Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

WP:DSACTOR

All deletion discussions relating to filmmakers, directors and other non-actor film-related people should now be listed on this page.

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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|Actors and filmmakers|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

Karin Van Der Laag

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted (WP:Articles for deletion/Karin Van Der Laag) and I don't think the new article addresses the notability concerns. I also don't see articles about the subject since the previous AfD that would add to coverage such to satisfy N. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and South Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep "Best Actress" award makes her notable. --Altenmann >talk 19:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From South African Film and Television Awards. Per WP:ANYBIO is that a well-known and significant award or honor? Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Yes. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think she meets both WP:NACTOR (at least 2 significant roles in notable productions) and WP:ANYBIO with her award. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugʻbek Shodibekov

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

Not notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. An earlier version of the article falsely claimed that he has received the State Nihol Award. It's not a state award, nor does the cited (and unreliable) source mention anything about any award. Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry entirely lack WP:RELIABILITY.

Kun: an interview with the subject of the entry.
Malumot: a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
Savol-javob: another Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
Daryo: another interview with the subject of the article.
Uzmedia: a highly unreliable entertainment blog.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 15:50, 4 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, and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hildy Brooks

AfDs for this article:

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

She was in the original Broadway cast of Sweet Bird of Youth, but her TV and movie work is strictly routine, thus failing WP:NACTOR. (She does appear in an Al Hirschfeld caricature.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but needs editing. Original editor has not been active since 2015. I've added some External links at the bottom of the article, which are just a tip of the iceberg about what is out there on this actress. She certainly had a decent amount of acting background, but I didn't have time to research more, or clean up the article. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Nagesh

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

Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Threats

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE based on sources cited. Created by either a paid or COI account on behalf of the subject (self-admitted at WP:Help desk) that has now been blocked. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a search finds the usual fluff on social media but per Dr vulpes nothing much that would establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Styles

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

Non notable individual. Not as a producer or as a "crack-dealing mogul" (as called by Daily Beast, ref 10, content noticeably absent from the page). Refbombed spam that screams of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about him. Awards are not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The crack cocaine movie on netflix was directed by Stanley Nelson; this individual was a "consulting producer". I wouldn't consider that a notable role. The few refs that are in RS mention Stanley, not this person. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability exists as a producer and consulting producer for most renowned movies, one being 'Killing Beef'. Sufficient sources exist and mention his work. Sources can be assessed in previous versions of this article. Rpgea (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Jhawer

AfDs for this article:

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

No sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since a couple of weeks after it was created, over a year ago. A WP:BEFORE search yielded nothing at all. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. bonadea contributions talk 19:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- meets WP:NACTOR with her significant roles in Aanch and OMG.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On what do you base the claim that she had a significant role in Aanch? The only secondary and independent source in that article (a review of the film) doesn't even mention her. In OMG, her role was not insignificant, but also not a major role. --bonadea contributions talk 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not lead but significant, you surely mean? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/female-spiritual-leader-inspired-poonam-jhawars-role/articleshow/16587850.cms she; is obviously in the main cast of Aanch, given the character she plays, hard to call the role not significant https://www.tvguide.com/movies/aanch/cast/2000123959/ -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Again, WP:NACTOR does not mean someone is inherently notable. It means that coverage is likely to exist if they meet one of those conditions. The sources still need to be present and unfortunately they are not in this case. The TOI reference on the page is a short mention, the second is unreliable, the third is TABLOID and based on social media or information provided by the subject. The above TOI is more about the show and not here so just a brief mention and TV Guide only confirms a role. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Hofer

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

Article fails to meet the eneral notability guidelines for biographies of living persons. Also, the character description (in-depth) for the role (previously misspelt as "roll") of Dex Heller seems mildly inflammatory and violating of the encyclopedia's neutral point of view policy. Having one notable acting role⏤for which no stand alone article exists for⏤does not seem to be a valid reason enough for a living persons article to exist on the encyclopedia. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. livelikemusic (TALK!) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He had 3 significant roles in notable productions, and the article, very much a stub, mentions them. Add sources like:https://www.soapcentral.com/general-hospital/news-the-wonderful-first-impression-general-hospital-s-evan-hofer-made-emma-samms ;https://www.themirror.com/entertainment/celebrity-news/general-hospital-star-evan-hofer-294979 ; https://www.deseret.com/2019/2/25/20666865/movie-review-run-the-race-has-an-uplifting-message-unfortunately-not-all-of-it-crosses-the-finish-li/; https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/run-the-race-2019 ; https://www.thelist.com/1029918/general-hospital-fans-debate-whether-dex-is-the-hook-serial-killer-or-just-a-red-herring/ etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nominator that it is an awful article, and that doesn't matter. Even an excellent article can be deleted if the subject fails general notability guidelines. Mr. Hofer is certainly notable. He has been playing a major character on an Emmy Award winning TV series for a couple years. Far from obscure, ABC is on of the most watched networks in the United States. Significant coverage is a given. Kerbyki (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dettric Jones

