Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

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

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

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

Purge page cache watch


Women

edit

Logan Brown (pregnant man)

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

I feel like this is a BLP1E. This person doesn't seem to have been notable before they got pregnant, and the only coverage is of their appearance on a magazine cover. Valereee (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Crawley

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

WP:BLP of a technology writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for writers. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their work exists, and have to pass certain concrete benchmarks of significance (noteworthy awards, third-party attention by critics and reviewers, evidence of their work having had a verifiable impact on the field they write about, etc.) supported by third-party reliable sources independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim in evidence here is that she exists, and the article is referenced almost entirely to primary sources (staff profiles, directory entries, her own writing metaverifying its own existence, podcast interviews, etc.) that are not support for notability, with just one footnote (#10, "Silicon Republic") that represents an independent source writing about her. And while it's questionable as to whether even that counts as a WP:GNG-worthy source at all, one hit of RS coverage isn't enough all by itself even if we do give it the benefit of the doubt.
It also warrants note that the article has been tagged for suspected WP:AUTOBIO editing by the subject herself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preeti Mistry

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

Since this is tagged with the notability tag, adding here for discussion on deletion. (Article creator here, staying neutral on the discussion) GnocchiFan (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyōko Nakano

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

Since this is tagged with the notability tag, adding here for discussion on deletion. (Article creator here, staying neutral on the discussion) GnocchiFan (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard

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

Hasn't changed since previous AFD. JayCubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjana Seth

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

I can only find routine coverage from fashion shows and brand PR, which is not enough for GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No Media Articles found, non-notable - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Grandma Hardcore

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

No real establishment of notability. The sources provided are: a blog site, the MTV homepage, a BusinessWeek article about her gaming career which seemed quite trivial, and a forum post-esque story pointing back to the aforementioned blog site. Been notability tagged since 2012. I should also add, I suggest not looking up her nickname lest you find links to 'the Hub'. Aydoh8[contribs] 10:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Leigh Soto

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

Discussed in the aftermath of the shooting at Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto/Archive_1#Should_we_merge_this_article_with_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting? but looking back 12 years, I don't see any sustained notability independent of the shooting nor material that couldn't be summarized at Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Legacy. Bringing here v. requested merge as it's a subject deserving of broad consensus. Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article should be kept because she was a notable heroric teacher.She has since been hailed as a hero. She is a posthumous recipient of the Presidential Citizens Medal.Plans and petitions to honor her by name via scholarships, roads, and schools were announced in late 2012 and 2013.In 2013, Acero Victoria Soto High School opened in Chicago, Illinois. The Nutmeg Big Brothers Big Sisters organization created the "Victoria Soto Volunteer Award" in honor of Soto, who was a former Nutmeg mentor.In June 2013, a playground in Long Brook Park in Stratford was named the "Victoria Soto Memorial Playground" in her honor. Only a notable heroric person like would have been honored as such. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- it's a one-event article, which would normally be a delete, but sometimes the one event generated enough external notable citations AND a really well cited and written article that this side overrides (it's not at the same level, but Lee Harvey Oswald is certainly a one-event person as well). The article shows external notability after the event with a school named after her, a playground, and an award. The one-event was so big as to require multiple subsidiary articles to contain all the independent coverage, and this is one of those (well-dritten) articles. Keep -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and selective Merge to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting per WP:BIO1E and WP:Victim. Mztourist (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note -Victoria Leigh Soto sacrificed her life by covering her students with her body, therefore she safed the lives of many of them.

