Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Samreen Kaur

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

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

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

Speedy Keep I've added references to it. And I'm surprised that the editor who tagged it for deletion discussion without any research. And another thing article has been approved by the New Pages Reviewer. Behappyyar (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Behappyyar: Getting marked as reviewed after an article is nominated for deletion does not mean it is “approved” by NPR. This is a process where every article sent to AfD, as long as it has no copyright or other speedy deletion violations, should be marked as reviewed. When we NPRs send articles to AfD, we also automatically mark them as reviewed. GrabUp - Talk 18:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay👍🏻 I've added references. Now, Let's see what the result will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Chauhan

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

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

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

Tina Albanese

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. BLP with no effective sourcing. Single reference is a cast list passing mention. scope_creep^Talk 08:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination (don't know if I'm allowed to contribute to this as the previous nominator, if not just ignore) Aŭstriano (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are. I posted this again, because the last Afd was evidence free that resulted in a non-consensus result on a single passing mention, on a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 11:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is it really allowable to bring an article to AfD again one day after it closed? I will repeat what I said there: I believe that 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 - I will do so. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time. Do you any you references that can support this WP:BLP per WP:THREE, because I have done a before and found only cast list which passing mentions. Simply stating something without offering evidence is unacceptable in 2025. Its not 2008. Per WP:BLP, its needs high-quality WP:SECONDARY coverage, not passing mentions. It must satisfy WP:V, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. If you do not evidence then it will be redirected. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I referred to policy both in this AfD and the previous one. I read WP:CREATIVE#3 as stating that someone who has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work is notable. It is the work that must have multiple independent reviews. If you don't think that See Dad Run meets those criteria, perhaps you should take it to AfD. The result of this AfD does not depend on me, nor on you - it will depend on what the consensus of participating editors is. I have added sources to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Mushy Yank, Reading Beans, Mlkj, and Moopaz:, who participated in the AfD that finished one day ago.RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe is neither here nor there. You made that same evidence free policy absent statement the last time is a very unnecessarily hostile and inaccurate comment: Rebecca did refer to a guideline during the first AfD. Also, please bear in mind that people meeting WP:CREATIVE do NOT need to also meet WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sources have been added to address the verification issues. Anyone could have added them, including the nominator.-Mushy Yank. 13:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the WP:THREE references per consensus. Provide 3 good secondary references and I will withdraw the nomination. But it needs to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: immediate renomination was not due. Either discuss a redirect on the talk page or go to deletion review. -Mushy Yank. 13:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I voted delete on the last AfD, I'm not thrilled to see this re-submitted on the very next day. The norm is WP:2MONTHS before re-listing when there is no consensus.

On another note, thank you RebeccaGreen for the ping! To respond to your comment above, if I were !voting, I'd argue that although WP:CREATIVE#3 is an additional criteria that indicates notability, it doesn't override the more important WP:BASIC policy for notability (significant coverage in multiple published secondary, reliable, independent sources). Even if we find a criteria somewhere that supports notability, we cannot write a WP:BLP without good sources to cite, otherwise we risk having verifiability & original research problems. And that's a much stronger concern! If WP:CREATIVE#3 conflicts with WP:V due to lack of reliable sources, this is a foundational issue with the five pillars, the need for reliable sources must always take precedence over the various particular criteria that each topic uses to discuss notability! Mlkj (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks for that!! Evidence free !voting is deeply uncool that leaves non-notable articles that have no place on Wikipedia. If there is sources for this BLP, they would be immediately visible on the reliable sources search as its a modern individual. No deep archive search is needed. There is nothing here and it needs to go or be redirected. And stating "Speedy Keep" as though its a heavily sourced historical article, when there is really hardly any information on the lady at all, except cast lists, is not helpful. Lastly WP:2MONTHS is an essay not policy. Its rank junk and meaningless. I would advise you not to mention again. The article has never been referenced since it was created. The article needs to stand on its own two feet as its a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Gupta Surendranath

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

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

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

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

Bimbo Balogun

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

Non-notable jeweler, coverage is based on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know when winning a Goldman Sachs scholarship becomes a yardstick for Wikipedia Notability. The subject fails WP:GNG and also non notable for a business woman. Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Neill

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

Fails SPORTSCRIT. No references to SIGCOV, etc, etc. Jay Cubby 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and New Zealand. Jay Cubby 18:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Schwede66, who preferred I start an AfD. Jay Cubby 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - found this, this, and this, but coverage isn't independent or extensive enough to warrant keeping. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Zealand women's international footballers as a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is her name mentioned there? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in the table with appearance number and debut. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlem Arfaoui Tartir

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

Non-notable academic. Lacks high-quality secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Tunisia. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless there are sources in Arabic that I've missed. She seems to have written two books, but they seem to be self-published and don't have any reviews that I can find. She doesn't have any other research activity (e.g journal publications, employment at a university) as far as I can tell, so no possibly of a WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF pass. There's some secondary coverage but it all strikes me as likely paid/promotional coverage (e.g. [3] [4] [5]). I don't think the awards she's won are particularly notable either. So unless there's Tunisian SIGCOV that I've missed, I think she likely fails WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susan M. Campbell

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Susan M. Campbell (2nd nomination)

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

General notability guideline(/WP:BASIC) -- lack of secondary/independent sources + no significant coverage. Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for academics either. Comment(s) on talk page show that verification of any information is an ongoing issue. Tagged for peacock, advert, and tone since Feb 2010. I tried to fix the issues prior to filing this AfD. Puppies937 (talk) 15:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages and faiis WP:GNG. Anktjha (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. A search brings up no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. All the sources cited in the article are closely related to the subject. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 21:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Collares

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

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

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

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

The result was delete per G5. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desiré Inglander

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

No one good source confirming the significance and matching WP:BLP or WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST Pollia (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Swedish Wikipedia's entry, sv:Desiré Inglander, has a little bit more information, but not much more (it seems there's more primary sources than not). Might be worth checking to see if anything is useful from there to potentially establish notability. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 22:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is 1/3 finished and poorly sourced. Was this supposed to be a draft? It's literally missing text in two sort-of required sections, and the sources look like primary sources. I'm not against draftifying this with instructions to work on it more, a lot more. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alka Tiwari

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

It may warrant deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Jharkhand. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On WP:BEFORE search i found mostly sources about his appointment as chief secretary. Being a chief secretary doesn’t presumed to be notable. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreeing with the nomination. Taabii (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian NINJAs

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

No notable pro wrestling tag team. Just worked on the independet promotions. No in deep coverage about the team from third party sources. [6] A few mentions of them winning the title, but most of the sources are WP:ROUTINE results from events no focusing around them HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage from what I see. I can't find anything about this pair either, likely not meeting notability for athletes. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ada I. Pastore

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

Unnotable argentinian teacher. I was unable to find any relevant sources about this person. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She's not just a teacher though, she's a botanist, who discovered new plants, so we need to look for publications in which she discovered plants. I suspect there could be sources in another language too given that she's Argentinian. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't speak Spanish and can only access snippets of most of these sources, but there are a lot of results under her name on Google Books. These nine results [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] all seem like they might contain SIGCOV of her, in addition to the dozens of books that seem to cite her work as a botanist or contain trivial mentions. Based on what I could find I strongly suspect she is notable, but hopefully someone who speaks the language and can actually access the sources can have a proper look. MCE89 (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Science, and Argentina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MCE89 above. Seems notable but this article definitely needs some love from a Spanish speaker. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 14:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added in details about Pastore. I found a reference that describes her as a member of the Instituto de Botánica: Darwinión, and a chronicle of her life that was published upon her death. There was also a session held in her honor at a 1952 meeting. These details are now cited in the article. Given the period and limited sourcing available, I think this is sufficient indication of notability. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the improvements of DaffodilOcean -- the honorary membership is a WP:PROF pass. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with thanks to DaffodilOcean for the improvements to the article. MCE89 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mothe Srilatha Reddy

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

Sources aren’t SIGCOV, hence failing GNG. Mayors aren’t inherently notable under NPOL, hence failing NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom., no sig cov. and not a mayor is inherently notable TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: According to WP:NPOL guidelines, a person must win federal/central, or state-level legislature elections to be eligible for a Wikipedia page. Alternatively, they must be notable enough to meet the WP:GNG to qualify for a page. She does not meet either of these criteria. Charlie (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– The role of Deputy Mayor does not inherently confer notability under WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D'Nika Romero

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

Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG as to her college basketball playing and in general. Fails WP:NMODEL as to career as a model. No independent, third party references for modelling career. In this context, the publications in which her image appeared are not reliable sources for a modelling career. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sexuality and gender, Basketball, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: need more sources specially modeling section. Anktjha (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Ngọc Kiều Duy

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

This was a pretty straightforward PROD that was declined, so here we are. The article is clearly in violation of the WP:BLP1E policy; all the sourcing says is that the person won a beauty pageant on December 28. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Vietnamese-language article has additional references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for two distinct reasons related to the Vietnamese Wikipedia article, and an additional reason. I've learned that other languages' articles sometimes have more and better sources. In this case, you don't have to know how to read Vietnamese to see several articles about her. In addition, that article lists three wins of national beauty contests, so BLP1E doesn't apply. Her biggest, international competition isn't being held until later this year, and even if she loses, she could get additional coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Cruwys

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

Can't find non-database sources. Jay Cubby 21:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and England. Jay Cubby 21:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is mentioned in several contemporary-ish cricket articles^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and I also found one historical source where she has a small write-up along with her teammates.^[5]

I don't have access to any paywalled newspaper archive sites, but if someone who does is willing to look, I think it's possible she could meet sports notability criteria with additional sources from the 1960s-1970s. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched newspapers.com. Almost all mentions are routine match coverage. The two exceptions are [16] and [17]. Unsure if that's enough for notability. Jfire (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1's text of relevance (it's sort of paywalled, but somewhat bypassable)

... The 31-year-old cricketer is useful with the bat and is reputedly the finest fielder England women's cricket has produced. ...

2 is passing:
Above, England captain Rachael Heyhoe (left) and June Moorehouse play guitars and are backed on vocals by (left to right) Heather Dewdney, Jill Cruwys and Lesley Clifford, at Melbourne airport in January 1969.

3 is merely a description of when she played:
She made five appearances in the competition. She played ten matches for Kent in five years, but made 46 appearances for England across a career spanning eight seasons. She made her test debut in 1969 when she was a member of the England team that played against New Zealand in Wellington.

4 is a 404, but I found this, which is a database.