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, previously CSD A7. WP:TOOSOON - wait until Jones becomes notable. Prior versions draftified, WP:DRAFTIFY implies that this might not be unilaterally returned to Draft. Even so I suggest deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the mainspace : Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Jones lacks significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He isn't even part of the starring cast in any movies nor TV series so far. All of his roles are minor roles both in film and TV series. No significant coverage of him as an actor. This is considered to be WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing Dettric Jones' Wikipedia page. I understand and acknowledge the concerns raised regarding the page's compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, specifically WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.

Although Dettric's role in films and TV series may be considered minor, Jones is still a public figure with a verifiable presence in the entertainment industry. credits include:

- Ozark (Netflix, 2017)

- Raising Dion (Netflix, 2022) - Season 2, Jacob

- The Watcher (Netflix, 2022)

I respectfully argue that the page should not be deleted solely based on the criteria mentioned. Wikipedia's guidelines also emphasize the importance of documenting emerging artists and public figures.

Considering WP:TOOSOON, I propose:

1. Merging page with a list article (e.g., "List of American actors") or a relevant category.

2. Marking page for improvement rather than deletion.

This will allow the page to remain while ensuring compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

Thank you. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC) — AnonymousContent33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must respectfully point out that the number of edits I've made outside of this topic is irrelevant to the validity of Dettric Jones' Wikipedia page.

The focus should be on the Verifiability of Dettric's credits and existence as a public figure, as well as Compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One episode appearances and uncredited ones do not amount to notability here. Sourcing is also not coverage beyond confirmation of these roles. Long way from notability. SALT should be applied Oaktree b (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Mark for improvement: Even a single episode as a supporting role contributes significantly to a show. Supporting roles advance plotlines and character development. Jones has been casted in notable productions establishing himself in the industry.

- WP:NACTOR: Criteria 1 (significant roles) is met, as supporting roles impact narrative.

- WP:GNG: Verifiable credits establish notability.

- Professional involvement in acclaimed series. AnonymousContent33 (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An un-named person on screen is not what we're looking for, notability wise. This person has NOT met GNG, as we have no stories in reliable sources about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Seymour

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thomas Edward Seymour

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

If you cut through the excessive promotional language and the name-dropping that has no connection to the subject's direct work, what we have here is a non-notable filmmaker who made a few obscure films. A few of the filmmaker's movies have their own articles, but I will leave the notability of those articles to another editor. With this article, I am under the belief that Mr Seymour himself does not appear to meet the basic level of WP:BIO requirements. And Adoil Descended (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Gsearch is social media, his university, Rotten Tomatoes, imdb, then off into un-RS. Hardly any hits in Gnews. I suppose being mentioned in the one book could be important for notability, but there is nothing else to support notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Connecticut. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Citations were included as external links. Then they were commented out. Someone moved them to Talk:Thomas_Edward_Seymour. It seems that there are sufficient links to satisfy "Notability". Those "external links" need to be included as in-line citations. ... 69.181.17.113 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "external links" are nearly all press releases or fleeting mentions in non-notable websites. The headlines given to the links do not correspond with the actual web pages, and they fail to compensate for the WP:BIO problems. And Adoil Descended (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find some interviews in Indie zines, a decent but non-independent article from his CUNY employer, and a one paragraph review in the NY Times. He has indeed directed movies (e.g. "Bikini Bloodbath" series), but there's not nearly enough for BIO, nor GNG. Lamona (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Aleeha

AfDs for this article:

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

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

The subject of this BLP may have directed a few Pakistani films, but he clearly does not meet the basic GNG or WP:SIGCOV. According to WP:BIO's additional criteria, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added Find Sources links for his other name above. Maybe that helps? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It seems that this was on my watchlist due to a previous version that got deleted. I don't remember that at all so I'm looking at this as if I was seeing the subject's name(s) for the first time. There is some notability here but I'm not sure whether it is enough. The Google News hits show multiple sources talking about his movies and, to some extent, about him. His films exist and they get reviewed, sometimes quite poorly, so it is not just puffery. I can't easily tell which sources are Reliable though. There has been controversy about one of the films which may even have been banned to some extent. Based on the English language hits I'm very much on the fence. It's not an obvious delete but I don't see enough to say keep either. I Google translated the Urdu version of the article to see if there was anything there that was helpful but it doesn't say much of anything and none of the sources there look any better than the ones here. If an Urdu speaker was to search for better sources then they might or might not find something that pushes this over the line to a keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A clear WP:DIRECTOR and WP:CREATIVE pass with multiple films written and directed, that received significant critical coverage- -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sachs