Had this been a act in the military, she would have been awarded the "Medal of Honor". However it was a heroic civiian act and as such her heroism as been recognized by the president and her community therefore making her notable. If every "Medal of Honor" recipient has an article, then she should also have hers. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is the second-highest civilian award in the United States, so not equivalent to the Medal of Honor. Also it was a joint award with 5 others. What makes Soto any more notable than any of the other 5 awardees? Mztourist (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 
Awarded posthumously the Presidential Citizens Medal in 2012

:::Note The medal recognizes an individual "who has performed exemplary deeds or services for his or her country or fellow citizens." However among the additional recognitions which she has been awarded are the following: In 2012, Eastern Connecticut State University created the Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund, awarded to students aiming to become teachers.In 2012, the Town of Stratford renamed North Parade, adjacent to town hall, "Victoria Soto Way".In December 2012, the Stratford High School Class of 2003 established the "Victoria L. Soto Memorial Fund" in her honor. The fund helped pay for funeral services, the creation of a memorial at Stratford High School, and a scholarship fund in the name of Soto, who had belonged to the class of 2003. Yes, she is notable. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:BIO1E is a general rule that admits exceptions. This is one of them. Rather than thinking of it as something that should be wedged into the article about the event, we should regard it as a reasonable spinoff. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The main article is very long as is, and this is on a notable subtopic. BIO1E isn't end-all be all and there is enough material for an individual article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kamna Pathak

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

Looking at the sources, it does not pass WP:GNG even. Mostly all the sources available on google are discussing her replacement in a notable show, see [12], [13], [14]. Taabii (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships qualification tournament

edit
2023 Women's U-19 World Floorball Championships qualification tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under SNG or GNG. A qualification touranment for a competition. The only source are short " it exists" coverage and the stats. Tagged by others for wp:notability since February North8000 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld

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

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.
Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.
Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.
This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.
Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.
Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:
  • She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
  • The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
  • Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
  • WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
    • the 2005 masters thesis,
    • the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
    • the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
    • the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
    • the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
    • multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
    • the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [15]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):
3. The Spectrum article is actually good.
21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at
28. OK
2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.
6. a mention
7. a mention
8. a mention
9. a mention
15. a mention
16. a mention
23. a mention
10. trivial
12. trivial
13. trivial
14. trivial
18. trivial
19. trivial
20. trivial
22. trivial
24. trivial
25. trivial
26. trivial
4. primary, no notability
5. primary, no notability
27. primary, no notability
29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability
1. no mention
11. no mention
17. no mention
I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:
500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.
I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.
Good point
The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.
@SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [16] and [17]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding sources:
2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.
6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.
7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.
Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.
18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".
29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.
The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.
Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.
I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a Keep or Speedy Keep opinion to help us all move on.

Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akidearest

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

non-notable youtuber who doesn't even remotely meet the inclusion criteria even for just YT personalities, let alone GNG.


Most of the sources are primary, or straight up blackhat SEO/nonsense. TURKIDICAE🦃 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

  • Delete. The Verge reference is as close to a reliable source on the page as there is. That’s not even close to what we expect of BLPs. Everything else is sourced to social media and an anime fanzine. I won’t oppose a Draftify. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aresu Rabbani

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for activists. As always, activists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third party media coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary source content on the self-published websites and/or social networking accounts of organizations directly affiliated with the subject, which are not support for notability.
There are just two hits of third-party media coverage shown here, of which one is clearly WP:GNG-worthy and one is debatable, but even if we grant the debatable one the benefit of the doubt it still takes more than just two GNG-worthy sources to get a person over GNG.
This may, further, be an WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by a virtual WP:SPA named "AresuGeography", but people aren't entitled to create their own articles about themselves on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person is more than a casual activist and notable as a speaker at UNHCR. There are more appropriate third party sources that could be used to cite this person's work (such as this one or this one). Considering the importance of representing women's activism what about removing the information that you consider self sourced or dodgy and leaving it as a stub to be added to later? The concern WP:AUTOBIO is speculation and we can't confirm that. Nayyn (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources where she's doing the talking about other things don't help to establish her notability — we need to see sources in which she's being spoken about by other people. As important as improving our coverage of women is, we don't do that by exempting women from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:21, 8 December 2024 (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. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susmita Bhattacharya

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

Since the subject does not meet the notability criteria under WP:NACADEMIC, it requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Currently, the subject is supported by primary sources and has only an h-index of 7, which is insufficient to establish notability by academic standards. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was first going to !vote keep, on the basis that Principal is the highest admin post of this med school. But having dug a bit deeper, WP:NACADEMIC #6 requires "major academic institution", and I don't think a small, provincial school established three years ago satisfies the "major" part. There's nothing else in the draft that would convince me either. It is probably borderline, but ultimately fails WP:NPROF (as well as WP:GNG). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (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 keep‎. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi

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

Not meet WP:BIO. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2024 (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.