5 is quite passing.
JILL CRUWYS (26). West Midlands. Played in three Tests. Toured Australia- New Zealand 1966. Middle order bat, fast bowler County hockey player for Kent 1966-9, Worcestershire 1969-70. A physical education teacher. hobbies music and badminton. Home town, Wickham.
Jay Cubby 19:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the sources above, I found this on Proquest, and she seems to get a couple of mentions in the book Ladies and Lords : A History of Women's Cricket in Britain (I couldn't get access to more than a snippet so I'm not sure whether it's enough to qualify as SIGCOV). Together I think the sources presented are just about enough to meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Alternatively, redirect to List of England women Test cricketers as an ATD. MCE89 (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources and information to the article. I believe that she meets WP:SPORTBASIC. The coverage of matches is not all WP:ROUTINE, especially when she was described as "reputedly the finest fielder England women's cricket has produced", and a couple of match reports call out her fielding. Unfortunately, she played in an age when it was acceptable to describe her pig-tails and make jokes about maiden overs, wearing shorts and the men glancing at legs, so there is less serious coverage than there might be. Still, there are several sources which include biographical detail. I disagree that source 5 above is "passing" - it gives lots of biographical detail as well as her cricket roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Taking all the coverage in totality, I agree this meets WP:SPORTSBASIC, and the fact that she is mentioned in a piece from 2023 could also suggest some lasting impact. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played in the first women's cricket world cup final and at Test level. Yes the sources are not full on biographies of her but she played in a team sport meaning unless you are the star player then coverage is likely to be less focussed or voluminous, she played at a time when women's cricket and women's sport in general received scant coverage and her career was well before the internet days meaning coverage is harder to access. The sources provided adequately demonstrate her notable status and indicate there is/was probably more coverage of her in print media during her career which unfortunately we cannot get to at this time. Lookslikely (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ajgaibibi

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

Current source do not support this article and google book search does not return much to improve the artcile. Wiki Library returned no match. One source cited is an encyclopedia for "Oladevi" and the term "Ajgaibibi" is mentioned only once. Also, the cited source does not give clarity that this word is used for Hindu goddess as described currently in the lead sentence. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. For example, when doing another search on Google Scholar, I found exactly one scholarly article that had been cited 10 times in as many years. I'm not an expert on comparative religion; but having read independently, visited various houses of worship including Hindu temples, and edited a wide variety of religious articles enough to create my own standards, I don't think this deity is notable. For WP:DCOI purposes, I'm an Episcopalian. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agletarang (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The source cited Banglapedia entry on Oladevi does not directly substantiate claims about Ajgaibibi worship, historical role, or cultural significance. Assertions about her inclusion in a prehistoric seven-goddess group, alongside figures like Chandbibi and Asanbibi, lack attribution to independent scholarly analysis, raising concerns about WP:OR. Article status as a stub with minimal content and I think there is no viable path for improvement further. Presenting unverified folk traditions without reliable sources risks compromising WP:V. NXcrypto Message 10:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanna Ernest

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show significant reliable source coverage supporting substantive content about their mayoralty -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, etc. -- but this, as written, is basically just a résumé of her career and personal background, without any significant content about anything she actually accomplished as mayor, and is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all (an archived version of the city's website that doesn't even name her as having been mayor at the time, and thus doesn't even verify the fact that's been "cited" to it) and short blurbs that aren't substantive enough to get her over WP:GNG if they're all she's got for coverage.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something a lot more substantive than this, but a mayor requires a lot more than just basic verification that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. Bearcat (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new section has been added to the article to represent her notable contributions as Mayor of the Kollam Municipal Corporation. The updated section highlights specific projects she spearheaded, such as the implementation of a decentralized waste management system, modernization of healthcare through eHealth initiatives, improvements in public transportation, and restoration of historic sites. These accomplishments significantly impacted the city's development and go beyond merely verifying her existence, addressing WP:NPOL #2 requirements.

Her tenure reflects substantive achievements with coverage from reliable secondary sources, establishing her notability as a mayor. Moreover, similar articles, such as Honey Benjamin, demonstrate that detailed contributions can support the inclusion of mayors on Wikipedia when significant and verifiable contributions to public service are documented. RN (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local government (local level) leader, no coverage outside the immediate area. SportingFlyer T·C 04:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete– The role of Mayor does not automatically confer notability under WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish there was a clear, black letter rule about NPOL#2, say "cities and counties over 250,000 population," but there isn't yet one, so sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely possible to write a good, fully NPOL-compliant article about a mayor of a place smaller than 250K, and entirely possible to write a bad, NPOL-flouting article about a mayor of a place bigger than 250,000. So the notability test for a mayor doesn't hinge on the place's population, it hinges on whether the article contains enough substance and sourcing to pass a "depth of coverage" test. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat, there should not be a population threshold for notability. - Enos733 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Szego

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

This is a case of WP:BLP1E, the subject is only notable for their sacking from The Age. The rest of the sourcing that I've found, both in the article and through searches, is either not independent or not in-depth. I've considered the possibility that they might pass WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC and I don't see that either is the case. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, Sexuality and gender, Israel, Palestine, and Australia. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eelipe (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per WP:BLP1E the 'subjects notable for one event' policy must meet each of three criteria listed for the subject to be unsuitable for a page. They are: reliable sources only cover one event; the individual is otherwise low profile; and the individual's role in the event was not significant. I suggest Szego's career as an author and journalist elevates her above “low-profile individual”; and her role in the event clearly was not “not significant”. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A reading of WP:LOWPROFILE would suggest that they are indeed a low profile individual. Being a author or a journalist alone does not make someone not low-profile. In fact if they did have a high profile as consequence of those activities they would almost certainly pass WP:NJOURNALIST or WP:NAUTHOR (the same policy), which they appear not to. TarnishedPath^talk 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't agree with the contention that she is WP:BLP1E nor do I agree with the issue around the other sources. At the very least there is:

https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/julie-szego

https://www.booksandpublishing.com.au/articles/2015/04/24/32926/nsw-premiers-literary-awards-2015-shortlists-announced/

https://www.theage.com.au/by/julie-szego-hvf9s

https://thejewishindependent.com.au/podcast-ashley-talks-to-journalist-julie-szego

https://www.theguardian.com/profile/julie-szego

MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Dingo Press, sells her book (see https://www.wilddingopress.com.au/shop/p/9780987381149). It's unsurprising that a book seller would have a profile page for an author that they sell the books of. It's not independent. It would also be a stretch to call two paragraphs significant coverage.
bookpublishing.com.au only mentions her in passing. It does not have significant coverage of her. Notably there is no claim that she won that award so I don't see a pass with WP:NAUTHOR.
The Age link you provide is her employee profile page, detailing articles that she wrote as a journalist for The Age. Firstly that's not independent coverage of her as an individual and secondly that doesn't go towards showing a pass of WP:NJOURNALIST. The Age were her employer, so it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her.
thejewishindependent is a podcast in which she is interviewed. This is not independent from Szego and more importantly counts as a primary source. This does not contribute towards establishing Szego's notability. Those issues aside it appears to be dominated by her sacking from The Age, going towards my argument of BLP1E.
The Guardian link is of the same nature as The Age link. Again not independent as they are/were her employer and again it's it's unsurprising that they'd have a profile page on her which details the stories that she's written for them.

None of the sources you have provided above contribute to Szego's passing our general notability guidelines. In order to establish notability we would need multiple reliable secondary sources which are independent from Szego and which cover her in-depth. If WP:BLP1E wasn't a thing then she should pass on the coverage of her sacking alone, however WP:BLP1E is a thing and therefore she doesn't meet our general notability guidelines. TarnishedPath^talk 12:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Affairs Office (Syria)

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

Likely to become notable, but WP:TOOSOON. All we have are a handful of news articles from about a month ago and no further coverage. The status of the government of Syria itself is murky enough. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. — Anonymous 02:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Thayer

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

No claim or evidence of notability. The article says she has been a management consulting partner at Ernst & Young and an associate partner at Andersen Consulting; the founder, CEO, and board member of the apparently non-notable executive recruitment website exec-appointments.com; a non-executive director of the apparently non-notable firm Boyden; and a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Management Consultants. None of this is notable. The article links to two news articles that quote her, but she is not the main subject of either article. Some quick searching does not turn up any sources that indicate her notability. —Bkell (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was previously (November 2008) deleted via WP:PROD and then undeleted by request of an editor: see [18]. —Bkell (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Management. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no good redirect target. I found brief mentions, press releases, and profiles (Vanderbilt alum, LinkedIn), a few quotes, a few things she wrote. I can't find any independent significant coverage at all. Schazjmd (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom, North Carolina, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only passing mentions in the two independent sources, should never have been reinstated after original PROD. No evidence of notability. Orange sticker (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Orange sticker. A bunch of unreliable, non-independent sources, and the two reliable sources hardly mentioned her. This isn't significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Masirika

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. I search English and French sources. Nothing, no coverage at all. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources about her or about the films she appeared in. There may be coverage offline, but there's nothing pointing to it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bellevue Kandy

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

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

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

Dai Ying (producer)

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

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

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

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

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

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[19] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[20]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

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

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

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

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[21] These include:

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

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

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

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

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

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

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

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

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

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

Thank you for your kind consideration.

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

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

~~Keep~~ Neutral, ~~I agree that [22] [23] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent.~~ (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [24] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [25] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [26], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

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

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

İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp

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

Not notable person; trivial mentions, not notable awards (resembling more paid-for lists) no sigcov. Linkusyr (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Turkey. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 09:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for your comment and direction. İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp is a notable person in Turkey, one of the few businesswomen with a successful background and current projects with her company. I refrained from using sources other than English, that might be the reason why it seems lacking. If it is ok to use Turkish sources, I can easily expand. Also I can add related companies, like the ones dominantly active in Netherlands and add SIGCOV accordingly. Thank you for your help in advance, best regards. EditThemAll (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I added wikidata link for trwiki article which was missing but I agree with the nomination rationale. Tehonk (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for your comment. I created the article, so wanted to thank you for your contribution and would like to explain the situation. İpek Ilıcak Kayaalp is one of the 3 top businesswomen in Turkey, the other 2 of which already have an established page. Hence, I believe it is fair to have a page with the same amount of resources. However, as most of the resources are in Turkish, I deliberately chose solely English resources.

Please advise me know how to expand better, and if the Turkish sources are a better option, so that we can improve the page.

Thank you EditThemAll (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FC Zebra Ladies Iwate season

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

Contested PROD but no reason provided. My initial concern was No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. This source mentions the team Zebra Ladies Iwate and confirms that it plays in division 2 of a regional league. This places the team in the 5th tier of Japanese women's football, which, in my view, is way too low to warrant a separate article (even in men's football in England, we only go down as far as the 4th tier in our season coverage here). To get an idea for the level of play here, please consider that the attendance of one of the league matches was only 30 spectators! This is way below the level that should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. By comparison, even matches in the seventh tier of England attract bigger attendances than this and nobody would argue that those seasons need their own articles. This article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV from those available but it barely covers FC Zebra Ladies Iwate and most of the coverage is about the two players being transferred. I think it's interesting that these Hong Kong footballers would join this random 5th tier Japanese team but creating an entire season article for it seems over the top.

