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

Dee Bateman

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All their tournaments wins are unsourced, hence fail WP:Notability(Sportmen) Tesleemah (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Mealey

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, no evidence of WP:SIGCOV Demt1298 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - 'Your search - "Natasha Mealey" -wikipedia - did not match any news results.' - Google concurs about the lack of notability. --AntiDionysius (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get some hits. But the top three are Facebook, Instagram and Linkedin. Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Sexuality and gender, and England. Demt1298 (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is a model as portrayed from the article. And then what happen next? Any award, anything to establish their notability? I can't seem to find any right now. This should be deleted as there is nothing to make it stand as per WP:SIGCOV Tesleemah (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rouba

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

BLP of a singer-songwriter, largely unsourced, who seems to have turned their hand to many things in life without being clearly notable for any of them. The Arabic article isn’t any help with sourcing unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 11:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Lebanon, and United Arab Emirates. Mccapra (talk) 11:09, 26 October

Delete, does not seem to be anything to support any claim of notability. As noted, largely unsourced. And in at least one case, tagged as such for a decade. I'd copyedit this lump of vaimglorious guff to the bone if I didn't think it was clearly headed for the exit.TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG with just two references cited, of which is not opening. Let's talk about passing Notability for musician some other time. Tesleemah (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josenid

AfDs for this article:

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

After reviewing this BLP, I don't think it meets the criteria for either WP:NSINGER or GNG. WP:SIGCOV requires high quality references with proper bylines. --Pitille02 (talk) 07:32, 26 October 2024 (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/2024 October 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Panama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoife Burke

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

I'm not seeing a clear and evidenced claim of notability in this new article about a writer. I think her books are self-published, which would be fine if there were significant coverage of them in independent, reliable published sources, but I cannot find that there is. Several of the existing references read promotional and I'm not clear that they are reliable and independent sources. This one, for instance, at a site called Altright Australia, or this at a site called Techno Tricks, or this which looks like it was originally a memorial site to someone called Houston Stevenson. The only claim in the article which might contribute to notability is the statement that one of her books won an award in the Independent Press Awards 2022 - I found the awards website to verify that, but am not clear that the award has received independent coverage or is notable. I have carried out WP:BEFORE and not found anything to add to notability, or where I can be sure it is the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Ireland. Tacyarg (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When I first looked at the article, my AI senses tingled, and as I tried to clean it up, they tingled more. Although 12 sources were listed, there were only 6: one promotional article slightly changed across multiple platforms, one link to a site similar to MuckRack with no information about the author, an Amazon book link, an Apple Books link, and wait for it an article that mentioned a different Aoife Burke who plays footy (which was cited multiple times), as well as an obit for some Aoife Burke's father. An independent search for sources has turned up several Aoife Burkes, none of which are writers. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sorting all that out. Now wondering if this qualifies for speedy deletion under A7. Tacyarg (talk) 09:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not have significant coverage in independent sources hence fail WP:GNG and WP:Notability(people)Tesleemah (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject hasn't been the subject of significant/independent/reliable/verifiable sources - to the extent that WP:GNG or WP:NWRITER is met. As noted above, once all the unreliable/non-independent/unrelated sources are removed, the only thing that remains is a single blogpost (that was written 2 weeks before this article was created). Even if it were an independent/reliable source (and it doesn't appear to be), it doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV on its own. Nor can I find any other sources to establish notability or support the text. (The text itself describes just about any author/writer - and the stuff about schoolgirl and student awards is borders on the silly..). Mine is a firm "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Budak

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

I don't think this singer meets WP:NARTIST. No apparent label, charting songs, notable awards, etc. Three of the cited sources are her official webpage/media, the 4th is three paragraphs, two of them just quoting her. Doesn't seem like WP:SIGCOV. Here2rewrite (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Romania, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself contains no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO; primary sources, no charting, no sigcov, and no awards cited. I have tried to find coverage, but a total of 3 passing mentions on ProQuest, nothing on charting, and nothing on even musicbrainz or Allmusic. I am unable to see how this artist meets WP:MUSICBIO. Happy to change !vote if sigcov is identified - perhaps in Romanian sources - please ping me. ResonantDis_tortion 10:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Tamás