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are passing mentions, profiles, about us pages and other misc/non-specific coverage. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:SICOV? Ruccc (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruccc, Scoop creep mean WP:SIGCOV. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Understood! Ruccc (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. Sources from article and WP:BEFORE do not meet the minimum guideline. Could not even find three sources that satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've done a quick search in a Swedish media archive and there seems to be plenty of (significant) Swedish newspaper coverage. I'll make time at some point in the coming days to go though the most promising hits and add them to the article (or retract this statement if it turns out that my first glance was mistaken). /Julle (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a long history dating back to 2007 associated with this title, including articles about this person that were cut down to redirects, redirects from this person to a company, and articles about a fictional person. If this person fails biographical notablity, a redirect should be kept as an alternative to deletion to preserve the history. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've taken a look at some of the articles in the Swedish news archive now and I'm convinced this easily passes WP:GNG. For example, he gets three pages in Dagens Nyheter (the dominating daily newspaper in Sweden) in 2017, and nine pages (haven't found the online equivalent) in Dagens Industri (the most important financial newspaper in Sweden) a couple of months ago. Much of this is interview material, but not all of it, and there's enough other material here to build something from. There are substantial reporting on his role as CEO of Proventus and of him leaving it (I've added an example). He was one of the hosts of Sommar (radio program) in 2013, where every episode generates reviews in national media; I've added one of them. In short, his role not just as a entrepeneur but as a powerful person in Swedish culture has been reflected in the Swedish news, and this means there's enough for us to build an encyclopedic entry on. /Julle (talk) 22:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and Redirect as alternative to deletion. A review of the references shows that they are press releases or passing mentions.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	birthday.se	Appears to be a file of birthdays of people. This establishes that he exists.	Yes	No	Probably not. Probably user-provided.	?
2	www.dn.se/kultur-noje/	An interview	No.	Yes	Yes	No
3	en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagens_industri	This is probably an improperly entered reference, but it links to a Wikipedia article. So it is either incorrectly formed or circular	?	Not about the subject	No.	?
4	news.cision.com	Announcement that he has left a company.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Yes	Probably	No
5	www.dagensmedia.se	Another announcement that he has left the company.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Yes	Probably	No
6	www.di.se/nyheter	A press release about a job change	No.	Yes.	Probably	No
7	www.realtid.se	A list of attendees at Davos	Yes	No, passing mention.	Probably	Yes
8	www.opensocietyfoundations.org	A profile as one of the directors of the foundation	No.	Yes	Probably	No
9	web.archive.org/web	An account of the founding of the Höj Rösten Foundation	Yes	No, passing mention.	Probably	No
10	www.dn.se	A press release that "Sachs wants to scrutinize capitalism"	No.	Yes	Probably	No
11	www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum	A Forbes contributor piece	No.	No, passing mention of subject.	No.	No
12	www.apolitical.foundation	Profiles of board members	No.	Yes	No.	No
13	www.resume.se	Another press release	No.	Yes	No.	No

This source assessment table is based on this version of the article: [1]. References were added to the article while I was assessing the sources, and I revised the table. The addition of more sources was not material.

As noted above, there is an extensive history, which includes previous versions of articles on the subject, as well as redirects, and an article about a fictional person. This article should be cut down to a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon: I'm sorry, but I don't think this reflects the reality of some of the sources in the article. Comments below.

1. Agreed.

2. Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary. Described above.

3. No, the wiki link follows the norm for how we cover press material, same as other sources in the article – the name of the publication is linked. Not the name of the article, which is an offline source (or accessible though sv:Mediearkivet). Not all sources are online sources. This is nine pages in Dagens Industri, mostly but not only interview material. Described above. Can be checked by pretty much anyone with a Swedish university account (or access to Mediearkivet, provided to some editors by Wikimedia Sweden). As noted above, I've not been able to locate the online equivalent.