I have considered WP:ATD but the team doesn't have an article and, in fact, even the league season doesn't have an article! To go even further, the actual league itself as a whole doesn't have an article. Creating an article on an individual team season before the team itself or even the league seems to be putting the cart before the horse. My proposal is we delete this article on a season that clearly doesn't warrant an article but I have no opposition to someone creating an article on the league and, perhaps, individual league seasons if they can provide appropriate independent sources. At a stretch, FC Zebra Ladies Iwate might warrant its own article but there would need to be plenty of good sources for that. I can't think of a scenario where this 2024 season for this 5th tier club would ever be notable as we are not a football almanac. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article took WP:BACKWARD to the next level. Even jawiki has no articles about them, nothing worth saving. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Per all above. This is a truly terrible article that clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I appreciate the extensive reasoning and attention to WP:BEFORE. Eelipe (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Mercer

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

Notability is not inherited from the company. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent of the subject and rely on shallow coverage, a profile and a BIC magazine article dominated by quotes from her. Lacks significant depth beyond passing mentions in secondary reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Telle

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

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Deborah Marquit

AfDs for this article:

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

Individual does not seem notable, I couldn't find enough sources with this person's name. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Women, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added sources and information to the article. I think there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yhing Sawheny

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

They fails according to Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Doesn't have any reliable sources or any concerning academic values. A staff member of the university doesn't seem reliable or notable. Qylt (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROF. Eelipe (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bongkosh Rittichainuwat

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

Doesn't have enough references to prove notability. Borderline, but still lacking as an academic administrator. Awards don't have any references, including the poetry chanting award. Qylt (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Travel and tourism, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosaura Lopez

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable individual. She may have written a (small press/self-published?) book about her time as Lennon and Ono's maid, but neither she nor the book meet our notability guidelines. --wooden superman 12:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's worth noting that the first discussion outcome was keep, though I realize that was a while ago. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I spotted that after I nominated it, but the arguments from back then seem incredibly weak! --wooden superman 18:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the article years ago). I think this woman meets the notability criteria, a book author and linked to a well known artist. She has been subject of interest in the Spanish speaking media : ABC (2005), Pagina 12 (2005), RTVE (2008), El Español (2023). Her book is not self-published (Hercules de Ediciones is a "classic" publisher founded in 1985). Also, I find that the article is interesting for our readers (specially the recently deleted part of the book's content, I'll open a discussion about that at the article talk page). Alexcalamaro (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG based on sources above.★Trekker (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and the comments and result of the 2007 AfD. Her book pretty much seals the deal, and her association with Lennon during his last four years of life give her recollections and reporting a notability that they may not have had if Lennon had lived. Meets GNG, and the Spanish sources add to the importance of this "average person" who gave the world a glimpse of the long-term historically important and iconic singer/songwriter that otherwise would have been lost. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Payel Mithai Sarkar

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

No WP:RS found, routine coverage in sites. For Times of India see, WP:TIMESOFINDIA. No significant roles in notable films, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with the nominator of this discussion and wish to acknowledge that I am the creator of this page. Upon review, I believe the article is not yet ready for the main space, as the subject may not meet the notability criteria at this time.

Therefore, I request that an administrator close this discussion and either move the article to the draft space or delete it. I intend to work on improving the content and addressing the notability concerns in the future. Thank you for your understanding. --Garvitpandey1522 (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Garvitpandey1522 You can edit it while in discussion. You should understand this before publishing in the Mainspace, I request you to try with Wikipedia:Articles for creation in future. Taabii (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to verify the roles she played in the television shows listed in the filmography table and with no reliable sources available, subject fails both GNG and NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. The subject's whole career is missing. Fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject's career to consider a standalone notable page. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete–No major roles and fails WP:NACTOR.EmilyR34 (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phạm Thu Hằng (diplomat)

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

She is technically a diplomat but not an ambassador (which doesn't get inherent notability in any case). She gets coverage as a spokesperson for the government, not coverage where she is the the subject. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city ^‽ 01:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication of notability. Anktjha (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep Her role in several distinguished films substantiates her qualifications as an actress. But this article needs more substantial coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. Anktjha (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

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

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to be a translation of de:Isabelle Gräfin von Loë. The best sources I have located appear to be:

Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [27] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [28], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are at least three references with significant coverage in reliable sources (see below). These are all published in the Buffalo, New York area but that doesn't dissuade me from notability as the coverage is reliable and significant. It was difficult to evaluate this one because a number of the references were primary written by the subject and this wasn't indicated in the referencing (I fixed that). Again note that this article passed WP:AFC before it was published to the mainspace, a process which from my experience is a vigorous check of an article. Nnev66 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watson, Stephen (June 21, 2004). "Iranian professor airs concern, criticism for land of birth". The Buffalo News – via newspapers.com.
Lazzara, Grace A. (Winter 2005). "One Voice - Nadia Shahram fights for equality" (PDF). Hilbert Connections Magazine. Hilbert College. pp. 6–10.
Vogel, Charity (April 25, 2010). "Women in the shadows Attorney Nadia Shahram's novel tells the true stories of Iranian women exploited by 'temporary marriage'". The Buffalo News. Archived from the original on 2016-03-08.

Comment: Thank you for adding non-primary sources to the article and the overall improvements you have made to it. I don't think I can access source [1] but based on the title it sounds like potential sigcov. And [3] definitely is. However I am uncertain if [2] qualifies as an independent source, since the subject was an adjunct professor at Hilbert College from 2001-2007 and the magazine featuring her was published in 2005. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - another day, another article up for deleting that I have a potential conflict of interest, for which I must disclose. The subject and I have both volunteered for not one, but two organizations: NYSBA and the Women's Bar Association, the latter from which we have received awards. We also have a public LinkedIn connection in common, one of my (former) best friends from high school. For those reasons, I'm not !voting one way or another, other than to say that she's very accomplished. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Fair enough regarding InsomniaOpossum's comment that the Hilbert College source is non-independent since she worked there. I found another review of her book in Publisher's Weekly (link via Proquest). I also added an Attorney of the Year recognition she received in 2018. Nnev66 (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deb Hutton

AfDs for this article:

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

Virtually non-existent, secondary, reliable source coverage for this individual in Canada, fails WP:NBASIC. Recreating previously AfD’d page (from 2006) but there has been an ounce of more coverage. Only really covered in one article (about her volunteer role as a “fixer” after a scandal) and the rest are passing coverage, mostly in what would probably be considered WP:NINI & WP:BIOFAMILY. She the wife of Tim Hudak.

Lots of trivia in the article, in an apparent attempt to bolster notability, such as passing mentions of affiliations, prior employers, or the fact that she was part of a debate prep “acting” the part of a well known politician. Even the bulk of the fixer story was basic quoting of either her or other people directly involved. While has worked with politicians, does not qualify as a politician for notability/BLP requirements.

Otherwise nobody seems to be really covering her.

Attempts to handle through notability tagging and talking with article creator have failed. Independent research has uncovered precious little for a WP:BIO.

Not to be confused with either of the two more notable Deborah Hutton’s of which come up in search results even for Deb.

Also was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaime_Watt which was also deleted, but now a redirect.

Would be okay with merging some into the husband, but there is precious more than a sentence or three worth moving. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. 2 articles discuss her role in the Greenbelt scandal. This fact is about her and not her relationship with Tim Hudak.

2. She was not Tim Hudak's wife when she became Premier Harris's chief of staff, that has nothing to do with her marriage. I think that there may be offline sources that cover this in greater detail, given the time period in question.

3. She is an independent political actor. She writes political columns which have been discussed: https://www.ombudsman.on.ca/resources/speeches-and-articles/speeches/2019/politicians-cannot-do-the-work-of-independent-officers-of-the-legislature-(qp-briefing) https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/how-the-right-defends-policy-lite-brown-hepburn/article_1206a6f9-ea8b-56fd-9b3a-cab27386e28f.html I haven't been able to source the original columns yet or encyclopedic sources, but I think there's potential here.

4. There's another article which provides substantial coverage about her currently linked in the article and it has nothing to do with Greenbelt scandal.

5. She currently on the Metrolinx board of directors. Metrolinx is a controversial agency, and I may be able to find sources that are about her role as a director specifically. Such a source would could be paid, such as a transportation or engineering magazine, given the niche topic.

I may prematurely moved the article from draftspace. I think the most appropriate action is that it is moved back to draftspace, given the likelihood that more information can be uncovered. Legend of 14 (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-target-conservative-leader-hudaks-wife-over-cancelled-gas-plant. That's 4 independent sources, with substantial coverage, about 3 different topics. Legend of 14 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion about the merits of those point

To be clear the criteria for inclusion is not about simply having reliable sources, nor if you know that it is TRUE, but rather if it meets specific criteria for being notable. See the linked policies in response to each of your points:

The two sources are effectively WP:PRIMARY sources as they recount who-said-what. I was unable to find any significant WP:SECONDARY coverage of this "volunteer role" such as the impact, result, or aftermath of her involvement (ie did it accomplish anything of note). Hutton's role isn't even covered in the Greenbelt scandal article.
Both Hudak and Harris are simply passing mentions of being in proximity of notable people and thus it would still fail WP:NINI. The exact timeline isn't relevant.
The reliable sources refer to her as a "longtime strategist"[29] and " one-time chief of staff" (e.g. appointed) [30] which is in the realm of politics does not mean she meets WP:POLITICIAN, and simply having those titles does not itself establish notability.
The other sig-coverage I assume you're referring to is "Tim Hudak’s daughter Miller the light of his life" -- which is an article centered around their daughter, and the only reason this article was covered was given in the title, because it was about the notable, Tim Hudak and the impact on his political aspirations their daughters illness created. WP:NINI
Per reliable sources from the article, her role on the board is a "part-time role." [31]. No indication she had any significant role, in anything having to do with any scandal of Metrolinx, and again, isn't even referenced in that article's page.
With regards to the National Post citation above, I think the title is supporting of a general lack of notability "Ontario Liberals target Conservative leader Hudak's wife over cancelled gas plant" (emphasis added) -- the article has chosen to use "leader's wife" instead of directly referencing Hutton by name in the title.

Based on the above, I suggest nothing has been provided to support WP:PERSON the person [...] should be "worthy of notice" [...], "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". She appears to have worked in the proximity of notable people/events/companies, but does not support that she meets any of the criteria of being independently notable. Also does not meet WP:ANYBIO criteria. TiggerJay (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The people who wrote the articles have no first hand knowledge of Deb Hutton's role in the Greenbelt scandal. Secondary sources including quotes from Primary sources, does not make them primary. The content not being the Greenbelt scandal article has no basis on Hutton's notability. It's a good idea for her to be mentioned by that article.

2. Sources make clear her role in appointed positions are significant. In 2003, the the Globe and Mail said that no government decisions were made without her approval: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/here-are-the-backroom-players/article18430066/.

3. There's more to the article than those titles. So this point is irrelevant.

4. The article gives significant coverage to Hutton's actions not just Hudak's.

5. Her not being referenced by the Metrolinx page does not support her not being notable. That article should probably mention her and other board members.