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

Per IP: "Daughter of Someone Famous". This is a vanity page which refers to self-published poems and lists university awards as reason for notability. No substantial or notable press or internet presence. Not something one would expect in a generalist reference. UtherSRG (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with nom, the article sourcing is almost entirely primary. It's possible that her anthology Spells might qualify for an article, but that alone isn't enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added references and think there is enough coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Tacyarg (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to good work by @Tacyarg. Kazamzam (talk) 21:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinapia

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

Fails WP:BAND, did not have significant coverage, and any coverage in reliable sources seems to be just regurgitations of press releases from their agency. Released one song that did not chart on any qualifying WP:CHART, then disbanded. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 07:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a related article for one of the singers, Eunwoo, has been proposed for deletion. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marisa Chearavanont

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

This article was recently published from draftspace with the reason: She is notable, in my opinion. Searching her name in Thai, มาริษา เจียรวนนท์, provides plenty of coverage, which is significant enough to establish notability. Since I cannot re-draftify it per WP:DRAFTNO #6, I am bringing it to AfD. I believe that the article should be re-draftify-ed per WP:DRAFTREASON because "The article was created by an editor who appears to have a conflict of interest, but it did not go through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process". The tone is very promotional, notability appears to be marginal, and this is a BLP with several uncited paragraphs. The status quo should be restored so that this article can be cleaned up and notability established. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Thailand. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will vote later; note to admin: It seems this is a return of resentment from our previous conflict rather than a professional approach. ManoiCMU (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment recent editing seems to have removed some inline external links which might have, if properly formatted, served as references to support the article. eg this confirms that she won a 2022 Rinascimento Award, although not the statement that she was its first recipient as the source refers to the award being in its 3rd year. This may explain some of the unsourced paragraphs mentioned in the nomination. PamD 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Subject is notable, but the article is still too blatantly promotional in tone (despite efforts at copyediting) to be suitable for Wikipedia. While AfD is not for clean up, the should not be allowed in its current state. Either trim it down to a bare stub from which it can be re-expanded, or draftify/delete without prejudice to a proper, neutrally written article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laiba Khan

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

I draftified this BLP, but the creator Gopikakaa (talk · contribs) reverted my draftification and bypassed the AFC review. I asked on their talk page if this was a WP:UPE, but they haven’t responded. But their editing suggests it may be UPE, as they’re trying to create a BLP for a ROTM actress who clearly fails GNG and has only had minor roles in a few TV dramas, which means she doesn’t meet NACTOR either. The BLP relies on unreliable sources and this is Gopikakaa's only article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nom fails NACTOR and GNG. Sources are also unreliable. Wikibear47 (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with various significant roles (not minor) in notable productions. At least some of the coverage on the page is proof of that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, You often claim that the actor has significant roles, but you never provide evidence. Please do so in this case. Also, existence does not prove WP:N. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting the closing/relisting administrator/user to advise nom to avoid general ad hominem remarks that could be ill-perceived; any good faith contributor can generally check the roles through the articles about the productions any given actor plays in, and verify it is a lead/recurring/main cast role or not, and I !vote accordingly when such verifications are easily feasible with a little good will; in the present case, I indicate this clearly in my !vote. For example, at random, in Kaisi Teri Khudgarzi; https://www.thecelebrays.com/kaisi-teri-khudgarzi-drama-review/: notable production+significant role; Do Bol, https://thefridaytimes.com/19-Feb-2023/rapid-fire-with-laiba-khan; notable production+significant role; Tarap https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1158812; notable productions+significant role. And so on, and so forth. Please note that the sources are mentioned to verify the significance of the roles not to directly prove the notability of the actress. But claiming she only had minor roles is obviously completely inaccurate and the requirement of the applicable specific guideline are met imv. Thank you very much.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She is quoted in brief statements quite frequently, but I can find no other reviews of her books. I did some tidying up and removed references to promotional websites. The three news articles with the most extensive coverage that I can find are [1], the articles written by Carolyn Flynn for the Albuquerque Journal (newspaper.com clippings are in the article), and the 2018 article where she discusses her book Late Love [2]. DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. A number of these have been added since the AfD was initiated. Nnev66 (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fleur Mino