4. Agreed.

5. Disagree. Unlikely this is merely a press release, for four reasons: a) Unlike Cision, Dagens Media does produce journalism, which merits that we take a closer look; b) it's the same day as the press release in 4., but with different content, noting things which were not present in that press release c) it's signed (Eva Wisten), d) it contains material unlikely to have been in a press relase, such as noting that he'll "be on paternal leave and think". This reads like a reaction to the press release in 4., but someone actually having written an article based on other sources.

6. Definitely not. This is an article, takes up most of a page in the leading Swedish financial newspaper, and doesn't read at all like a press release to me. Why do you think it would be one?

7. Agreed.

8. Agreed.

9. Agreed.

10. Uncertain. Not terribly interesting as a source anyway.

11. Agreed.

12. Agreed.

13. Agreed.

14. (In the current version.) Missing. Added before this was posted, but after the assessment, I suppose.

Could you please explain your reasoning around 2, 3, 5 and 6? /Julle (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On ref 2 it does say the Pallas met him for conversation. I can't read it fully as paywalled, but it does look an interview. scope_creep^Talk 06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "Much of this is interview material, but not all of it", I wrote above, and then "Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary" in the comment to the source assessment above. (: /Julle (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other material is likely provided by the PR agency. It put the reference in the context of a interview and can't be used to prove notability. It not a valid. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Ref 5 it reads a profile generated from a press-release. That fact that its bylined doesnt add much to it. It reads like a 300 word profile and is not in-depth. scope_creep^Talk 06:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have a press release from exactly the same day (4.), that would mean that they'd sent out two different press releases on the same topic, with different information (since much of the background in 5. is missing in 4.). To me, that seems much more unlikely than a journalist taking a look at the press release in 4. and writing something based on other sources than the press release (since it contains information not in the press release in 4).

(It's still not a longer piece, no.) /Julle (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks and reads like conjecture, is not indepth and is not valid. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Ref 3. The reference format is fine. This is a financial paper similar to Bloomberg and the Financial Times. Its is likely paid PR. scope_creep^Talk 06:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not intimately familiar with Bloomberg and the Financial Times, but this is the main article in this issue of the newspaper. I find it extremely unlikely that this would be paid PR, that's not how Dagens Industri works and they'd completely resign their position as the dominating financial newspaper in Sweden if they presented paid material as journalism. Why would we assume it's paid PR? /Julle (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because that is mechanism used to market themselves. Billionaires and millionaire are extraordinary secretive, they don't like their business dealing and their private lifes being made pubic, generally speaking. They build a public facade, their brand in the modern era using PR agencies so they are always shown in a good light. That is known thing. Lastly, its not necessarily paid material as journalism. You need to read up on it. All papers take the marketing dollar, more so since the coming of social media when it the industry was absolutely eviscerated, more or less right across the world from about 2007-2008. Its recovered now because many of them are behind paywalls and legislation that has come in to protect the industry but for many years, journalism as a practice was hit very badly. So the boundary between real journalism and all this other "crap" that came in was blurred and they used that money to effectively save their industry. Real journalism is making a return but for certain things like this, you don't know if its paid for. You really have to look, particularly for this type of source. So it could be potentially be a good reference right enough, but its hard to verify and I'm not confident considering the subject matter, that its not been paid for. scope_creep^Talk 13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Shroff

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

Lacks significant independent coverage and mostly relies on promotional content, particularly for Matrix Fight Night. The tone suggests potential paid editing, violating Wikipedia’s neutral point of view. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I really don't understand why this article is being proposed for deletion. the article meets Wikipedia's criteria WP:GNG. Moreover, reliable media sources, which are verified by Wikipedia, have covered news about this person. Additionally, I did not find any sentence in the text that promotes Matrix Fight Night (There is just a Mention).Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juliana Rae Ibay

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

Local politician with no inherent notability. Only one reliable source cited; others are IMDB, a self-described blog, and something that cites wikipedia. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles of members of city councils of major cities are kept.Djflem (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of keeps Ibay's membership in the Manila City Council has been mostly nondescript until recently. Elections are in May 2025, and this early, politicians are jockeying for positions. Ibay is a councilor representing the youth as the city president of the Manila Sangguniang Kabataan (youth council); normally, such councilors are the council's committee chairperson on youth and sports. However, she was unseated recently and this has caused controversy if that was even allowed. So her notability is on this WP:1E, but this is not the last time we'd see her as a politician. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for the reason as HTD's. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fazle Hasan Shishir

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

The article doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER. Producing non notable films doesn't justify notability, and that's the opposite to the page creator's stance. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Sources included seem to be a series of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (or university newsletters), and the content is almost entirely promotional in nature. Meets criteria for an A7 or even G11 speedy delete. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renz Nathaniel Cruz