Bettina Valdorf

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

There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and after doing a search I could find any additional of coverage in reliable sources. I did find some passing mentions, but nothing in-depth or evidence to prove notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna Harrell

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Despite the volume of provided sources, most of those are competition results and databases, and what isn't appears to mostly be skating blogs. I'll let the community decide whether what's there qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this could benefit from more specific discussion about sources, and fewer accusations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I believe these two sources from the article, which have WP:SIGCOV, count towards WP:GNG. The others are standings, passing mentions, or interviews. I searched Proquest and Newspapers.com but didn't find anything there. Nnev66 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Capellazzi, Gina (February 26, 2019). "Hanna Harrell ready to make her 'debut to the world' at the 2019 World Junior Figure Skating Championships". figureskatersonline.com.
    2. Rutherford, Lynn (March 7, 2019). "Ambitious Harrell Will Reach for the Stars in Zagreb". U.S. Figure Skating. Archived from the original on March 15, 2019.
  • Weak Keep I think NATHLETE can be established, but some work is needed. What's there now is a start, there are too many shared references, but given the information in the article so far, I am willing to believe that more references specifically about the subject can be found. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I searched for additional references but couldn’t find any. The subject showed promise in 2018-2019 and there were two articles published in figure skating sites (I’m going to assume they are reliable sources). But then she was injured and from the article she hasn’t performed well after that. So I wouldn’t necessarily expect to find anything else but perhaps someone will in next few days. Nnev66 (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clear WP:GNG-passing coverage. Reminder that the various sports SNGs do still require a GNG pass.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Lacking any sort of news coverage [24] is about the best there is, and it's likely not a RS. Being a patient at the hospital is fine, but it doesn't prove notability. The other sources used in the article are primary or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ross (Australian sculptor)

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

Talented but by in-house wiki standards sadly NN. sources are passing mention only. Have done a BEFORE but see only gallery listings. Don't suspect WP:BIO. Her work is very very impressive, but not sure a wiki bio is warranted just yet. Would be trilled to be proven wrong. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see what you mean, that the works are more notable than the artist. Is it ethical to delete items from an article before nominating it for deletion? Doug butler (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Nothing for this artist found, no listing in the Getty ULAN [25]. The one source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added example and citations for her public art. The citations show that these artworks exist, but not sure if the show notability--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment This sculptor is represented in about 4 regional galleries and has public art commissions in about 14 city councils. She has been a finalist in at least three art awards. She has had solo as well as group exhibitions. Her work has been reviewed, not just passing mentions. She would be known in public art circles amongst people who commission public art and has some international recognition. As usual I don't think editors should check an Australian's notability by using only US sources or journal aggregators that are US or European-centric. I agree this artist is not nationally well-known, but I want to know what previous commenters are looking for in terms of notability. You have all seemed to use different sources or criteria, some of which may not be relevant. What do you want to see for her to pass your notability standard? LPascal (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)LPascal[reply]
  • Comment- LPascal we are looking at WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. You can see that there are specific guidelines for creative professionals, as there is a line between doing one's job well and being notable. you say 4 regional galleries and has public art commissions in about 14 city councils. She has been a finalist in at least three art awards. If you would provide RS for those claims I think it would help the article. Ross' work does not appear to: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not wedded to keeping her article but I can possibly find references/reviews to her work in her artist's file in an art library next week. If these reviews/references show a body of work as per her CV would that get her over the line for WP:ARTIST.? You'd need to wait a week until I can get to her clippings file. LPascal (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment::Ross is a sculptor, so that needs to be taken into account...an expensive creative endeavour and in Australia very hard to sell to major collectors other than public institutions, so her number of public art commissions — seventeen 1992–2019 — is high in the small Australian market for sculpture. I'll check the reviews of her work in major newspapers as listed in her CV https://marsgallery.com.au/usr/library/documents/main/artists/79/anne-ross-cv-24.pdf at MARS gallery, a major commercial gallery in Melbourne. They date back to 1991 and significant Aust. art critics address (Nelson, Lynn, Lancashire, Makin etc.) her work ('(c) won significant critical attention'). McClelland Sculpture Survey and Award (x3) and Moet & Chandon Touring Exhibtion are major events ('(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition'). Maitland Regional Gallery, Jewish Museum of Australia,in which Ross is represented are notable galleries and inclusion in The City of Melbourne collection is likewise notable. I am not a fan of her work, but I feel after further checks that she meets the notability criteria. :Jamesmcardle (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request According to Ms Ross's website, acquisition of her Bunyip by the American Natural History Museum was covered by the San Antonio Express-News, presumably in 2019. Does anyone have access to their archive? Doug butler (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doug butler Looks like the online archives for San Antonio Express-News is available at the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ at NewspaperARCHIVE.com. Keywords Bunyip and Ross doesn't bring up any articles. Double check please. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks WAU. Ms Ross, in her website, credits the San Antonio Express-News for the photo of the figure in a display case. Thanks for the link; I found no instance of "bunyip" in that newspaper between 2010 and 2020, but have no idea of how conclusive such a search is. Doug butler (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting upon request. But know that this discussion can be closed whenever a closer discerns a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)</pion[reply]