6. Just because the article title chooses to disrespectfully refer to her as Tim Hudak's wife, does not mean the article was not primarily about her.

A coverage gap in other articles does not support a finding of lack of notability. It supports a finding that the articles in question should be updated. Wikipedia is not a place were women's actions should be attributed to men, despite the fact that others may do that. Just because other sources give undue weight to Deb Hutton's relationship with her husband, does not mean we can do the same here, WP:NPOV. The national post article is about Deb Hutton and giving only passing mentions to her husband, not the other way around. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your approach to handling contentious issues does not work towards consensus building, which has been been demonstrated time and time again. ANI ANI 2 BLPN talk talk 2 As such, I can only see further responding to you here will add heat without light, so I will defer to other editors to discuss the merits of this article. TiggerJay (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am working on adding sources to the article, so for now this will be a comment. Thus far the best WP:SIGCOV I have found is a two page article on Hutton from the Toronto Star: ^[6]

References

^ https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/first-lady-of-lords/
^ https://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1067634/let-s-play-it-by-ear
^ https://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/ten-more-kent-women-cap-recipients-announced/
^ https://www.espncricinfo.com/on-this-day/cricket-events/December/5
^ https://bnl.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/BermudaNP17/id/35338/
^ Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great find! Keep looking for SIGCOV, after a half hour I couldn't find anything. But keep looking! TiggerJay (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Courtesy pinging all editors from prior AfD who have been edited in the last 12 months per WP:APPNOTE : @MCB: @Yom: TiggerJay (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hutton's role as a political strategist in Canadian politics has spanned multiple administrations in Ontario. In addition to the source I cited above from the Toronto Star, the other two best sources are here: [32] and [33]. All three of these articles are WP:SIGCOV. In addition she has received additional minor mentions in multiple publications that are reliable and independent, further contributing to WP:BASIC DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit to correct signature - not sure how I added the nowiki brackets) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:42. JFHJr (㊟) 03:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided above by DaffodilOcean appear to satisfy WP:BASIC]. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 16:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss added sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Larsen

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, United Arab Emirates, Denmark, England, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 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]

Keep Having represented Denmark in international beauty pageant, but also winning the title for Europe shows that she is a subject as per and references and all her information can be found on the Miss Supranational 2024 ^[1], ^[2], ^[3] and i barely know any English website in Denmark hence using these other sources which wrote about her, with all this reference i believe that she deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicampabelle (talk • contribs) 08:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a case of WP:BLP1E to me. Sources exist discussing her modelling career, however the only independent sources seem to be on the 2024 pageant. Uffda608 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here are more independent articles about Victoria Larsen being crowned as Miss Supranational 2024 Europe which talk about her background. ^[4], ^[5], ^[6], ^[7] thus this page deserved to stay on wikipedia and can be improved by adding these news as references.^[8]^[9] Alicampabelle (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While these sources are useful for expanding the article, they all focus on the 2024 pageant. Because there is only coverage of Larsen in relation to a single event, I maintain that the article does not meet notability requirements. Uffda608 (talk) 09:12, 26 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!} 22:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Junlper

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

(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]

I think this makes for an interesting thought experiment. If one were to prune all the promotional/non-notable material, as you say, I think it would illustrate visually the lack of notability, and just how frankly silly the article is.

Jeb1075 (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, that's a rationale to Delete Jeb1075 (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody explain which specific parts of the article they think are promotional and/or why they think that the subject added them herself? Maybe it seems obvious to them but it certainly isn't obvious to me. DanielRigal (talk) 02:15, 25 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! [34]. -- 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 [35] 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]

It's not strong competition with the benefit of hindsight now that the metaverse hype has died down. Back in 2022 though? Not as clear. That was the peak of metaverse hype. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh I personally disagree. I remember it as a "facebook is doing some stupid shit, let's all make fun of them!" kind of deal. Doombruddah (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't live up to the hype. If the tech was actually better, accessible, and useful (yes, lots of counterfactuals), and we were regularly doing stuff on the metaverse, we would probably be looking at this like "how did a random meme beat out metaverse for WOTY? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the dislike of describing someone as a 'shitposter'. That's what some people do and are known for. Junlper is a shitposter; so is Catturd and dril. SWinxy (talk) 20:36, 27 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. [36] (accessible via Wikipedia Library. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my comment from the prevous AFD for convenience. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BLP1E clearly does not apply here as the nominator and others suggest. To have an individual article, BLP1E's first prong only requires reliable sources to discuss article subjects in the context of more than one event, not more than one notable event. Here, the three biggest are clearly the creation of the "goblin mode" phrase and Snickers dick vein stuff in early 2022 and her Twitter ban in late 2023. Junlper was central to both events, so the third prong of BLP1E also does not apply. Having given multiple interviews, hosting a podcast, and making shitposts that have collectively gotten millions of views means that she is not a low-profile individual and the second prong would also not apply.

With BLP1E out of the way, the analysis turns to the coverage in reliable sources (i.e. WP:BIO, WP:ENT, WP:GNG). Merely being an internet shitposter does not mean that one is automatically non-notable. Nor does the coverage have to focus on the article subject as an individual versus their posts. Some of the stuff here could probably be cut down, but the above voters are mischaracterizing the state of the sources. There is substantial, in-depth coverage from reliable sources as multiple commentators noted in the previous, much more attended AfD found. Full, standalone articles including those from Rolling Stone, Business Insider, The Messenger, Techdirt should be sufficient to for notability purposes by themself, even if we cast aside the Indian news outlets that are possibly less reliable. Then there is the multi-paragraph introduction to the Buzzfeed News interview (which is exclusive to the article subject), multiple articles that devote a paragraph or two to her posts/their fallout (e.g. Mary Sue, NBC, The Advocate, Rolling Stone, Snopes, Vox), and an interview that technically does do some factchecking (Vox), which combined should be enough to meet ~~WP:SIGCOV~~WP:BASIC.

As for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, the previous AfD seemed to indicate that she was indifferent to it being kept, and she may not be eligible for such a deletion because she is a public figure, though if she has indicated a preference now, that is worth noting. If the article is not kept, then the proper alternative to deletion is to merge some of the more relevant content to the goblin mode page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC); edited 14:02, 23 September 2024 (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 [37], Rolling Stone [38], or The Messenger [39] 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]
1) Paywall

2) article about snickers bar post, not the account itself

3) minor/unnoteworthy source not listed on WP:RSP

Not a very strong argument. Scuba 20:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scu ba, You know that having a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL) or not being listed at WP:RSP (see WP:RSPMISSING) are (quite explicitly) not reasons why an article is considered unreliable/not contributing to notability. Not that I'm saying these are/do, but can we please not use such seemingly fallacious arguments without more explanation. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Well I can’t read the article. So I’m not sure how exactly I can prove it offers significant coverage. Scuba 23:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways and means of reading paywalled articles. Here's a link to an archive of the article in question. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 00:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Insider is not hard paywalled, so it's accessible through normal means of bypassing soft paywalls. Cakelot1 has provided an archive link above. It's a full article about the article subject in a generally reliable source per RSP.

2. It goes beyond just the post itself such as motivations and inspirations as well as some account details. Even if it didn't, an article about a post made by an account is like an article about a book written by an author. It goes towards the notability of both.

3. RSP isn't meant to be comprehensive, only frequently discussed sources. For example, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Chicago Tribune are both not on the list but are generally reliable (see: WP:RSPMISSING). I've discussed why the Messenger source is likely okay in other posts. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:18, 19 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 Stabro^{Talk • 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]
That alone does not prove notibility. Per WP:GNG the subject of the article needs significant covarge to meet notability guidelines. This article does not meet those guidelines. Jenkowelten (talk) 07:53, 19 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 Stabro^{Talk • 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 Stabro^{Talk • 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 [40]; Snickers/Rolling Stone [41]; Ban/Messenger [42]) -- 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 Stabro^{Talk • 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 [43], Insider [44], and Rolling Stone [45]. 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]

Keep as WP:BLP1E doesn't apply and the subject meets the criteria for notability. ItsMarkWbu (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this person is notable. She has a large account and made a few viral posts but so have thousands of other people — do they all deserve articles? SelketCadmium (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they get the same amount of coverage in reliable sources, then yes, same as anyone else (assuming there's not another article that can hold the content per WP:NOPAGE). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, there is another article to hold the relevant content in this article (goblin mode) SelketCadmium (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability goes beyond just goblin mode as demonstrated by our article. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is a keep or no consensus, can we have a moratorium? This is the fourth time it's been nominated, the second time in the last six months. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:29, 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]

Delete Keeping this article sets a precedent for every single person who makes a viral twitter post to deserve their own Wikipedia article. minecrafter523 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true - each article gets weighed on its own merit. The guidelines for deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) specifically warns against that argument. DaffodilOcean (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how on earth can you argue that this twitter account is notable on its own. Only 1 singular citation even talks in depth about the account at all. Scuba 04:51, 19 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]
because only one (at best) of the citations are talking about the account. The others are talking about some meme they posted. the account is not notable, but making a joke that a sinckers bar looks like a penis might be. Can you provide any detail to how this article passes WP:NOTABILITY?? Scuba 04:56, 19 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]

How? A passing mention isn't substantial coverage on the account. Scuba 04:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I stand by the above I'm adding to my !vote: Keep or Redirect to Goblin mode as a prefered WP:ATD. I personaly don't think enough thought in this discusion has been given to options beyond keep and delete. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:16, 21 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]
And I'd argue that there is no significant coverage. More importantly, there's no sustained coverage. This person's Twitter account was briefly mentioned a handful of times in 2022/23 from mainstream sources, and they haven't been discussed since. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have references going into 2024. That's at least a two year period. I don't see how that's not sustained. And those are not mere mentions. There's a lot of those out there but I'm talking about the more substantial stuff. DanielRigal (talk) 00:50, 20 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. [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]) 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]

no. It doesn't pass WP:GNG, not by the wildest stretch of the imagination. As seen in the chart provided below, only ONE source goes into any depth on the account, how on earth can you argue that passes notability? Scuba 04:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m a little confused by the focus on “account” here. The article states the subject is a “shitposter on twitter” not “the name of a shitposting account”. It uses she/her pronouns to refer to the subject, not it/it’s. It has Category:Living people. It has a BLP tag on the talk page. Etc, etc. The sources clearly allocate sigcov to the subject, i.e., the person who's making these posts. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to point out a post made on January 16th. "when can we take this shit down from wikipedia"[52]. This keeps happening. You guys are on twitter too much. I've seen too many times on Wikipedia where an article goes viral on social media and someone takes action. Think for yourselves, don't take cues from Godfrey G. Golden. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Honestly given the amount of information on the page deleting it would need it moved back onto other pages such as Snickers dick vein being added back to the main snickers or merging half this page into the goblin mode article that itself seems to give it notability since this articles existence is the reason that information isn't curently on those articles. If that's done there's a likely chance we just end up recreating this page because some people would rather have an Internet troll/shitposter/"influencer" activities on their own page instead of being littered across a handful of other articles.