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

Delete per WP:TNT, and for failing WP:SIGCOV. Article has major sourcing and verifiability issues. Several of the claims are not supported or only partially supported by the provided citations. Most of the cited references that are not dead do not actually verify the article content. For example, most of the cited sources do not name the roles she played in the productions or how long she played them, or review her performance at all. They only list her as a cast member in an un-named part, and do not review her performance. For this reason, I don't think we can assume the dead links are accurately verifying the content. The article will need a complete re-write which is why WP:TNT is a valid argument. Additionally, none of the sources have Mino as the primary subject so it is not clear at all that GNG is met. 4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see neither significant coverage nor a large number of recitals. She’s had fewer recitals than my totally non-notable partner, who’s had three recitals and been a backup singer for Andrea Boccelli several times. I note that she has fewer than 2000 followers on Instagram. In other words, WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centenary Action

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

A poorly formatted article; most of the sources in the article and the before search seem to revolve around Helen Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and United Kingdom. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information has been deleted from the page.

The information deleted was a description of this organisation. Why?

https://centenaryaction.org.uk/ Kps2015 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in your explanation is a reason for deleting the article according to the guidelines. Kps2015 (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 Notability isn't inherited; this is both a deletion argument to avoid and referenced in the biographical notability standards. The spirit of this guideline quite likely applies to companies people own. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 21:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your response (although I don't fully understand it!).

The problems with this page arise from the fact that fuller information about this organisation has been deleted (on grounds of copyright). The solution is to restore the full information about this organisation, not to delete the page. I will endeavour to sort this out. Kps2015 (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 I really doubt that restoring the information will help with keeping the article. It's probably best to find sources that talk about centenary action without centering Pankhurst. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page doesn't "centre Pankhurst" it makes one mention of her. That is not a valid reason for deleting the page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability isn't inherited" - I think what you are saying that it isn't of interest that the grand-daughter of those who campaigned for women's suffrage is campaigning in this area today. I would have thought that is arguable. Either way, how is that a reason for deleting an entire page about a major campaigning organisation, rather than simply amending it? Kps2015 (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kps2015 You misundertand. I'm saying that it appears that Centenary Action is inheriting notability from that great-grandaughter, which I interpret to be something in violation of an invalid way to get notability. Please read the link I gave you. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses - if you look at the organisations which are members you will see that this is a serious lobbying organisation. Your personal feelings about the founder aren't a reason to delete a Wikipedia page. Kps2015 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to allow work on improving sourcing. PamD 13:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD I'm open to this. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @PamD. I think that you can see that this is a serious organisation with a good cause. If you can suggest any improvements, that would be welcome. If you would like me to supply any further information, do let me know. Kps2015 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 The truth of the matter is, there are many, many serious organizations that have good causes that either don't have Wikipedia articles, or have surprisingly short ones. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reason to delete a page. Please state on what grounds you believe that the page should be deleted. Kps2015 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 I've already explained my concerns over notability on this very page. I don't need to explain them again. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response.

Your objection makes reference to a company. There is no company and no ownership. This is simply a campaign organisation to increase the representation of women in the UK parliament.