  • Pause nomination for at least a week. As mentioned above, research is being done on this. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have checked the Anne Ross ephemera file in the art library. Ephemera files contain newspaper clippings, exhibition invitations, CVs, catalogues etc relating to the artist. The files are useful to confirm exhibitions, the accuracy of an artist's CV and to find press reviews in journals and newspapers that are difficult to find online. I found enough ephemera and newspaper clippings to confirm that her CV is accurate (artists' CVs usually are) and that she has featured in the arts pages of The Canberra Times, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald. She appears in the Scheding Index of Australian Arts & Artists, https://artresearch.com.au/results/?criteria=anne+ross and The NAVA Who's Who of Australian Visual Artists. Her public art commissions (outdoor sculptures) are in the collections of 13 individual state/local/government organisations (Meets criteria (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.) Her "inside" art is in the collections of at least 14 galleries. She has been shortlisted and shown in two prestigious sculpture awards: McClelland Sculpture Survey and Award, and The Woollahra Sculpture Prize. Because of her many public arts commissions and showings in sculpture exhibitions and awards, I think she also meets criteria 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. ie her work is obviously well known in public art circles especially in regard to animal sculptures.LPascal (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great work @LPascal. A convincing case to keep. Jamesmcardle (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 10:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm intending to check hard copy of reviews in the State Library of Victoria artist files, but in the meantime have structured the article to include Anne Ross's recognition and standing and also inserted more references and links to exhibitions and public works. The volume and importance Ross's work and reviews of it by significant critics as Nelson, Lynn, Lancashire, Makin etc. cover the notability requirements on all counts. Jamesmcardle (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Molloy