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

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

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

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

Unclear if there's enough here for WP:CREATIVE/GNG. Most of the sources have him name-checked as a member of the musical ensemble, but I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Theatre, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person has barely done any professional work, let alone had a notable career. Strong delete. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he clearly isn't notable. Tavantius (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider deletion. An article from The Varsitarian provides significant coverage of Cruz's role in forming OperaJuan, an emerging youth opera and musical theater group, demonstrating leadership in his field. Cruz is quoted discussing the group's mission, showing he's considered an authority figure. The coverage provides substantive, independent information that establishes Cruz's notability in the field of Philippine music. I have expanded the article with this information. Ixo490 (talk) 03:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the publication of his alma mater. There's one sentence for background and two quotes. It's not really enough.-KH-1 (talk)

Retain. Did some research. Person is active performer. There is much evidence to this. Discography is also legitimate. Tracks are in all streaming platforms. Thompson.walkins (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability has nothing to do with being an "active performer". You have to do be unusual to be notable, not WP:MILL. You need to stand out so that the media gives you WP:SIGCOV. For example, winning a Tony Award. Also, plenty of Philippine performers get a lot of WP:SIGCOV. See, for example, Lea Salonga or Morissette Amon. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can retain the article. Google recognizes the legitimacy of the artist. Ixo490 (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe there are compelling reasons to keep the article. As an emerging artist in the Philippine music and theater scene, his role in forming OperaJuan demonstrates leadership and initiative, highlighting his contributions to the local arts community. While he may not have extensive coverage yet, Wikipedia should be open to documenting rising talents, especially those making innovative strides in their fields. The presence of the artist's tracks on major streaming platforms and evidence of active performances suggest a legitimate, ongoing career in the arts, providing a solid foundation for the article that can be expanded as the artist's career progresses. Furthermore, as a young artist working in opera and musical theater in the Philippines, the artist may represent an important voice in the country's evolving performing arts scene, making it valuable to document his work for those researching contemporary Philippine culture and music. Retaining the article allows for future growth; it's not uncommon for articles on emerging artists to start small and develop over time. Additionally, including articles on up-and-coming artists from various countries enriches Wikipedia's content diversity, offering a more comprehensive view of global arts and culture. Given these points, I suggest keeping the article with appropriate sourcing and a neutral tone while monitoring for additional notable achievements or coverage that can further establish the artist's relevance. Editlife1tr (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and the socks chiming in on this discussion aren't helping their cause. APK hi :-) (talk) 06:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Editors are super obsessed with deleting articles of actual living professionals. Get a life. Keep the article. Loewemathers (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Googled the person and he is in fact a singer from the Philippines. Everything seems true and correct. I don't see any false or misleading information nor form of self-promotion. TOOLINK (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder how the people recommending deletion can verify the notability of any theater or opera artist from the Philippines when none of them are from the country. Not to mention, there's no existing database on Philippine theater and opera artists. This is a good contribution to the category. Thompson.walkins (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. These people are bored to death. This could help expand the list of local artists from Philippines. I don't see enough information on them. Ixo490 (talk) 06:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opera is a niche area of performing arts. Looks like their country doesn't have reliable information regarding this field. However, this online database of classical musicians recognizes him. TOOLINK (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate !vote from Thompson.walkins. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Make Wikipedia great again! Please stop deleting valuable, truthful information. Go and look for other pages to delete. There's real vandalism and then there are people hellbent on eliminating legitimate entries. TOOLINK (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate vote. You can only cast one bolded "vote". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all of the new editors to Wikipedia, first "Welcome!" Secondly, Wikipedia determines whether or not an article should be Kept or Deleted not based on a vote count but based on whether or not notability can be established by reliable, independent secondary sources. They can't be "passing mentions" but provide SIGCOV (significant coverage). So, your pleas to save this article or accusations against other editors or Wikipedia won't have much impact but if you could find additional sources from mainstream new sources (not blogs or social media) could help establish notability and influence whether or not this article is Kept or not. Wikipedia is governed not by editors' opinions but by policies and guidelines and this is how we determine what articles should be Kept and which ones should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse spate of brand new editors seemingly canvassed to this discussion. Daniel (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Even A.I. recognizes the person. Hate to admit it, but I trust Artificial Intelligence more than these notorious editors. Loewemathers (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] What is that supposed to mean? Geschichte (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply] Struck duplicate !vote from Loewemathers. DMacks (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Account creation dates: User:Ixo490: 5 hours ago, User:Thompson.walkins: 3 hours ago, User:Editlife1tr: 3 hours ago, User:Loewemathers: 2 hours ago, User:TOOLINK: 2 hours ago. Northern Moonlight 09:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an uninvolved administrator, I have taken actions (including page protection and collapsing seemingly-canvassed participation from brand new editors), to restore order and remove disruption from this debate. Daniel (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly seems like a talented artist who could merit an article at some point, but right now, the notability just isn't there. To anyone canvassed to come here: deletion isn't a punishment, it's just that Wikipedia's purpose is to recognize notability, not help create it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wish him well, but (agreeing with CoffeeCrumbs) WP:TOOSOON. Narky Blert (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first, and most importantly, notability is not established. Secondly, the article was written by an obvious WP:SPA who created the article in their own sandbox two hours after opening their account. Thirdly, the number of other SPAs flooding this discussion with pwersonal attacks and assumptions of bad faith doesn't inspire confidence. If the article subject was truly notable there'd be no need for all that. It seems to me the subject or their friends or fans are involved in this. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with all the real voters above. Upon inspection, I think his OperaJuan operation might be closer to notability because they have received some media notice in their country. But since this article is about Mr. R.N. Cruz, he must achieve notability via reliable media coverage, and so far he's only in self-promotional mode. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per above and WP:TOOSOON. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aina Asif