Please either provide a reason for deleting this page that falls within the guidelines for deleting a page or remove your objection. Kps2015 (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kps2015 My objection in my first reply here to is within guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Kolobova

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON as she is young. Article is largely based on a single source which does have independent significant coverage. I was unable to locate a second source of equal quality. The other source is published by her employer and lacks independence. While this does not necessarily mean that she doesn't deserve an article, the Russian language wiki has no entry on this singer and the article is an orphan. It's possible Russian language sources exist that I missed, so if anyone knows a Russian language speaking wikipedian who is active on the English wiki, it might be good to ping them for an opinion. They might have better luck searching for sources. 4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, this is extremely poorly written, almost to WP:TBT. There is not much of a biography. How old is she? Has she ever been kissed? Why is the language used like a fan boy on vodka? Bearian (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Cymmerman

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I didn't realize there was an earlier nomination in 2009 when I made this nom. Apparently un-named sources were identified at an external website during that discussion. However, the web archive url isn't loading for me so I can't see what these are...4meter4 (talk) 02:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per WP:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles ("notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria") #6: she has performed numerous significant roles at several notable opera houses. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Michael Bednarek, subject must first meet WP:GNG because notability is not inherent. dxneo (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Dodd

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

Sources are either to her own website or a blog. A Google News search brings up literally no coverage about her aside from one or two blogs. Seems to mostly just be promotional as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete Oh, Lord. Subject is completely non-notable and the article isn't even hiding the fact that it's promotional. How it's stuck around for eighteen years is mind-blowing. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G11. CoconutOctopus talk 06:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There exists some coverage on Dodd, such as this 2011 article from PBS on unschooling. Disagree with other votes on G11. Clearly sourcing is lacking and some of its content is unencyclopedic, but it shouldn't be outright speedily deleted. Bridget (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is some coverage, but it doesn’t really seem to be significant. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suad Abdi

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

Doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NPOL Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what about the Guardian reference? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NPOL requires "significant" press coverage. Just one reference isn't enough for "significant." The Guardian is a reliable source, but not everybody who gets a story in the Guardian gets an article solely because they were mentioned in the Guardian.Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. There are unfortunately a lot of women named Suad Abdi and there may be some additional coverage out there but I can’t see anything else that appears to relate to this subject or would amount to in depth coverage in any case. Mccapra (talk) 08:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mufeeda Thesni

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

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for��WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kerala. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another youth leader of a political party, akin to the Young Republicans. We are not a directory of every up and coming political party functionary. Badly fails NPOL. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -it National level office holder[3], it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. ~ Spworld2 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete: A youth wing leader of a policil party. Easily fails GNG and NPOL policies. 202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK---- Spworld2 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christiani Pitts

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with sparse credits, none major. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Theatre, Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hester Kaplan

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

Most of the sources are to faculty pages and other profiles. The source from The New York Times is a wedding announcement and the bulk of the text of the article is about her parents and grandparents. A Google search for material about her turned up little to support a claim of notability, other than items like this one that are not the in-depth coverage required to meet the standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think there are easily enough published reviews of her books for WP:AUTHOR. Reviews of Kinship Theory: NYT, PW, AJΨ. Reviews of The Edge of Marriage: PW, KR, NY, Econ. Reviews of The Tell: PW, FWR, ☆T. Reviews of Unravished: PW, KR, LJ. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews listed by David Eppstein. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as NAUTHOR pass - thanks to David Eppstein for finding the reviews. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Jean Van Dyke

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

This is classic oneevent territory for an otherwise not individually notable person. Needs more, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Very sad life. The only mention in her father Jerry Van Dyke's page, is about her substance abuse and death. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jerry Van Dyke#Personal life, per WP:ATD. A brief mention could be made in that section that she also appeared in My Mother the Car and Accidental Family. None of her appearances sustain notability for a separate article, however. Even the headline for the article reporting her suicide refers to "Actor Jerry Van Dyke's Daughter". BD2412 T 20:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jack_Nance#Kelly_Jean_Van_Dyke's_suicide: and merge appropriate material. Not opposed to keep given coverage in GBooks, if other users wish to keep this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to this as an alternative redirect target. BD2412 T 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jack Nance#Kelly Jean Van Dyke's suicide per Mushy Yank. Selectively merge what isn't already there. Coverage of Ms. Van Dyke mainly focuses on Jack Nance or the Van Dyke family. • Gene93k (talk) 09:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Coimbra