2A01:4B00:AD37:D300:5949:8C12:412:23D9 (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

. Keep I'd say Catturd and Junlper and a similar level of cultural relevancy. Both have pages, so if this one goes, the other should, too. This isn't a political statement, I have an unfavourable view of both individuals, I'm just attempting to be fair. NesserWiki (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jun1per had 3 seconds of fame, Catturd is still relevant to some point. I am not discussing this in a partisan manner but if Jun1per had remained relevant until now, this discussion wouldn't exist. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

~~Keep~~ Strong 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]

I'm editing my !vote to change to a strong keep. Even though I think that she is not over the line for Notability by much I am 100% convinced that she is over the line. Even ignoring the bad faith interventions, this discussion has been characterised by people claiming that there is no valid significant coverage, being shown significant coverage, most of it from good sources, and then continuing to claim that there is no valid significant coverage. Some other people are voting delete because they draw the line for "significant coverage" in different places, and that's fair, within reason, although they are not making a convincing argument for where the line should be drawn instead or why. I think that some people are, in good faith, unable to see how a shitposter can possibly be notable. The thing is that anybody can be notable if they meet the criteria, irrespective of what they are notable for. People have become genuinely notable for far dumber things than "The Snickers Dick Vein". Some people are just refusing to acknowledge the significance of the coverage we have in front of us. Starting from the confusing nomination, which never articulated a coherent argument for deletion, this whole thing has become a trainwreck and I think it is time to end this fiasco. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:18, 20 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?
https://www.businessinsider.com/goblin-mode-julia-fake-headline-creator-2022-2		~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	Two paragraph	~ Partial
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/juniper-twitter-troll-meme-interview	WP:INTERVIEW	WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS	Obviously, It's an interview	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/culture/23775516/antoni-bumba-blizzy-mcguire-uniekue-selyna-brillare-junlper-kay-poyer-trans-it-girls	WP:INTERVIEW	WP:VOX		✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/snickers-dick-vein-dont-let-this-flop-podcast-1343163/				✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20231010020600/https://themessenger.com/tech/elon-musk-bans-popular-poster-who-skewered-him-for-eliminating-headlines-on-x				? Unknown
https://www.advocate.com/news/elon-musk-alejandra-caraballo-raichik				? 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?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/12/06/goblin-mode-meaning-oxford/			No mention, just a link to (Redacted) tweet	✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/arts/goblin-mode-oxford-word.html			Same with the Washington Post one	✘ No
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/26/viral-image/no-isnt-real-fox-news-chyron-about-snickers/			No mention	✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans	Feels like an inteview	WP:VOX	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/rs-gaming/hogwarts-legacy-game-jk-rowling-transphobia-1234676730/			Brief Mention	✘ No
https://www.themarysue.com/the-right-wants-to-stop-trans-adults-from-transitioning-because-kids-werent-enough/			One sentence that discussing the subject (Redacted)	✘ No
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mrbeast-under-fire-after-fans-mess-with-feastables-competitors-at-supermarkets-across-u-s			just the tweet	✘ No
https://kotaku.com/youtube-mr-beast-titan-titanic-submarine-disaster-1850575265			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-26/mrbeast-decline-titan-submersible-invitation-youtube			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-body-bag/			just the tweet	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			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]

What WP:SIGCOV says is: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

The Advocate devotes the last half of its article (several paragraphs) to the situation around her ban, how various figures reacted to it, and how Musk reacted in turn. Junlper is directly mentioned in a non-trivial way, even if the main topic is Alejandra Caraballo. It just isn't the most detailed article about Junlper, so it hasn't been bandied around as much.

The Messenger devotes an entire article to Junlper's ban. The concerns around The Messenger in general don't seem to apply to this article in particular (see my post below), which appears to be original reporting. Both of these sources would meet SIGCOV. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By your own admission, half of its article revolves around the ban but not the account itself. Scuba 04:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Advocate article [53] describes the actions that Junlper took to get banned, the details and timelines around the ban, as well as other the reactions of other public figures to the ban. The ban is of both the account (as technically implemented) and of the person behind the account (you are technically not allowed to evade the ban and start a new account). Coverage of an account's ban is coverage of the account and it's ridiculous to try and separate the two unless you are trying to argue that a Twitter ban of Junlper article would be notable and ought to be created, which you're not. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:07, 19 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]

The Messenger hired a ton of respectable journalists and editors. The specific journalist in question [54] has multiple years as a journalist in radio and local television. The specific article in question looks like original reporting, whereas some of the concerns about the The Messenger was content farming other publications in its earlier days, which doesn't seem to apply here. I would put it as counting towards GNG. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the second table and I see a whole column of red. 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]

I appreciate your contribution and input since it is perhaps the only argument for deletion here that makes specific references to Wikipedia guidelines and avoids using any WP:ATA. However, I think you make a mistake in seperately assessing biographical sources covering the subject and other sources covering events involving the subject. I believe you will agree that the sources in the "source assessment for the article itself" you've created do indeed provide significant coverage for the events that the subject is a specifically named participant in. Of course, being involved in notable events in and of itself does not make one worthy of their own Wikipedia page, but that's exactly where the sources in your "source assessment per the sources given above" come in. Interviews are not automatically disqualifying and have already been used to cite information about online personalities who would otherwise be anonymous (e.g. Dril). The breadth of her (the subject's) involvement in events covered by reliable sources combined with her own personal significant coverage is exactly why she has a page in the first place, and I believe it makes more sense for it to be that way rather than scatter mentions of her across a number of separate pages. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Insider piece, which is entirely about Junlper, should fully count towards GNG, since the source is considered generally reliable at RSP for cultural topics, which this would fall into. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Buzzfeed News interview isn't just a straight up interview, it includes a three paragraph blurb about the article subject at the top, so that arguably meets WP:SIGCOV, and woud definitely qualify as non-trivial coverage that meets BIO's WP:BASIC. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like some sources from the article (e.g. the academic commentary) are missing from this. Maybe a script issue? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Jenkowelten (talk) 11:51, 19 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]

If you look at the notability criteria you will find that there are very few such people who meet it. For reference, there are only 4 people in Category:Shitposters. There are also articles for far-right social media based entities like Libs of Tiktok and Gays Against Groomers, so it is not like we never cover them. If they become notable then we do. If you know of any others that are notable then you could start an article but please take care to make sure that they really are notable otherwise you could waste a lot of time on an article that gets deleted. Btw, End Wokeness is a redirect to Springfield pet-eating hoax, where they are mentioned, so they get their 1.5 seconds of fame too. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And since Junlper is mentioned in Goblin mode, that should also be her 1.5 seconds of fame. But neither deserves their own article. JonathanMRosenberg (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We likely do have an article on End Wokeness, since there's very good reason to believe it's just Jack Posobiec, [55], but there's no RSs making that connection. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable per the provided sources, not likely to become notable. Jtrainor (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't like how accounts that have been here 10-20 years keep defending the existence of this article just because they share common views with this creator. Trusting seniority is a good thing in my opinion but it can have consequences and cause misunderstandings in websites like this. This person was notable 3-4 years ago, they've lost thier notability ever since and its like keeping a corpse outside for everyone to see. You can trust me that more than 80% of people on Twitter do not know who she is nowdays. There are people who are notable that keep getting nominated for deletion, but this article SHOULD be deleted. One or two senior wikipedians liking what this person did 3-4 years ago does not mean we can keep this practically deceased person in terms of popularity around. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding the invective, this argument is explicitly contrary to policy: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. DanielRigal (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LexigtonMisiENG, you can plausibly argue that the subject of the article is not notable. However claiming that the subject was notable but has since lost thier notability isn't really a viable position per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. If we say something was notable (per Wikipedia's definition) at some point, we're saying it is notable now. Perhaps you were thinking of the common heuristic WP:10YEAR, but when we invoke that we are still saying the thing was never really deserving of an article at the time (and Consensus has just caught up with that reality). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I !voted keep and think that dropping pills in the concrete impression of an unfortunate squirrel is insanely lame. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned... ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Ashleyisvegan and Patar knight's comments above.--Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking at the arguments from a very policy-based perspective (and not at all from !votes count), the consensus is leaning towards deletion, mainly due to the perceived lack of sustained, substantial coverage focused specifically on the Twitter account itself, rather than the viral moments associated with it. The suggestion to merge relevant content into related articles like Goblin mode appears to be gaining consensus too. Discussions are still ongoing, so a relist would do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. After reading some of the sources listed here, I feel like while the sources individually don't really add up to much in my opinion, I also do feel like there's enough reporting on her and the shitposts that it makes it over the line into notability. Procyon117 (talk) 15:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RE: the relisting; It is hard to see how, policy-wise, the consensus is leaning toward deletion when very few users in favour of deletion cite any policies whatsoever and their arguments are specifically rebutted by WP:ATA. I am admittedly quite new to editting on Wikipedia, but I am also unsure how it makes sense to apply Wikipedia policy based on a perception of a lack of notability. I know Wikipedia has no rules, but when some users make logical arguments in reference to actual policy revolving around notability, and other users simply disagree and do not engage with those arguments, it's hard to see how consensus could at all suggest deletion without regarding it as a vote, which it is not. The account itself and the user behind it has been profiled numerous times over the span of almost a year and a half (is that not considered sustained?), and reliable sources directly link the account as a participant in or sole originator of at least 3 different events. Is it not the combination of those types of coverage (person + events) that make up the basis of every single Wikipedia article about a person/online personality? It might not be covered as extensively as accounts like Dril or ElonJet, but I do believe it at least deserves the page that is has now based on the level of its notability. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can almost understand relisting but the comment accompanying it feels more like a "delete" !vote than a reflection of the arguments so far. I don't think that any harm is being done by relisting, as the disruptive !voting seems to have stopped now, but I think that the only credible outcomes to choose from are "keep" and "no consensus" and I can't see how this could possibly change. A merge would lose all the stuff about the Twitter ban, which is Reliably Sourced, and nobody has actually !voted "merge" at all. It only gets mentioned by people who are !voting "delete". I worry that it might be tempting to take the source analysis tables seriously. That would be a big mistake. At a first glance a table may give an impression of objectivity but tabular content is as fallible as any other, in this case, the contents fundamentally misunderstand the validity of the sources to such an extent that I think that it renders the tables completely unhelpful. DanielRigal (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to this, I also disagree with the relist comment. I'll try to spend some time working this afternoon on another SAT, as I also agree the above one is not an accurate reflection of the article's sourcing. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To note, I already !voted keep above, but for the purposes of the discussion, I created this SAT:

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kelseyweekman/juniper-twitter-troll-meme-interview	WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS	~ Contains two paragraphs (6 sentences) of coverage on the subject before moving into the interview. IMO most of the time this would count as SIGCOV, but given the contentious nature of discussion I'm putting it at partial.	~ Partial
https://www.vox.com/culture/23775516/antoni-bumba-blizzy-mcguire-uniekue-selyna-brillare-junlper-kay-poyer-trans-it-girls		Contains an interview with her but no specific coverage or commentary.	✘ No
https://www.insider.com/goblin-mode-julia-fake-headline-creator-2022-2	RSPS for Insider (culture)		✔ Yes
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/snickers-dick-vein-dont-let-this-flop-podcast-1343163/	WP:ROLLINGSTONECULTURE		✔ Yes
https://x.com/JUNlPERBOT/status/1719714533420212367	WP:TWITTER		✘ No
https://www.wsj.com/articles/goblin-mode-a-state-of-not-caring-what-other-people-think-11669389442		I can only access the first half of the article via the wayback machine, but based on that portion of the article it seems unlikely to have sigcov (article subject is only allocated ~ 1 sentence of coverage). I realized I could gain access via a university affiliation I have, confirmed to not have sigcov.	✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/12/06/goblin-mode-meaning-oxford/		Does not even mention subject by name	✘ No
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/mar/14/slobbing-out-and-giving-up-why-are-so-many-people-going-goblin-mode		Only a brief mention	✘ No
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/goblin-mode/			✘ No
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/arts/goblin-mode-oxford-word.html		No mention of subject.	✘ No
https://languages.oup.com/word-of-the-year/2022/			✘ No
https://twitter.com/SNICKERS/status/1516463576143257603			✘ No
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/apr/26/viral-image/no-isnt-real-fox-news-chyron-about-snickers/			✘ No
https://www.news18.com/buzz/didnt-ask-for-your-woke-pronouns-twitter-user-schools-elon-musk-after-fauci-tweet-6608785.html			✘ No
https://www.vox.com/the-goods/23599799/hogwarts-legacy-review-rowling-trans	WP:RSPVOX	~ This is another borderline source but I'm leaning towards it not being sigcov. She is quoted several times in the article and there is some coverage of her (she is transgender, did a charity stream, some commentary is provided on her comments) but I think this is partial at best and I'm going to lean towards no. After sleeping on it and re-reading the article I'm bumping this to partial. Yes, it is borderline, but it does have some coverage and commentary, and that's what partial is for here.	~ Partial
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/hogwarts-legacy-game-jk-rowling-transphobia-1234676730/			✘ No
https://www.themarysue.com/the-right-wants-to-stop-trans-adults-from-transitioning-because-kids-werent-enough/		Only a couple sentences of coverage and some quotes.	✘ No
https://dotesports.com/streaming/news/mrbeast-under-fire-after-fans-mess-with-feastables-competitors-at-supermarkets-across-u-s			✘ No
https://www.essentiallysports.com/esports-news-no-need-to-spread-lies-mrbeast-addresses-the-job-advert-which-has-confused-the-internet/			✘ No
https://kotaku.com/youtube-mr-beast-titan-titanic-submarine-disaster-1850575265			✘ No
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/story/2023-06-26/mrbeast-decline-titan-submersible-invitation-youtube			✘ No
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/joe-biden-body-bag/			✘ No
https://www.outlookindia.com/international/us/chicago-s-rat-hole-emerges-as-the-newest-tourist-attraction-news-343708	~ WP:RSNOI		✘ No
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/x-temporary-ban-journalist-accounts-raises-alarm-rcna133084			✘ No
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/05/twitter-x-news-headlines-removed/			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20231010020600/https://themessenger.com/tech/elon-musk-bans-popular-poster-who-skewered-him-for-eliminating-headlines-on-x	We do not have an RS/PS for the Messenger, but after spending a bit of time researching them I do not see any reason to doubt their veracity. It was founded by people from WP:THEHILL, considered reliable, and though I see some critiques of right leaning bias in its coverage I don't see any evidence of unreliablity. Additionally, the facts in the article are easily backed up by other sources.	Article is in depth SigCov of subject and her ban from twitter.	✔ Yes
https://gizmodo.com/twitter-x-musk-headline-removal-backfired-on-him-1850906283			✘ No
https://bsky.app/profile/junlper.bsky.social/post/3kbc2fvge2m2y			✘ No
https://twitter.com/JUNlPERBOT			✘ No
https://bsky.app/profile/junlper.bsky.social/post/3kjcczpyh5s26			✘ No
https://www.advocate.com/news/elon-musk-alejandra-caraballo-raichik	No RSPS surprisingly, but The Advocate is the longest standing gay publication in the US and I have used it often as a source both on Wikipedia and in an academic setting with no problems of reliablity.	Junlper is not the main topic of the article (it's more focused on Carbhallo), however, detailed coverage of her posting and ban from Twitter/X is included. I wouldn't be against this being scored as a partial.	✔ Yes
https://www.techdirt.com/2023/10/06/elon-musk-decides-who-needs-headlines-when-we-can-just-have-pretty-pictures-suspends-account-that-made-fun-of-him/	It doesn't have sigcov so I'm not going to dig into this any further but just vibes wise does not seem super reputable.		✘ No
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42438-024-00495-z		Only used as an example.	✘ No
https://www.courthousenews.com/dnc-opens-press-credential-applications-to-social-media-influencers/	No RSPS but seems to be a relied-upon news service	~ Seven paragraphs dedicated to the subject, two paragraphs of which are dedicated to talking about her, and one paragraph of commentary/evidence on what she said. The rest are quotes. To note, this source is not currently included in article.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸(talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good Source assessment table! And yes can we removed all the sources pertaining to this article that of course doesn’t meet the GNG so that it is notable enough to stay on Wikipedia. 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:310B:9FC3:C8EE:98C5 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to remove the other sources. Sources can be used for Verifiability even if they are not related to GNG. DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:310B:9FC3:C8EE:98C5 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only four meet the criteria of GNG, that's not worth keeping the article over. Jenkowelten (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it is only four, but four would be quite enough to demonstrate meeting the GNG. DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well tecnically enough, around 3 Reliable Sources itself are infact required for a Wikipedia Article to be made so that’s why 4 Reliable Sources are Enough for a Wikipedia Article unless if its only covered in Atleast one part of the Subject Itself (Outside of This Article Though) 2600:4040:5F5E:A200:C005:9D46:FE3:C9D2 (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not every single source on a Wikipedia page needs to be used to establish notability specifically. This is a source that is used on Obama's Wikipedia page that he is not the main topic of and only mentions him in passing, but it's used to verify and cover an event that involves him. Furthermore, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." IMO that applies to a few sources that are even labelled red in the table above. And as your other reply stated, even four would be enough. I've seen many Wikipedia articles with fewer, and their size reflected it. I think the size and scope of this Wikipedia article is in-line with the subject's coverage. Ashleyisvegan (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally per WP:NPP, we only look for two sources that meet GNG to establish to presumption of notability. Four sources is more than enough. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better source analysis table than the previous one, which I heavily criticized above. Four sources is sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and with the partials, it would certainly meet WP:BIO's WP:BASIC, which allows multiple instances of non-trivial coverage to count in assessing people's notability.

It doesn't affect the chart since they're being used to cite trivial coverage, but Dot Esports is listed as reliable, and EssentiallySports as unreliable by Wikiproject Video Games's source list at WP:VG/RS. Techdirt has been discussed at RSN a bunch of times [56] and it's a well-regarded blog, but a blog nonetheless and probably shouldn't be used for a BLP. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page reads more like a fandom wiki article than anything we should expect from Wikipedia (picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really?) This person who was never that relevant, AFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore and is only survived by this rather ridiculous article. What's happening here in my opinion is that a few of her fans are basically abusing Wikipedia's notability rules in order to make some sort of vague point. If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice in any inane Buzzfeed-style "You won't believe what controversy is rocking twitter today!" newspiece so the article writer can buff up the piece with a few Disqus twitter embeds deserves an article where they get to show off their pilgrimage to the Chicago rat hole, then we need to speedily create a wikiproject to address it as there are thousands of Wikipedia articles missing about all of these definitely relevant twitter accounts. I'm sorry if I sound bitter, but I'm honestly just dismayed at the incredibly lax standards of the article which can't even be edited anymore since it has been locked. If anything should come out of this, at least rewrite the article to be more in line with Wikipedia's standards for articles about people.

Andro124 (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads more like a fandom wiki article isn't an argument to delete per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and AFAIK isn't even on twitter anymore doesn't really have anything to do with our notability guidelines, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. The Picture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article). If anyone who has been mentioned more than twice isn't the argument presented in the above table. She's been mentioned in <20 reliable sources. She is significantly covered in 4 sources (again if we take the above table) which is what matters for WP:GNG. And whether or not there are thousands of other twitter accounts that you believe are more deserving of an article also isn't a reason to delete (per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes let's take a look at that source actually:

In a city known for its iconic landmarks such as deep-dish pizza, the Bean, and the Willis Tower, Chicago has added a peculiar yet fascinating attraction to its repertoire – the "Rat Hole" in Roscoe Village. This viral sensation has become a hotspot for both locals and tourists alike, who are making "pilgrimages" to witness the rodent-shaped splat mark on a sidewalk.

Had to make a pilgrimage to the Chicago Rat Hole — Gatorade Should Be Thicker. (@WinslowDumaine) January 6, 2024

The Rat Hole, formed by the individual imprints of toes, claws, legs, and a tail attached to a body, has captured the imagination of social media users and visitors to Roscoe Village. Winslow Dumaine, a local resident, humorously thanked visitors to the Rat Hole in response to his original post, signifying the growing popularity of this peculiar landmark.
The Lakeview Roscoe Village Chamber of Commerce has embraced the phenomenon, launching a contest to name the Rat Hole. Drawing inspiration from popular culture rodents like Remy and Mickey Mouse, the community is encouraged to submit their suggestions until January 18. The top five names will be selected, and the final decision will be made through a community vote. The Rat Hole has become more than just a visual curiosity; it's now a site for offerings. Tourists and locals alike are bringing coins, flowers, money, cheese, and even shots of alcohol to pay homage to the rodent-shaped impression on the sidewalk.

paid tribute to the chicago rat hole today — beer person (@CantEverDie) January 13, 2024

Social media is abuzz with posts depicting various offerings, with one user even mistaking it for a potential Banksy piece.
TikTok user @Marshian_Rover shared a video of someone pouring what appears to be Malört, a famous Chicago liquor, into the hole as an offering. Despite the harsh winter weather with temperatures reaching -4 degrees, people continue to visit the Rat Hole, creating a constant stream of curious onlookers. [...]

