellent teaching. I've been a regular visitor in the past to the Belfast Festival and never have any besitation in visiting Northern Ireland," she said. Peggy has led an eventful life and one of the famous stories about her concerns Noel Coward. When she acted in India some years ago, she was mauled by a tiger, but soon recovered. Coward heard about it and said to her: "Not during the performance, my dear?" Peggy toured with ENSA during the Second World War, but later she turned to teaching and became a professor of drama at the Guildhall School. She pays tribute to the advice of Dame Sybil Thorndike at the school. Dame Sybil, she said, had remained a lifelong friend ever since. The English actress was honoured in 1973, when she was made a Fellow of Guildhall, a distinction shared with such artists as Andre Previn. Dame Janet Baker and Dame Peggy Ashcroft."
  • 26 In The Stage, "'21-Not Out' Southend TWENTY-ONE years ago actress and teacher Peggy Batchelor started Ridley Schools and Studios, now the leading private-enterprise school and dramatic academy in Essex. It was fitting to mark the occasion with a new revue, that genuinely reviewed the problems, like expan sion. and the triumphs, like playing in Berlin, and recording "Oliver" for an American record company. In her brief speech, she forecast the new Ridley Arts Club as the latest addition. The revue, "21 Not Out", at the Cliffs Pavilion, Southend, was cle verly devised by Dennis Boxley and directed by Peggy Batchelor and the faculty, to tell the story, give scope to fifty adults and twenty children, and cover drama, music, mime, opera and choral speaking. Essen tially modern, the direction and choreography were inventive, vibrant and fluent. Among those outstanding were Roland Darvell, Paul Clark and Michael Small. J.K.M."
  • 27 is accessible online.
RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly discovered sources would be helpful. Kudos for tracking them down, that often doesn't happen in AFDs either because of a lack of effort or because the content isn't available in digital format.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with RebeccaGreen that the references she found meet at least WP:NBASIC. I found her first two references in newspapers.com: 1, 2. Nnev66 (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tunku Irinah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor royal and non-notable business exec. Sole claim to fame seems to be a lot of awards received from her own family, though sources on the awards are pretty thin on the ground. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find only passing mentions in Malay and English. A redirect might be the best alternative to deletion, but I couldn't work out an appropriate target, so brought it to AFD for discussion. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if there is any reaching out to do, participants in this discussion will have to do it not some as-yet-unnamed editor. No new sources have been added to help bolster any Keep arguments and I'll ping the article creator, User:Cherryblossom673, who has not been editing in a few weeks to see if they will respond to the nomination statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Cynthia_Akanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe Cynthia_Akanga fails the WP:GNG criteria. Person has brief bios on both linkedin and imdb but very little independent coverage. SallyRenee (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot vote twice! FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is OK by me, @FuzzyMagma, to strike out my vote, but please note that after @Liz relisted the AfD to generate a more thorough discussion, I found new information and references. I think that part at least you should not strike out. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for that. I amended my edit above. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a review of the recently added sources to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has existed for 18 years without a single source which is actually about the actor, and I can't find any sources that are actually about her, as opposed to her being mentioned in articles about her father. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's kinder to delete. But I will bite and expand the article and let everyone else decide. (Perhaps there are 5k pageviews in the last month for a reason.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle There is a TikTok "influencer" with the same name. Black Kite (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Plus everyone else with the same name, like the Director of Film Restoration at Paramount Pictures. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to give Cielquiparle and RebeccaGreen a chance to dig up more sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Two of us have now added information and sources to this article, which demonstrates that she does meet WP:GNG. There are plenty of reviews of her stage appearances, with significant, positive mentions about her ability and performances. She had major roles in Stepping Out in the West End and Nice Girls in Newcastle, and in several other professional performances of notable plays in Derby, Newcastle, Chester, etc, for which she received very positive reviews (I have not included quotes about all her performances here). There are articles about her (eg here and here) - they do mention her father, but they are about her, not him. No, she did not star in films or TV shows, but WP:NACTOR specifically states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;" (my emphasis). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It appears there is sufficient sourcing showing in the footnotes to get this subject over the GNG hurdle. Carrite (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Bearian and Black Kite: given the new sources do you still think this should be deleted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Kornberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously nominated for proposed deletion by a different editor, but was contested on Talk:Maya Kornberg. The article generally lacks verifiable third-party sources and relies heavily on professional pages as well subject's own personal page. Per WP:Notability, candidates for political office are not inherently notable. Nearly all the sources I could find on Kornberg which may be used to improve the page exclusively focus on her council candidacy and the page was only created following her announcement. Her professional career working in NGOs does not appear notable enough for an article. Because of this, I nominate the article for deletion due to a lack of notability and agree with previous attempt under Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. --Stanloona2020 (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : The subject looks notable with independent coverages. Gauravs 51 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are incredibly marginal to base an article on - it's two book reviews, one of which is short and another is from a non-mainstream publication, a mention in a newspaper article, and an article about her candidacy, which are generally better covered on the article about the election, except it's a local city council race. Still a strong delete - we don't need more campaign spam. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The claims here are political scientist and commentator. The authorship of a single book (one on my "to buy list," I'll add) does not meet notability for academics. As far as commentry, her self-selected sample appear to be a series of guest columns that do not meet the guidelines under WP:AUTHOR. Given those facts, I do not anticipate we can get past its current failure to GNG to find the kind of significant coverage that needs to exist for a subject to have a Wikipedia article. The article primarily uses primary sources to build a resume. I think we are in too soon territory. No prejudice against recreation if she is elected as I believe the NYC City Council is largely considered to be an exception to the rule when it comes to local politicians and expectations of notability.
  • Comment. Actually no, I agree she doesn't meet the category-specific notability criteria for academics or politicians. I just think there is enough non-trivial coverage on the basis of WP:BASIC, which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. What gets it over the line is the fact that there is coverage that is clearly independent of the subject, including information in reliable sources that does *not* appear in any of her "official" biographies as an author or researcher (or political candidate), over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time, which allow us to round out an article about her – the Jerusalem Post article spotlighting her environmental activism in Israel offers quite a bit of insight into her background, plus recognition in the mainstream media as a frequently interviewed expert commentator and one of the top in the field specifically on Congressional subcommittees, with a book published by a major academic publisher and an authoritative book review within her field. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Jerusalem Post article really just quotes her and isn't directly about her, it's about an organisation she worked with - it's not really secondary coverage of her, she was just interviewed for an article. That's what's keeping me as a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC allows for articles about $TOPIC that still include more than simply passing mentions about the subject to be combined. In the case of the 2010 Jerusalem Post article specifically, it's about an article about an environmental initiative that Kornberg herself started. Yes, she is quoted, but there are also facts reported about her life that are exactly what we want to see, in a reliable secondary source with an editorial policy which assesses and vets facts before they publish. The facts include: Kornberg was the person who started the initiative; descried her as Israeli-American; she studied for a year at the Nahshon academy at Kibbutz Shoval in Negrev; her father was a 2006 Nobel Prize winner in chemistry; her grandfather was a 1959 Nobel Prize winner in medicine. And the article as a whole offers a full description about the actual campaign she was a part of: setting up a community action group which mobilized 10 pre-army academies to write a letter to 10 ministries, visiting several of them, and organizing a rally opposite the Knesset. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review