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

We have here a good example of WP:BLP1E, a person whose purported notability is tied to a single event, i.e. a single beauty pageant event. There are three sources which are difficult to evaluate as a non-Portuguese reader; however, they note a) the pageant win and b) a couple of appearances at charity events in support of the pageant, including a (possibly public??) breast exam. This is way too thin to support the general notability guideline, and there are no SNGs that could apply here. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Angola. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lauriela Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)
Zuleica Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (two sources, one of which appears to be a nonexistent Facebook page)
Jurema Ferraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one source)

I have bundled the above articles for the same reason, except that they have even less sourcing. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I could find GNG in several sources of independent of subject. Check the Sout African here, I could find this, another by AngoRussia here, more here by Forbes Africa, also covered here in general. I could also stumble into this reported by subject's embassies in foreign countries. Again, you could not tag an article for AfD simply because it has less sources. That is the exact use of the template tags unless subject entirely has no traces of GNG. An article's sources being in foreign language other than in English is not a genuine reason for that. Otherwise, at very least, I would suggest redirecting it to Miss Angola, but then with pinged sources above, I go with keep. Hope the mentioned above can be used to sustain the article per WP:NEXIST--Tumbuka Arch (talk) 08:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [4] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [5] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [6] recital
4. [7] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Tambudzai Mncube

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

The article relies on a very limited number of sources, primarily one cited article and a reference to Britannica. Many key details, such as her participation in "Big Brother The Chase" in 2013, her origin, and her personal history, are uncited. A WP:BEFORE search brought nothing out, and the article reads more like a promotional profile than an encyclopedic entry. The article fails to meet WP:GNG. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Africa, and South Africa. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Television, Entertainment, and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed reference to "Britannica" is in fact linked to the same Drum (SNL24) article as the first ref. So that there's only one source. It may be considered significant although based on an interview but I suppose it's not enough. The awards that she has apparently founded the Shining star Africa awards have received some coverage. Again, is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I genuinely cannot find anything outside of the Drum source, despite a decent search. It is mainly about her (not just about the award with passing mentions). But it's WP:PRIMARY as it's 90% direct quotes from her with the other 10% being "She told the drum that..." and primary sources don't count towards notability per WP:BIO. Therefore, I don't believe she presently meets the requirements. Molecular Pilot 05:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dipali Goenka

AfDs for this article:

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

A promotional biography of a businesswoman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Also, Wikipedia is not a resume hosting site WP:NOTRESUME. Also, the entire page is dominated by company references, while her personal references are limited to either WP:ROUTINE or WP:ADMASQ. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been some misleading promotionalism in this article: in Recognition it said "Forbes magazine named her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia and the 4th in India in 2016", but she was listed 16th in a list which explicitly states "this list -- which is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking". (I've edited this). This suggests that all sourcing needs very careful checking. PamD 08:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I’m not going to waste my time and yours with a detailed analysis of the made up in one day award and passing mentions. Suffice to say that she’s not notable. We’ve seen a lot of those pages, but in 2024 everyone knows we are not a free website listing everyone who runs a large business. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i am sorry but she is not the run of the mill businesswoman. She heads world’s one the largest textile companies. Forbes ranked her as the 16th most powerful woman in Asia. She has represented India at various international forums, including Harvard India and the World Economic Forum, and has chaired and served on the boards of major organizations. Agree with you and the page nomination about the promotional language in the article. Thus made significant improvements and removed promotional content/language and unnecessary sources and added more sigcov sources. There are lots of sources on google·Also created lawsuit for neutrality.she passes WP:GNG.Ashwithride (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes lists her as the 16th, alphabetically, in a list of 50 most powerful women in Asia which explicitly says that it "is presented alphabetically and is not intended to be a ranking" (even if a Forbes India writer seems to misunderstand this). I corrected the statement in the "Recognition" section, but hadn't noticed that it was also misprepresented in the lead, which I have now corrected. The enthusiasm which some editors have for misrepresenting this listing makes one cautious about other claims, which should all be very carefully checked. PamD 13:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Ashwithride created the article and appears not to have edited any other articles in en.wiki since creating their account on 9 July 20204. PamD 13:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that, in parallel, There was an attempt to remove controversies from Welspun Living's page on 13 February 2024, Welspun Corp's page got updated on 24 May 2024, Welspun Group name changed to Welspun World, and page got updated too on 12 June 2024; Dipali Goenka's page created on 10 July 2024, Welspun Enterprises' page created on 14 October 2024. Most of these pages are flagged for conflicts of interest, making it appear as if this year is especially focused on Welspun activity on Wikipedia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep vote here from the article creator so I'm relisting this discussion. Please review changes made to the article by Ashwithride since its nomination and judge whether they have led to an improvement in this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tarita Botsman