As we can clearly see Juniper's picture is only used as an illustration of the ongoing phenomenon, she is neither named nor commented upon in the body text, we only get an embed of her tweet which the author thought would make for a good insert. By any sane standard a reference like that would not count towards notability. It's the digital equivalent of a using a traditional newspaper article having a passage like "In this Michigan roadside diner, trucker Billy Bob Bobson isn't so sure about the incoming administration's tax hikes" to argue that Bobson is notable in his own right. Merely appearing in an article as illustration of a phenomenon does not constitute noteworthiness. Andro124 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability? I think everybody can see that the source is passing and doesn't contribute to WP:GNG. However, you can in-fact use content from sources that don't contribute to notability (Notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles per WP:NNC) assuming it's not WP:UNDUE. It's one sentence so I don't see it being undue. Again, though, all of this is immaterial because, whether or not we include a single sentence sourced to a passing mention is not important to whether the article should be deleted and is not what AFD is for. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be WP:BASHed into submission when it's plain as day that the article contains non-encyclopedic content that is more interested in promoting its subject than being a useful Wikipedia article. Andro124 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of responding to any of the points I raised, you decided that because I used a couple of links to some actual policies and guidelines (a thing, I note, you have thus far not done at all) you could discount them. The point is that an article contain[ing] non-encyclopedic content is not (in and off itself) a reason to delete an article based on our current policies. As you seemed not to know this I linked you the pages that could explain this to you. If you are uninterested in making arguments grounded in that PaGs (or responding to other's attempts at doing so) I'm not sure what your hoping to gain commenting at this AFD.

If you think linking to policy is disqualifying in an AFD I'd suggest turning up to a few others and not taking your advice from essays who's text hasn't been significantly added to in over 15 yrs. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's apt here, you use them pretty aggressively and IMO unnecessarily. Doombruddah (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have further problems with my conduct I ask you post them to my talk page, as they contribute nothing to the discussion at hand. Focus on content, not on editor conduct. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that wikipedia essays have an expiration date, sorry for that. Andro124 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely an argument to be made that some of material that only uses a tweet of Junlper's without further discussion should be shortened and/or combined to avoid WP:UNDUE issues. However, that's a problem solved by editing and discussion, not deletion. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hatting this as its becoming tedious and really needs to stop. It isn't related to deletion discussion and dosn't need this much digital ink spilled on it Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essays represent one editor's, or a small group of editor's opinions. Taking advice on what is acceptable at AFDs from a very old essay is inadvisable because what is acceptable at AFDs (or even VFDs, which wasn't too far in the past when this essay was created) has changed over the past 20 years. I mean this is an essay that until 3 years ago asserted that that some person liking something is a demonstration of notability, which in case you don't know is pretty patently ridiculous. I am genuinely sorry if you felt offended by my use of policy links to support my argument, but this is standard practice (and to some extent expected) in deletion discussions, and a link to an essay that was last referenced at an AFD in 2018 is unlikely to change that.Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is the last I'll say on that matter as this has got to the point of pointless wikilaying over an essay of all things. Once again if you want to continue this discussion (or anything else not related to the deletion of the article) I advice you do so on my talk page (or yours or at WP:ANI; just anywhere that's not here). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 14:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASH is not a justification for not making a policy based argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Per WP:BLPDD, articles about living people should "Limit content on non-public figures to what's relevant." Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." Now go and wikilawyer around this and explain how the vast majority of the article's in-passing references to the subject somehow skirt around this. I've checked and both of those WP articles were last edited in 2023 and 2025 so they hopefully pass your stringent recency requirements. Andro124 (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLPDD and NotPublicFigure are not notability guidelines, they are about how to structure and source an article on a BLP and make decisions on what material should be included those articles. It has nothing to do with whether or not an article should be kept or not (for more information see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). If you feel the article is lacking in one of the areas mentioned by the guidelines, you are more than welcome to propose the change on the talk page, or gain experience editing on other articles to get up to WP:ECP, then come back and work on it. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for at least making clear you're not in the least interested about fixing the article if your only two suggestions are either to ask you, a person who's been very clear about their partiality to said article, to prune it or the rather farcical requirement that the lowly peasant that I am should go on a quest to go and edit 500 pages before being bestowed the privilege of being able to edit the page of such an august topic as the subject of this article. Andro124 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever help it may be, you can see WP:Edit requests if you're genuinely interested in helping improving the article. If you look at the article history, I don't believe I've ever edited it, and I likely would not be the one looking at the edit request, rather one of the many contributors who have worked on it and are watching the page. You'd be making this request on the article talk page (Talk:Junlper), not my talk page (User talk:wasianpower), though you are welcome to leave a message there as well if you need any assistance. The 500 edit threshold for ECP also doesn't have to be on 500 different pages, you can make 500 edits to the same page and that would count (plus you're already at 120). From experience, 500 edits goes by much quicker than you'd think. I do genuinely hope this helps, Wikipedia is always in need of more dedicated editors and if you're actually interested in improving the article that's great. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would be difficult to argue that the article subject is not a public figure given that they've given interviews, host a podcast, and regularly makes posts that have cumulatively millions of impressions (see WP:LOWPROFILE). Even if it did apply, there is a distinction between material relevant to the person's notability and the reason(s) why someone is notable. For example, a passing mention of a professor getting appointed to an acting administrator role would be fine to include as being relevant to their notability, even if it's not the reason why they are notable (i.e. their research), while a social media post that would otherwise be okay to use per WP:BLPSELFPUB about how they enjoy rock climbing shouldn't be included (unless perhaps they're some kind of sports or exercise researcher). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you honestly believe anybody here is arguing that the that the 'Rat Hole' contributes to Junlper's notability?"

I mean... you just did. Doombruddah (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read again what I actually said: in response to you saying the picture of the Chicago rathole without even a reference to back it up, really? I said The Picture of the Chicago rathole is illustrating a sentence in the article (that has a source) but the image itself doesn't (necessarily) need a source per WP:OI (and is from the subject of the article). What I did not say was that this passing source contributes to notability (it obviously doesn't), only that it justifies the image being there. As I have said to you over and over again (and you have seemingly ignored) whether or not this sentence or that image are in the article has nothing to do with deletion and shouldn't be discussed here as AFD is not clean-up Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly hard to cleanup an article that has been locked so only "verified users" can touch it you'll note. If a small clique refuses to accept any criticism and improve their pet articles, the only tool left are AfDs. Andro124 (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked an article being extended confirmed and/or individual editors disliking how it's written are not reasons to delete. Perhaps, you could point me to that policy/guideline (I'm quite happy for you to use a shortcut to do so). As to your second point, no, there are in fact a great many places you should take a content/conduct dispute before AFD, the NPOV Noticeboard, Administrators' noticeboard and Dispute resolution noticeboard to name but three.

Of course the first port of call should be the article's talk page, a place you've never made a request to. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found another source which could count towards GNG [57]. It uses the subject's full real name; in other sources I read she had expressed a desire for it not to be used, but that's more of a concern for if it is added to the article. I'll add this to the SAT as well. IMO GNG has already been established for the subject, but just wanted to add this information. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this source counts towards GNG, as it's mostly Junlper doing the talking (WP:PRIMARY in this case), and the rest of the article does not speak much about her (not WP:SIGCOV). Based5290 :3 (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put it as partial on the chart, it's definitely not a full point towards GNG. It does have some commentary on her claims as well as ~2 paragraphs that are about her rather than just quotes from her. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on using her real name. There's another one from WaPo [58] using her real name that has a paragraph on her views, which also very briefly covers her social media presence.

It's still partial at best when analyzing through WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV lenses, but it's important to note that WP:BIO's WP:BASIC allows non-trivial, but not SIGCOV-levels of coverage, to be combined to meet the notability standard. While I think there's clearly enough sources to meet GNG as it stands, the stuff that's marked partial in your source analysis table would still go towards meeting BASIC. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Barker

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Politics, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no reliable sources in this article to meet Wikipedia's general notability requirement. Fox News is classified as generally unreliable in the perennial sources list for politics and science. Newsweek since 2013 is classified as marginally reliable. The New York Post is also generally unreliable. I'm not clear about the reliablility of Public News, but the article is paid so it doesn't count. Discussion about The Free Press concluded that it's a self published source, at least as of now, and thus can't count towards notability. At the moment the subject is notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), that she was a democratic fundraiser who voted for Donald Trump. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON and if the subject has additional coverage over time in generally reliable sources it should be revisited. Nnev66 (talk) 18:24, 19 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!} 06:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing is practically a checklist of perennial deprecated sources. All that's missing is PRNewswire. Newsweek used to be reliable but read their article to see O how the mighty have fallen. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles written by the subject of the (Wiki) article themselves do not count for notability. Moreover, amost all of them originate from sources considered unreliable by the community. Silvymaro (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Khalaf

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. LibStar (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 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

in the meantime, delete as a stub with no reliable sources and more external links than article text consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:01, 17 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!} 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lebanon at the 1988 Summer Olympics: I'm not sure I understand the opposition to this common ATD target for non-notable Olympians. JTtheOG (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Japan. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated some news sources, feel free to check it out. HKFighter (talk) 17:33, 17 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. Giant Snowman 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]

Indeed, I have added somemore secondary sources to the article, as the season progress there should be more coverage available. HKFighter (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Changed to Delete now that the new team page has been made. Even this early into 2025, the season in question, the team has picked up coverage in NHK (the Japanese equivalent of the BBC), TBS (another major national news organisation), and the Yamaguchi Shinbun (the major newspaper for the region where the team is from). The coverage so far has been about their signing of two professional players, rather than games played, but that is because the season itself has not yet kicked off. One assumes there will be more coverage coming as the season progresses. It seems much too soon in the piece to AfD an article which is still clearly under construction, but which ALREADY has enough coverage in major independent news sources around the new signings to have achieved notability. If anyone is wondering / wants to check that coverage out in Japanese themselves, they are citations 2,7,8 and 11 on the article as currently written. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also found more coverage both in various written articles, and also a TV broadcast. Here, here (with mirror version here since the original has paywalls) here, and here. It’s still mostly about the signings, but also about plans for the team to move out of the regional competitions, and into the professional leagues, and how signing professional players works as part of this plan. Still, that’s 7 different independent media sources, all with their own slant on the basic information and what it means. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recently located sources (in the article and discussion) can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - based on the coverage above, Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies seems to be notable enough for an article. I'm not entirely convinced that we need to have a sub-article for this season as whatever can be pieced together from the limited sources would barely fill an article on the club, rendering a sub-article for this season unnecessary. If someone creates an article for the club with the reliable sources provided above, then we can delete this season article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created an article for the page, it is currently under review. HKFighter (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I mean an article for the club. HKFighter (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Used sources from this AfD and also moved the draft to mainspace. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 14:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for arranging this. On that basis, this season article covers little that Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies doesn't already cover in a better way, therefore, we can delete the season (as excessive detail for this level of football) but keep the club article based on the news coverage relating to the club. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I'm just going to !vote to Delete this season article. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment thanks to HKFighter for making the new page

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Confused. This person is clearly a big celebrity, but she doesn't have a lot of coverage in mainstream media, leading me to wonder why she's gotten so little coverage, at least from what I see on Googling, from them compared to what's in the article. Has there been a blacklist? Is she just famous for being famous? What's going on? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no answer from anyone else forthcoming, I'm going with "yes, the subject is famous, but not notable." Bearian (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Serbezova

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. Jay Cubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Bulgarian newspaper archives did you look in for this offline-era Olympic medalist and world silver medalist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the best I could find was 1 line mentions in google books. Unless someone finds coverage in Bulgarian, she fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article was PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SPORTBASIC says "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level." She did achieve success in a major international competition at the highest level - she won a bronze medal in a rowing event at the 1980 Summer Olympics. Are you suggesting that winning an Olympic bronze medal isn't "success in a major international competition at the highest level"? As for coverage, by searching on her name in Cyrillic script, I found this article from 2021 [59], which has more details about her, and in 2019, she was awarded a Bulgarian Olympic Committee "Sport for a Peaceful World" medal" [60]. With an award and half an article in 2019 and 2021, I think it's highly likely that there are more sources in Bulgarian dating from 1980 on, that have not yet been digitised. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen,

Your first quote is only the second half of SPORTSBASIC, the first sentence of which is as follows: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Critically, sports biographies "must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article."