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

Subject fails WP:BIO notability, most of the sources aren't independent of the subject. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLoyalOrder I'm counting 28 sources in that AFD, and its difficult to know what sources you are talking about specifically because they are not numbered. I suggest doing a WP:SIRS table source analysis here for clarity. You might also want to include the sources currently cited in the article as well. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sure, i'll do that soon. thanks TheLoyalOrder (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Currently used in article https://windycitytimes.com/2014/06/25/windy-city-times-30-under-30-to-be-honored-june-26/ No presumably presumably No X Mentioned in a list of a bunch of people by this local newspaper
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/31/2014-trans-100-includes-cece-mcdonald-fallon-fox#toggle-gdpr No No presumably No X Mentioned once, seemingly because she writes for them
https://web.archive.org/web/20190203133449/https://www.mediamatters.org/authors/parker-molloy/382 No No presumably No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://newrepublic.com/authors/parker-molloy No No No X its just a link to their author page
https://www.salon.com/writer/parker_marie_molloy/ No No No X ditto
https://thought.is/what-its-like-to-come-out-as-transgender-at-work/ Yes No ? No X article about herself
https://web.archive.org/web/20141104114234/http://parkthatcar.net/2012/07/16/oneoftherottenones/ No No ? No X blog post by her
Parker Marie Molloy (February 25, 2014). My Transgender Coming Out Story. Thought Catalog. ISBN 9781629210605. ? No ? No X dead link to ebook she wrote
https://web.archive.org/web/20150312125430/http://chicagoist.com/2014/03/02/interview_parker_marie_malloy_on_ca.php Yes No presumably No X interview of her
https://www.salon.com/2014/02/05/piers_morgan_grills_trans_activist.../ No Yes debatable Yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20201206162642/http://archive.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/20140124gilbert-golf-inventor-suicide-website-essay-anne-vanderbilt.html No Yes ? No X she's not mentioned
https://grantland.com/features/a-mysterious-physicist-golf-club-dr-v/ No Yes ? No X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20170914124936/https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/3-signs-we-have-a-long-way-to-go-on-trans-rights-20150113 No No no No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.huffpost.com/voices/topic/transgender No debatable X its just the topic page for all trans articles
https://www.salon.com/2013/08/23/the_happy_story_of_my_transgender_coming_out/ Yes No debatable No X article about herself
https://apnews.com/article/trump-media-election-rallies-facts-kamala-harris-e906e990b5dcfe44b5e672336fe82b32 No Yes Yes Yes X leads with briefly mentioning her perspective on sanewashing of trump and then talks about other people
https://archive.ph/20141108192631/http://nlgja.org/2014/transgender-journalists-and No No ? No X just lists her a particpating in a talk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/08/22/trans-activists-scrutinize-pvt-manning-coverage/ No Yes Yes Yes X just quotes a tweet of hers
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220813/http://theweek.com/article/index/250110 No No ? No X quotes her amongst other trans people
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2014/12/31/transgender-teen-leelah-alcorn-death-needs-mean-something/4hw6uPd8NtjIbn8kAdyAbM/story.html No No presumably No X her commenting on something, not about her
https://www.autostraddle.com/let-it-go-for-the-last-time-trans-women-were-not-born-boys-255055/ No Yes ? Yes X briefly quoting an op-ed she co wrote, amongst other trans people
http://www.thetrans100.com/about/ No presumably No X just a link to the trans 100 org, she's not mentioned
https://web.archive.org/web/20150213020921/http://www.nwpc.org/2014emmanominees No presumably ? No X list of people who received an honor from an org
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108212634/http://www.lapressclub.org/Resources/Documents/Finalists_NAEJ_2014.pdf No presumably ? No X ditto
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/17/t-word-new-n-word No No presumably No X an article she wrote, not about her
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/03/18/rupaul-stokes-anger-use-transphobic-slur No No presumably No X ditto
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/parker-marie-molloy/gay-dudes-can-you-just-not_b_4330353.html No No no No X ditto
https://web.archive.org/web/20141108213125/http://www.pqmonthly.com/parker-marie-molloy-elaborates-gay-dudes-can-just/17814 Yes No ? No X interview of her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/parker-marie-molloy_b_5077322 not really Yes no Yes X not really about her, author mostly talks about their own experience in response to parker
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/04/17/op-ed-burning-books-one-word-time No Yes ? No X doesn't mention parker
https://www.thestranger.com/seattle/about-the-word-tranny/Content?oid=19946137 No Yes ? No X ditto
https://boingboing.net/2014/04/04/rupaul.html Maybe Yes probably not Yes X perennial soucres describes boingboing.net as a group blog
https://web.archive.org/web/20160311044304/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/our-lady-j/rupauls-drag-race_b_5148719.html No Yes debatable Yes X doesn't mention parker
http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_498_-_rupaul_charles ? Yes No ? X ru paul podcast episode, presumably paul talks about his opinion
https://web.archive.org/web/20160819021941/http://roygbiv.jezebel.com/huffpostgays-offensive-video-of-drag-queen-shooting-tra-1566525131 No Yes No Yes X short blog post it looks like
https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/04/14/rupauls-drag-race-logo-tv-apologize-transphobic-slur No No presumably Yes X an article she wrote, not about her
https://web.archive.org/web/20141029221559/http://www.glaad.org/blog/update-female-or-she-male-sketch-and-rupauls-drag-race No Yes presumably Yes X doesn't mention her
http://freethoughtblogs.com/zinniajones/2014/04/open-letter-100-trans-women-stand-against-calpernia-addams-and-andrea-james/ not really ? No No X a petition defending her
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/calpernia-addams-andrea-james_b_5146415 not really ? No No X ditto
https://www.queerty.com/trans-violence-watchdogs-issue-advisory-warning-against-advocate-writer-and-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140903 not really Yes ? Yes X mentions a previous article about parker and then that were added to a list, that's all
https://www.queerty.com/park-that-attitude-the-danger-of-trans-activist-parker-molloy-20140827   Yes ? Yes ? unclear on the reliability of Queerty. also not sure if its coverage of her is signifcant
from prev AFD https://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2014/05/06/alaska-thunderfuck-apologizes-controversial-video not really No ? No X reads like an ad for a podcast she was on
https://www.thestranger.com/blogs/2014/10/30/20923525/sl-letter-of-the-day-drag-trans-trans-drag not really No ? No X article isn't about her, author just asked her opinion on something
links to a bunch of websites that she writes articles for No No X these aren't sources
https://web.archive.org/web/20210623155424/https://www.glaad.org/blog/author-transphobia-perfectly-natural-asked-take-leave-ad-agency not really Yes Yes Yes ? short article about Gavin McInnes that quotes a tweet of her's
https://windycitytimes.com/2014/05/14/chicagoan-writes-nationally-from-the-t-perspective/ Yes ? ? no? X its mostly an interview, which would be primary source

TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably wrong on some of these judgements but not wrong to the point it changes the determinations, i think. 0 definitely good sources. Also most of these, regardless of quality, talk about like 1 controversy from a decade ago TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm confused and impressed that someone would make a gigantic chart to evaluate these sources. Yes, many of them are bad or irrelevant, but so what? There are a lot of subjective judgements of individual sources that I do not share and I believe that Carrite's sources provided in the previous AFD establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Carrite lists three sources: source 1 isn't independent and is primary (it's mostly an interview of her, the information is coming from the subject), source 2 is from a deprecated source WP:HUFFPOCON (basically a blog post, no editorial oversight), source 3 i'd argue its not really significant coverage of parker, more of one incident involving Parker. Unclear if this site has an editorial (no about us section) or if this is just basically a blog post.
    Even included that, that's one iffy source.
    Also note these three sources are from 2014, not really sustained coverage. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. We need to judge this by the best sources. The inclusion of additional primary sources is neither hear nor there when it comes to deletion. (Any truly superfluous ones can be removed from the article.) I think we can safely disregard the big table of sources above as it lists several secondary sources as not being so. For example, interviews are not primary sources (unless the subject is self-publishing the interview, I guess). I'm sure that this is a genuine misunderstanding but it reveals the entire AfD to be misconceived. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: If it is true that Malloy genuinely requests deletion then I do not oppose deletion on that basis. She is clearly notable enough for us to have an article but not so significantly notable that we must have an article about her, i.e. where not having an article would create a hole in the encyclopaedia. This is a middle position where discretion might be exercised legitimately. I am neutral on that, provided that there really is an unambiguous request for deletion. I guess that makes my !vote into a weak keep overall so I've updated it accordingly. If deleted then the article title should probably redirect to The Advocate. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    what are the best sources? interviews being primary sources is based on WP:Interviews, since any information they give about themselves is primary and that's what the article is about TheLoyalOrder (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak Keep. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources (I just added one). Funcrunch (talk) 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my !vote as I just saw on the article talk page that the subject wants this page removed. Funcrunch (talk)
  • Delete: I do not believe Carritte's sources establish notability. The HuffPost source is unusable per WP:HUFFPOCON. I don't think the Windy City source is sufficiently independent, but even if it was that only leaves us with two usable sources between it and Queerty. The sources currently in the article seem to be a mixture of passing mentions or Molloy herself. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 19:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment. I've just searched for her name on google scholar and seen that she's frequently mentioned as an example of someone who has said or written something. She must be widely known. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated now that I've noticed what the subject herself says and looked at the article in that light. Essentially it's at risk of violating WP:NPOV throughout, in its present form. ("...representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources".) I know that doesn't have an impact on notability but it's a good reason to delete, without ruling out someone completely rewriting it in the future. --Northernhenge (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, she's borderline notable, however it's not a clear case as much of this is what she said/wrote, not independent coverage. Together with subject requesting deletion, I think we err on the side of their request as a BLP. Star Mississippi 02:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the case for meeting GNG is very weak, the article is 10 years out of date, and the subject of the article doesn't feel they meet the notability criterion. There is not enough coverage to keep this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: is still mentioned in academic footnotes as of 2024 [26], with a limited amount of scholarly notice [27]. There's a limited amount of coverage as shown in the source charts above about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kurowski