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2022. Article is largely cited to primary and non-independent sources. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SINGER. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Movsisyan

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article is cited to unreliable sources like YouTube, or to sources connected directly with the subject. I could not locate any independent source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the subject's roles and the ensembles they've performed in c6 of wp:Musicbio might apply in which case WP:SIGCOV may exist. Therefore, I would explore WP:AFT before taking a position.𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 08:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

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

Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS: sources include blogs and Instagram. I’m not a fan – of autobiographical pages on our private website. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thabiso Sikwane

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

Trivial Article that does not comply with WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria nor with WP:DIRECTOR Pitille02 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough reliable sources on the article demonstrate notability. Jeanette Fiery Red Haired Martin (dime?) 19:00, 14 October, 2024 b(ITC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Radio, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has received moderate attention after their passing (and prior). She headlined multiple secondary reliable publications. A simple Google search is enough. dxneo (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She passes WP:SIGCOV quite well. Here are some sources [8], [9], [10], [11]

Tau Corvi (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources in the article are either eulogizing her or gossiping about her personal life, and a BEFORE Google search turned up similar results with DJ Fresh dominating most of the headlines. There's no significant independent coverage of Sikwane's actual career. This is reflected in the article having been created nearly two months ago after her death (which alone does not automatically establish notability) but currently still a stub with next to no content. Is she known more for her media work, or her relationship with DJ Fresh? 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 03:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources about her and her life [12], also before her death [13][14]. BilboBeggins (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep" has the numbers, but I'm not sure the delete !vote has been fully addressed. Can we get a closer source analysis?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: yeah, I'm going to have to go with HopalongCasualty here. The sources in the article and presented above are ones that only either cover her relationship with DJ Fresh or her death more than her media career. I did also do an extended search on South African and nearby newspapers before her death (from 1/1/2000 to 1/1/2024, as a note) and found a brief burst of coverage on her being on Power FM in 2016, and a 2023 news article of a "hijacking ordeal" she was involved in. Those I'm doubtful establish notability of Sikwane outside of her former relationship with DJ Fresh or the coverage of her death more than her extended media career. Otherwise, I only found brief, passing mentions of her across several, if not many, sources I did find in the BEFORE search. Therefore, delete per HopalongCasualty and the sources found here. ~ Tails Wx 21:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She was notable in her own right as a radio presenter.[15][16][17]. Again WP:WORLDWIDE needs to be taken into account-being unfamiliar with a subject doesn't make it more or less notable. The fact that she happened to have been married to a possibly more famous individual doesn't diminish her own notability. Park3r (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feli Ferraro

AfDs for this article:

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

Was previously soft-deleted after an AfD in May, and it appears all the same issues discussed there still apply. Both the nominator and sole voter in that AfD called for deletion, and I'd be surprised if anyone would've countered it had there been more participation. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Hello! I started this page a while back and have continued working on this page. I did not chime in when the page was previously put up for deletion as I wholeheartedly agreed with the reasoning for deletion: the only mention of the subject not from a publishing body she was signed to/managed by was in passing in one article (that has since been removed as it was from a pseudo-blog owned by the label who released the song it discussed), and while she has continued to craft hits of all sizes (she is a songwriter), there were no awards at the time to further prove notability. However, much has changed since the deletion, as Q3 2023-2024 has been a banner season for her career:

(1) A Billboard magazine article ([18]) discussing an elite writing camp her publishing company put together (of 11 members) that has since appeared on virtually every K-pop album that has broken through in the United States market (nicknamed "the Hit Factory"). Not only does she appear in the cover photo and additional photos, but the article mentions her past and present placements as well as a few mentions of personal life.