AfDs for this article:

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

NC less than a year ago but given that two editors have since been blocked, It think Asif needs another look. I'm unable to find evidence she meets N:ACTOR. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 01:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreliable sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant roles in notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good catch. The last AFD was closed as non-consensus due to socks, despite it being a clear delete at the time. A year later, I still don’t see how this meets NACTOR. Those claiming it meets NACTOR need to realize that simply stating it isn’t enough and it falls under WP:ATA therefore they must demonstrate how the subject meets NACTOR. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NACTOR says "may be considered notable" based on roles, not "is considered notable" (my emphasis). We still need the significant coverage and I cannot find enough to show notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs)
General comment: The essay WP:ATA is indeed rather interesting to read, it recommends not to cite a guideline without explaining why one thinks a subject meets its requirement. For ex. ’See WP: XXX" not good. But "Meets Wp:XXX because YYY", good (especially if one adds sources). Can also apply to certain delete !votes, btw, :D-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do that to established editors, which we all are @Mushy Yank Star Mississippi 20:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do what, exactly? Quote ATA? Are you joking? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: comply WP:SIGCOV. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 181.197.42.215, I’m dying to know how you came to this conclusion? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That user is currently blocked so unlikely to reply. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravieshwar Singh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. It's just the blatant non adherence to the reviewer's comment/decline reason by the page creator/submitter. If we are considering the sources, they are mostly WP:SELFPUB. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Businesspeople, Entertainment, Fashion, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Law, India, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, self-published sourcing, and editor has not taken into account advice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - editor corrected TV Guide link, author published through reputable sources (not blogs), many citations to his work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B837:8C03:E011:E929:8629:EFF (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. If it is kept then "Rgs21" should clarify if they have any link to Ravi Guru Singh, the nickname of the article subject. Ttwaring (talk) 17:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantively this page has more citations and support than many other notability pages. Rgs21 may be on vacation or unavailable and the page should not hinge on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.114.12 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost entirely self-published sources. A lawyer or writer is famous for writing; they are not notable for that. One can make yourself famous; to become notable requires other people writing about you. See WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I reviewed, the people writing about the subject include Marc Bain at the Business of Fashion (extensively), Divya Bhandari at the Hindu (extensively -- on the digital fashion and the future for India) -- articles are behind paywalls. To a lesser extent, the subject is written about and cited in other law.com articles on decentralized autonomous organizations, by the author Robert Schwinger, a prominent partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, an elite law firm. The Business of Fashion and the Hindu, are credible, reputable and independent sources. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.85.105.72 (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - maybe this is raising WP:ASPERSIONs, but why would a bunch of random IP addresses be commenting on an AFD of a minor digital fashion lawyer? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PANICVOTE if this is what I think it is. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling out ducks is not casting aspersions.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mentions and self-pubs do not equal significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's some, not all references. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then point out the others. You have failed to do so as of yet. Also, with only 65 edits and not editing Wikipedia in over a year, I am curious what brought you to this specific AfD discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did 5 accounts with less than 100 edits all suddenly comment on this after I pointed out WP:PANICVOTE? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman:, based on the results of this SPI, you can probably strike the keep votes of confirmed socks. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the SPI, counting off at least 4-5 keep votes. Thank you for your hard work in reviewing :) 74.101.99.164 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Regardless of whether the voting above is in fact WP:PANIC or not, the article for Ravieshwar Singh is well sourced, with about two dozen citations. Vogue (magazine), Elle (magazine), TV Guide Magazine, the Huffington Post, and other high-traffic, top-tier online magazines are all cited. Definitely not a notability fail since this meets WP:SIGCOV. Nyangaman4 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
passing refs and interviews cannot establish notability Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well-sourced and he has extensive coverage in reputable outlets like Vogue and Elle, demonstrating clear notability per WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Licatatom (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is recognized in high-profile publications, has substantial coverage that compiles with Wikipedia's notability criteria. Toopus (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – He meets the criteria of WP:GNG due to significant coverage in reliable, independent sources such as Business of Fashion, Vogue, Elle, The Times of India, and The Hindu. These outlets provide in-depth coverage of his contributions in digital fashion, AI activism, and law. He also meets notability in the "Others" category with his media appearances in a Netflix show, his role in a documentary at the Cleveland International Film Festival, and his work in legal publications. DominicJoshua (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – For reasons stated above, this is GNG. Added additional coverage.