Your question, Are you suggesting that winning an Olympic bronze medal isn't "success in a major international competition at the highest level"?. No, I'm not, my reason for AfDing this is because Serbezova perhaps fulfills the reason for having an article (winning bronze) but has no SIGCOV (the letter of the policy).

On the two sources:

The 2021 one isn't substantial. There's a description of the race, but the only 'biographical' information on her is as follows (translated by an LLM because Google Translate is bad): Mariyana Serbezova was born on October 15, 1959, in Plovdiv. She started rowing, like Ana Bakova, in 1972 under coach Milka Kuleva. She competed for Trakia Plovdiv, Akademik Sofia, and Levski Spartak. She was a multiple national champion and a medalist at numerous prestigious regattas. She retired from competitive rowing in 1991 and a year later began teaching physical education at a school in Sofia. She and Ana Bakova crossed paths twice at major championships. In 1979, they won silver in the quadruple sculls in Bled, Yugoslavia, and at the aforementioned 1980 Moscow Olympics, where they won bronze. In 1986, she competed at the World Championships in Nottingham and finished fourth in the quadruple sculls.

The 2019 one is merely a list of recipients of the award. Serbezova's coverage there is translated as follows: Mariyana Serbezova – Bronze medalist at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, rowing, awarded the “Sport for a Peaceful World” medal on the occasion of a milestone anniversary. Jay Cubby 18:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep winning the Olympic medal helps notability. This [61] is at least confirmation of the win and some context, but minimal coverage. I'd give this a weak pass, given the Olympic win. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b, SPORTSCRIT states that sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.. That source is by no means significant coverage. Jay Cubby 01:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I have added the sources I found to the article. I maintain that finding coverage from 2021, and that she was awarded a medal in 2019, is a clear indication that we would find significant coverage from the 1970s and 80s if we had access to Bulgarian (and possibly other USSR) sources from that time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Coppen

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs, and Indonesia. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not show enough Notability to be included in mainspace. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sent it to draftspace days back but I've seen alot of improvement source-wise and contentwise, passes WP:GNG at it's current state but still doubtful on WP:NACTOR. ANU^writes 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Romeo & Juminten and Best Friends Forever. Also appears to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:18, 16 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!} 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs cleanup and expansion (the Indonesian corresponding article can be of use) but she seems to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions that received coverage (not all have a page on this Wikipedia (yet)) -Mushy Yank. 23:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the comments here are vague references to policy, lacking substantial arguments. More input is required.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep !votes that I see (including mne) do not correspond to the vague references to a policy as described in the essay you are providing a link to.....Did you mean the Delete !vote and nomination rationale? (That’s not ’most’ of the comments). -Mushy Yank. 22:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ghana. 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 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?
https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/news/politics/farmer-frimpomaa/2024/	~ 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.		This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1344146/cpp-flagbearer-promises-government-for-your-doors.html	I will initiate a..., ... she stated, For us in the CPP..., ... she added. It is also evident that this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.	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.	Again, this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Why-Nana-Akosua-Frimpomaa-of-the-CPP-wants-to-become-Ghana-rsquo-s-first-female-president-1782539	Speaking with Etsey Atisu on GhanaWeb TV's Election Desk, Nana Akosua, who is also the National Chairperson of the CPP, stressed that...	This piece lacks a byline and that is very unprofessional of a news org.	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://3news.com/elections/	Unaccessed, this is only a database.	No clear editorial oversight].	This is only a database.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c1jdgrx6550o			This is another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://mx24online.com/presidential-candidates/nana-akosua-frimpomaa-convention-peoples-party-cpp/		No clear editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-cpp-flag-bearer-election-nana-frimpomaa-onsy-nkrumah-submit-forms-promise-economic-revolution-restoration.html		~ 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.	Obviously, not of substantial coverage about the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-rally-behind-cpp-to-break-duopoly-nana-frimpomaa-urges-electorate.html	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	~ Ditto	The single-sentence about her is insufficient substantial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/refund-monies-collected-from-job-applicants-at-state-agencies-cpp-to-government/	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.	But of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN.		✘ No
https://3news.com/news/politics/cpp-is-the-only-party-that-did-not-fail-ghanaians-chair/	Ditto	Ditto	Nothing like a substantial coverage on the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.asaaseradio.com/election-2024-nana-frimpomaa-sarpong-kumankuma-declared-cpp-flagbearer/			A political party's primary election result, another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/election-2024-its-no-1-for-npp-no-8-for-ndc-on-ballot-paper/			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]

Keep:This subject passes the basic WP:NPOL criteria and the general English Notability criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frimpomaa was an unsuccessful candidate, and the only coverage I can find of her is of her as a candidate. We do not keep these articles, but we are allowed to cover her candidacy on the election page, and a redirect there would make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 13 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 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]

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 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!} 05:31, 17 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!} 06:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article can be expanded further rather than deleted.𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 07:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I never heard of the subject until now, but apparently 57 people I know follow her Instagram account. Since I have several mutuals, I'm not !voting, but I'll take a look at the sources. For the record, coming in 6th place in a reality show just means that there isn't a presumption of notability. She could still pass, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to have the lasting notability and is a WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 22:50, 12 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]

Question: There's an essay WP:NBEAUTY which states that winners of national-level pageants which select participants for the Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. There is a caveat on the page that it's an essay and not a policy or guideline. I think this should be clarified as if this is not a well-established guideline by consensus, I'd vote to delete this article because while there is coverage of the subject winning the pageant, it is a one event situation as noted by the previous two editors. If notability is conferred by winning a national level beauty pageant that qualifies the subject for one of the Big Four international beauty pageants, then I'd vote to keep. Nnev66 (talk) 02:40, 20 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!} 06:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of SIGCOV sources means a standalone article violates SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Hawaii. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR through roles in Doom Patrol (TV series), Soap Girl, Only the Brave (2006 film), The Nana Project and various Lifetime productions (see page, with a couple of reviews mentioning her cited), at least. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (coverage mentioning her roles include, almost at random https://deadline.com/2021/04/doom-patrol-hbo-max-five-recur-season-3-1234742555/ ; https://collider.com/doom-patrol-season-3-cast-sisterhood-of-dada/ https://www.abookof.us/talent-index/gina-hiraizumi https://www.thewrap.com/vivica-a-fox-new-the-wrong-movies-lmn-lifetime-movie-network/ (only mentioned twice but to verify the roles) https://2paragraphs.com/2020/03/actress-gina-hiraizumi-flaunts-natural-boob-job-in-lacy-bra/ (really not great but indicates 2 other noted roles in popular series) etc ; might also been considered a prolific actress thus meeting WP:NACTOR's second criterion (https://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/gina-hiraizumi/credits/3000481836/)[reply]
my signed comment above was expanded by myself (see below) -Mushy Yank. 07:57, 16 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, clearly meet WP:NACTOR Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ximena Caminos

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the body of this stubbed-down version of the article that establishes general notability because there is nothing in the remaining text that refers to significant coverage. It has not been necessary to check the sources, because there is nothing that needs to be verified. There is also a draft. I have not yet reviewed the draft, but it seems better to delete this stub first and deal with the draft in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 13 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there have been some recent additions to this article that need to be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage I can find of her in independent sources rises to level of multiple examples of significant coverage imo:

Guardian article^[10] which is mostly about her Reef Line project but she is quoted throughout

NYT Q&A^[11] with her which is quite detailed

Vogue piece^[12] is about her *and* her (ex?)husband, but it could be argued sigcov.

NYT mention^[13] also about Reef Line, she + her project has a two paragraph write-up

InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC) InsomniaOpossum (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have consolidated the references in the article (combining duplicates, replacing dead urls or non-existent archive urls with live urls). I see there are other references in an earlier version of this article [62], which may provide more coverage - and there is also a draft article about this person Draft:Ximena Caminos which also has some other sources. Very confusing - I will try to assess all the sources to determine if she meets WP:GNG, and include relevant sources if she does. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

Deletion review

[1] ttps://thecritic.co.uk/issues/march-2023/first-lady-of-lords/

[2] ttps://www.thecricketmonthly.com/story/1067634/let-s-play-it-by-ear

[3] ttps://www.kentcricket.co.uk/news/ten-more-kent-women-cap-recipients-announced/

[4] ttps://www.espncricinfo.com/on-this-day/cricket-events/December/5

[5] ttps://bnl.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/BermudaNP17/id/35338/

[6] Urquhart, Ian (2003-08-09). "They call her 'Premier Hutton'". The Toronto Star. pp. [1], [2]. Retrieved 2025-01-19.

[16] She confirmed that when she said that this image from User:JunLpermode was uploaded by her here

[7] ttps://www.misssupranational.com/

[8] ttps://newsday.co.tt/2024/05/18/miss-and-mister-supranational-winners/

[9] ttps://bazaarvietnam.vn/victoria-larsen-shines-as-miss-supranational-denmark-2024/

[10] ttps://www.pmldaily.com/features/entertainment/2024/07/danish-beauty-victoria-larsen-wins-miss-supranational-europe.html

[11] ttps://www.pmldaily.com/features/entertainment/2024/07/danish-beauty-victoria-larsen-wins-miss-supranational-europe.html

[12] ttps://www.femina.in/beauty-pageants/miss-supranational/meet-the-continental-winners-of-the-15th-miss-supranational-2024/eventshow/111545123.cms

[13] ttps://www.pageantcircle.com/2024/01/miss-supranational-denmark-2024-is-victoria-larsen-for-miss-supranational-2024.html

[14] ttps://lofficiel.in/2024/03/08/exclusive-interview-with-miss-supranational-denmark-2024-victoria-larsen/

[15] ttps://futuremedianews.com.na/2024/03/25/victoria-larsen-to-represent-denmark-in-miss-supranational-2024-pageant-in-poland/

[17] ttps://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/dec/02/ground-zero-for-climate-change-the-shoreline-sculpture-park-coming-to-miami

[18] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/04/travel/reef-line-miami-beach.html

[19] ttps://www.vogue.com/article/faena-forum-cultural-center-miami-ximena-caminos-curator-baz-luhrmann

[20] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/03/arts/design/art-basel-miami-beach-see.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[a]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]