(2) A songwriting award (win) from BMI - arguably the largest songwriting/publishing governance organization, as the song she co-wrote was ranked in the top 20 of pop songs in the past year based on radio airplay, club play, live performances, and TV commercial placements.

(3) A songwriting award (nomination) for "Wild Ones" - a large country-pop single (2x Platinum) this year that is already being discussed in several Grammy award songwriting and performance categories (to be announced next month in November).

(4) She has since co-written/produced virtually an entire major label album (female rapper Coi Leray's COI), receiving her first Billboard Top 10 single as a writer, as well as several songs with David Guetta that became hits in the European / Australian markets. Trainsskyscrapers (talk 15:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Connecticut. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Nomination of Feli Ferraro for deletion. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 18:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Najma Thabsheera

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Law, and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG Pass , has reliable sources, she is a national level women leader - Spworld2 (talk) 11:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Spworld2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

The subject’s role as the national vice president of a state-level political party’s youth wing does not automatically meet the notability guidelines under WP:POL, regardless of gender. Furthermore, the available coverage primarily focuses on routine updates about her new positions within the party, which is typical for politicians and thus does not fulfill the criteria for WP:GNG. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a youth movement of a single party in a state but exists in more than one state [19][20] . Spworld2 (talk) 04:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can be considered in WP:GNG category, Spworld2 (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:GNG has abundant references proving it This article is a national level office older. Former office holder of Women's Youth Party, she was a former office holder at the national level of an important student movement in Kerala. All these can be considered in the WP:POLITICIAN category as a reference basis. Reference: [21] (The New Indian Express), [22] (Mathrubhumi), [23]] (The New Indian Express)

, [24] (Malayala Manorama). A article who is popular in Kerala as a Muslim woman has won the award. Also a well-known Muslim feminist in Kerala [25] [26][27]. She can be considered as an Advocate/Lawyer, she is one of the women lawyers in Kerala High Court [28] Office holder at Municipality / Taluk level [29] Reference [30] , [31] (The Hindu) and she can be considered Women in positions of power [32] [33] Influencer (Muslim women political influencer) in Kerala [34] [35] - Spworld2 (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: We acknowledge that the subject does not fit within the politician category (WP:NPOL). However, it clearly meets the criteria for the WP:GNG. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:NPOL. It’s Prima facie about an activist in her party with literally thousands of other people. Being the woman’s chair of a youth organization is the picture of up and coming political volunteer. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How did one in ten thousand become an office holder at the national level? There is a source for that, there is evidence of people voting and winning at the municipality/taluk level, so how can you be one in 10,000 as you say? My little doubt Spworld2 (talk) 05:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non notable activist who fails NPOL and GNG.202.83.51.246 (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The user with the IP address (202.83.51.246) discussed above is a first time wikipedia editor, and like other experience users, feels like WP:SOCK----- Spworld2 (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rousseau Grigg

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

May not meet WP:ENT or WP:SIGCOV. Minimal sourcing outside of her death. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Internet, and Texas. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing what makes her notable. Her follower count isn't especially massive in comparison to the highest followed on the app, her business ventures aren't notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she passed away. This is pretty heartless to delete her autobiography. If you died you would want your legacy to live on. I know her husband would want this to stay up as well. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia don't delete you have many other non famous people on here that are minor influences. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. And no offence but what her husband might or might not want has no bearing on whether this remains as an article or not. Procyon117 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what is said above. Don't delete this article CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an edge case but there is more than passing mention coverage of the subject before her death and certainly after. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep heartless to delete. Krazykatlady123 (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for new sources that apparently exist. The keep !votes should provide the references they think that show notability, rather than simply putting out a carpet term that notability exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please see previous Reisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not seeing how WP:GNG is met, and coverage of death is not enough. Melcous (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I personally believe that she is notable enough, and though the article is quite a stub, it does not seem fair to delete an article about someone who passed away. 68.230.53.144 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