Rina Lipa

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

The subject fails to meet WP:GNG on their own merit and is only notable due to being the sister of a notable person, as evidenced by all available references primarily focusing on her relationship to her sister. And WP:INVALIDBIO explicitly state 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. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Dance, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: looks like a failure to perform a BEFORE. I'm finding substantial references that are about Rina, not her older sister (Vogue, Deadline). Also, the sources present are not primarily focusing on Rina's relationship with her sister, but instead mention it as a considerable detail. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that Vogue and Deadline have articles about Rina, but even the headlines in both pieces emphasize her relationship to Dua Lipa, which suggests that her notability is primarily tied to her sister. Ckfasdf (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read past the headline, per WP:HEADLINES. There is SIGCOV of her as a fashion model and actor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary reason she received coverage is due to her relationship with Dua Lipa, as even Vogue pointed out by stating, She’s self-aware about the nepo-sibling thing. Also, the lead describes her as a model, actress, and dancer, this means the article should also meet WP:ARTIST and WP:NMODEL requirements, both of which she falls short of meeting. Ckfasdf (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s enough if she meets GNG, which she does. A subject meeting GNG does NOT have to meet particular requirements of SNGs. That would be absurd. The articles (some on the page and plenty more available online) mention her sister but focus on her and constitute significant coverage addressing Rina directly and in depth, in reliable media outlets, which is precisely what is required. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dua Lipa. There isn't much coverage of her as someone other than Dua's sister. Frost 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the existing coverage; a redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life is totally warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Albania. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per arguments presented above. -AlexBachmann (talk) 23:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stumbled upon this article as I was deleting articles created by a sockpuppet of Asphonixm but I see the article is being improved and is the subject of this discussion. But if it wasn't being worked on, it would likely be eligible for a CSD G5. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: If we compare the state of the article since it was last edited by the sock and after the involvement of multiple editors, I do not see any substantial edits made on the article. The changes made so far seem to include removal of maintenance tags, fixing minor errors like references, paraphrasing sentences, switching "British" to "English", and adding categories—none of which amount to substantial content contributions. Therefore, Asphonixm's sock remains the major contributor. Ckfasdf (talk) 05:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who added sources to the page (yesterday, I think) and I am sorry but it was a significant change. I did it to prove she meets GNG. Who is the "major contributor" is not what matters, what matters is whether there is/are (a) "significantly edit"(s) by other user(s). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see Liz suggest CSD 5 eligibility extended until recently in the face of demonstrative notability and involvement of other editors (myself included) well before the sock was caught. Mushy Yank has made such substantial edits in the last 48 hours that I wonder if Ckfasdf believes that a sock only needs to be a majority contributor for CSD 5, rather than the only major contributor. ~ Pbritti (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I don’t think Liz suggested eligibility extended; quite the opposite, I would say (Liz clearly indicates the page is being improved), and her note is just for information, to prevent any CSD nomination, or at least to make things clear. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn’t notice Mushi Yank’s edits in the last 48 hours. However, on 28th September, I did suggest CSD G5 because that sock puppet was the main contributor, and it's worth noting that this sock puppet is notorious for creating biography articles. Pbritti disagreed, which is why we now have this AfD. My stance remains unchanged: she is only known because of her sister, as evidenced by all the sources that prominently mention her sister in both the headlines and the content. Ckfasdf (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if my comments were unclear. I had deleted some other articles created by this sock but decided this one was not eligible due to the contributions of other editors to the content creation which wasn't the case with their other articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:42, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doniyor Kayumov

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

Not notable per WP:NACTOR. He has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry lack WP:RELIABILITY.