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:SINGER. No indication of significance.Single ref is a profile. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never been updated. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lot to base notability on. It all seems to local news. The book may be notable. I see its published by Rowohlt which is an old established publisher, potentially an indication of a pass as WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think these add up to much. There is a couple of event listings and promo articles for the book. There could be more here though. scope_creepTalk 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A quick search shows several articles about her and her performances. She seems to be a important figure in the cultural scene in the Ruhrgebiet. @Bridget:, German-speaking user here. WAZ is the biggest regional paper in Germany, focusing on the Ruhrgebiet. There are also other articles on the Westdeutsche Zeitung (a state-wide focus). [33]

[34] [35] TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these references are routine notices of the events with ticket prices and not reliable sources. See what else turns up. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Again, "quick search". The page need to be expanded and properly cited, sure. No reason to delete it for that :) TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP and as such it needs high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. So far there has nothing been presented that makes this individual notable. Its all ultra-local news, small snippets that don't cut it. If there is WP:THREE secondary sources, that are international in nature then that would be great for WP:SINGER but not local city news, the local papers reporting on the own wee z-list celebrities. That is not establishing notablity per long established consensus. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go read what the Ruhrgebiet is first. TanookiKoopa (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call WAZ "local" any more than the Washington Post or the Boston Globe. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not waz, the news is all from the same place. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be differing opinions on the quality of sources available, perhaps some new commenters can make a consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gina F. Acosta

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

Fails WP:NPOL. A staff member at the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines does not count toward WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Multiple secondary sources such as The Philippine Star, Daily Tribune and GMA News Online have covered this government official from the Office of the Vice President (OVP). The OVP's questionable use of confidential funds under VP Sara Duterte has been among the top issues discussed in Philippine politics this year, if not the topmost (alongside tensions in the South China Sea and the POGO menace), and much of the Philippine media has been extensively covering the hearings conducted on this matter by the House Committee on Good Government in the past few months ([36][37][38][39][40]).
On November 5, Acosta was among the seven OVP officials who issued a position letter asking that the house congressional inquiry into their budget use be terminated ([41]), and by November 11 was among the four OVP officials ordered arrested based on a contempt citation issued by the committee for their non-attendance at the hearings ([42]). During the November 20 hearing, OVP chief of staff Zuleika T. Lopez and a branch manager of Land Bank of the Philippines gave testimonies that pinpointed Acosta as the OVP official who directly handled the confidential funds of the vice president ([43][44]). The varied independent coverage cited in this paragraph alone, in my view, merits notability for the article; further coverage in the media is also anticipated in the aftermath of the testimonies given in the Nov. 20 hearing. LionFosset (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LionFosset All the sources you mentioned are good but they do not count toward WP:GNG sources. The subject fails Wikipedia criteria for politician and non WP:GNG sources cannot be used for WP: SIGCOV. Please read more about WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments are divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect but no appropriate target article has been identified that this article should be merged to. Please don't suggest nonexistent articles that have not been written yet unless you are volunteering to create them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Another editor attempted to create a deletion nomination for Zuleika T. Lopez, a different bureaucrat under the vice president, by copying the nomination template at the top of this article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The editor has the username "Ovp.mprd", which is likely indicative of an affiliation with the Media and Public Relations Division (MPRD) of the Office of the Vice President of the Philippines (OVP). The user's attempts to directly attach deletion nominations to both the Zuleika Lopez article and the Gina Acosta article would go against WP:COIEDIT. LionFosset (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relister's concerns. More is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there is no article to merge it to (LOL). If no one wants to work on a new article, or de-BLP this article, the default is to keep this article until such an article is made. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that. We already have an article, Efforts to impeach Sara Duterte. This article and Zuleika T. Lopez should be at the very least redirected to that article. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Tan