68.230.53.144, most of the biographical articles on Wikipedia are about people who have passed away. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Renée

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

Does not meet WP:GNG--the sole cited source barely mentions Renée, in the context of her relationship with Luciano Pavarotti, but there is no mention of her at that article nor is it clear how WP:DUE that would be. Searching online, I was able to find other brief mentions of Renee as Pavarotti's girlfriend (e.g. [36]) and interviews with her (e.g. [37], [38]) but nothing that provides secondary coverage of her life, career, etc. As written, the article is essentially a promotional resume with zero basis in available sources, and apparently with outright COI editing based on an assessment of the page's history. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Massachusetts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the Pavarotti article. I couldn't find anything substantive myself. Ravenswing 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She also performs as Madelyn Monti and there is some early news as Madelyn Renee Levy. The most substantial coverage I have found is a 2008 piece from the New York Times [[39]] DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep based on the 2008 NY Times article and many other sources I can see online. However, there’s also lot of unflattering information about her out here and there on Google that might implicate BLP. If we were actually neutral in POV, she might want the whole thing removed. Be careful of what you ask for. Bearian (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the NYT article and other sources, but will require a substantial rewrite to remove WP:PROMOTIONAL sounding material and ensure all material is sourced. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Schofield

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

Same issues as the podcast even if it's not quite as bad. Coverage is trivial and routine, there is nothing that meets all 4 criteria (independent, secondary, in-depth, reliable). Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Entertainment, Internet, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This Independent article, this Business Insider article, this PinkNews article, this BuzzFeed News article, and this Press & Sun-Bulletin article—which are all used as sources in the article—all seem to meet the criteria perfectly well. benǝʇᴉɯ 01:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria would you be using that the PinkNews article meets, Benmite? There's quotes from Schofield in there but virtually nothing about her. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would honestly say that the PinkNews article probably meets all of the criteria. It's clearly independent from Schofield, it's a secondary source for what it's talking about (her relationship with Matt Rife), it's known for being reliable, and it's relatively in-depth about ~~the relationship between them~~ the claims she makes about her relationship with Rife even if most of what it says specifically about her is that she's a YouTuber, hosts the Cancelled podcast, and, according to her, "has an 'outie' vagina". benǝʇᴉɯ 02:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't mean independent instead of secondary? Secondary means it contains analytic or evaluative claims on the primary sources (i.e. the Schofield quotes). Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Clelland

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

She passes WP:NATH with seventh place in pentathlon at the 1970 Commonwealth Games but fails GNG. A search through the British Newspaper Archives just found brief mentions and sporting results. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, found several newspaper sources in just the first few pages: "BRILLIANT FUTURE FOR SHIRLEY BEGAN 'AS A BIT OF FUN'". Leicester Chronicle. 29 May 1970. p. 28. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "PENTATHLON WIN FOR SHIRLEY CLELLAND". Leicester Mercury. 24 Aug 1970. p. 22. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024. "SHIRLEY CLELLAND WINS TWO EVENTS". Leicester Mercury. 23 Sep 1968. p. 24. Retrieved 11 Oct 2024.

I find that the NATH guideline is pretty conservative compared to the others at NSPORT, so it's worth trying multiple search engines if you can't find sources at one. For example NATH says that 4th-placers at the Olympics can't necessarily be presumed to have coverage, but I've yet to find one without GNG sources after searching so far. --Habst (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It mainly pertains to pre-WWII Olympics, and more so for team sports than individual ones Geschichte (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I've searched even pre-WWII Olympics to see if there's a non-notable 4th placer and have yet to find one. I agree that in general prewar Olympics were less notable, I just don't think the line should have been drawn at 4th place. --Habst (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources above from the newspaper archive are fine, the first two are better than the third. Should have enough for notability Oaktree b (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [40][41]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [42]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [43], [44], [45]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [46], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Eunwoo (via WP:PROD on 25 October 2024)

Deletion review