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

Other than winning the national Miss Universe in 2006, nothing of note can be found on her since then. – robertsky (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised. The pageant would have not been covered in the UK or the United States but would have been covered in Southeast Asia. The best sources are probably offline (at that time; maybe digitized now?) newspapers in Malaysia, and I don’t believe most are available through The Wikipedia Library.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above two articles were accessed through ProQuest in The Wikipedia Library and are from the two of the major newspapers in the country at that time. – robertsky (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they are both English sources which tends to cover a different type of content scope targeted more toward English speaking expats. I would expect better coverage in the Maylay language papers.4meter4 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Palmowski

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT as a driver who has only competed in entry level series (Ginetta Junior Championship and FIA Formula 4). Article is at best WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: While F1A is an entry level series, it has a much greater level of attention than lets say a normal F4 championship. Also, she has done the Formula E all womens test. The article could do with some padding out though.<span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> AidenT06 (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Palmowski, is a F1 Academy wildcard driver, and since all F1 Academy drivers have pages, why not her? She is also the runner-up of the 2024 GB4 Championship and can be considered as a future prospect for female racing drivers. At least draft the page BurningBlaze05 (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Academy is an entry-level series, therefore its' competitors don't meet notability guidelines – WP:WHATABOUTISM is not an excuse. I have no issue with drafting, however "can be considered as a future prospect" is the definition of WP:CRYSTAL. MSportWiki (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know nothing about this content area, but here are the sources I could locate: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. I don't know how to evaluate content in this area which seems hyper specific to motor sports so I will leave it to others to determine whether this meets WP:SPORTSBASIC/WP:SIGCOV. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She EASILY meets those guidelines unless you consider GB4 to not be a series of significant national importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duds 2k (talk • contribs) 13:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Keep and Draftify.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:POTENTIAL. The article already has at least one reliable source, and a Google search brings up several industry specific sources.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 09:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify A young sportsperson with decent coverage that is probably not enough to meet WP:GNG. However, the Autosport piece has about a dozen sentences of independent coverage of the subject, and other articles have some bits as well, indicating that WP:SPORTBASIC is met. "Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article." I think this goes beyond routine coverage and is a good start for an article. JTtheOG (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I don't believe NMOTORSPORT has much relevance anymore anyways following WP:NSPORTS2022. Either coverage exists or it doesn't. JTtheOG (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump

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

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [61] [62] [63] [64], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least reading the sources cited here, I'm not really convinced there are even any significant coverage even of the things the subject has done. The deportations article, for example, starting from the 5th sentence is evidently secondary, and I'm not sure I see the same thing for Kai here. Maybe the second half of the Telegraph article? A lot of the references proposed as the best sources in this discussion seem like straightforward fails of SBST. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. (Redacted) Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[65]] and [[66]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was accidentally removed from the log on Nov 21. So one more go around on the AfD logs, despite the seemingly snowy keep here; given that this was somewhat hidden, there are canvassing concerns here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Deletion review

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Women&oldid=1262477618"