Uz24: It is an online portal, as clearly stated on its about page and such is not a reputable source.
Qalampir: The article does not discuss Kayumov's work as an actor; instead, it focuses on his controversial calls for violence against women.
Sport.uz: This unreliable blog covers Kayumov's challenge to a Kazakh MMA fighter to face off in a cage match but does not substantiate his notability.
Hordiq: The article has been deleted.
Savol-javob: This is a Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
Malumot: Also a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
Uz Daily: While potentially more reliable, this article raises suspicions of paid content, as it merely lists 15 trivia points without discussing his career in any detail.
Aniq.uz: This tabloid source reports on a video Kayumov made after allegedly being snubbed by Sitora Farmonova.
Yuz.uz: This entry appears to be an interview, also potentially paid content, discussing Kayumov's personal plans ("to take his parents on the Hajj pilgrimage and buy a new car for his dad") rather than his career.
Peoplenews: This online blog no longer has the entry about Kayumov available.

Additionally, Kayumov has publicly stated in a video podcast that he needed a Wikipedia entry to obtain a verified mark on his social media profiles. In the video, he states that he actively sought out local publications like Kun.uz to get articles written about him. He also mentions that in Uzbekistan, such publications can cost nearly 10,000 USD. He was negotiating to reduce this cost to 1,500-2,000 when the English Wikipedia entry was created – supposedly independently from his actions. Given that a flurry of articles were published right before his entry was created, I doubt he did not pay to have them published.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 10:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Uzbekistan. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

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

BLP that fails WP:SIGCOV. No indication of significance. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Beauty pageants. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mister Venezuela 1999 -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) (but he had some significant roles in notable telenovelas, so not opposed to Keep if other users suggest that outcome)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I initially found this lacking per NBIO, as per the nominator, and draftified this so other interested parties could improve it, but an editor deemed that incorrect per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY. So just delete it. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete However, if good sources are not found for all the content (which is not that much, it should not cost much...) then there is a risk that other sources (databases) will copy us and false information will be distributed thanks to Wikipedia. --181.197.42.150 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? He is in every series cited (and much more) (I checked and for all I know, he might even meet WP:NACTOR btw). It seems your are raising a cleanup issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I favour a Keep: not only does he seem to meet WP:NACTOR, see SpWP please) but above all he meets WP:ANYBIO, which states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". Lárez was Mister Venezuela 1999, which seems significant enough.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars. scope_creep^Talk 07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the guideline says "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor" (which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about being internationally known (which Mr Venezuela is, being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone about like the oscars (why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my !vote, if I may. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your !vote is your !vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you have WP:THREE sources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth. Thank you, sure, maybe. But a link explaining how "Mr Venezuela" is neither well-known nor significant and is not a "decent medal' and maybe, one showing that this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago would be nice. I am not sure I understand the rest of your reply. Also please note he is generally simply referred to as Alejandro Otero Again, his roles in notable telenovelas could also be considered significant so that, on top of the award, a redirect, at least, should be discussed.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:23, 3 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!} 21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kira Hagi

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

Her acting roles are small or in movies that aren't notable themselves and she hasn't established herself as a notable artist. While there is considerable media attention, much of it feels sensationalistic. I might be overlooking something since I don’t speak Romanian but her notability shouldn't simply stem from her father being a famous footballer (WP:INVALIDBIO) Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Romania. Ynsfial (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She seems to have notability on her own as an actress, though is hard for me to evaluate the notability of the films she acted in.Anonimu (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, she seems notable in her own country Natlaur (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gheorghe_Hagi#Personal_life -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share the same thoughts, I've seen Kira Hagi's article and honestly I think the Article still have what to be improved, as the movies she acted in, e.g. 167.250.71.19 (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siue Moffat

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

WP:BLP of a cookbook author and filmmaker, not reliably sourced as having a strong claim to passing notability criteria for either occupation. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them in media independent of themselves -- but the only notability claim on offer here is that her work exists, and the article is referenced to one (deadlinked but recoverable) short blurb that isn't enough to get her over GNG all by itself if it's all she's got for GNG-worthy coverage, and one primary source that isn't support for notability at all.
The article, further, has been tagged for needing more sources since 2011 without ever having better sources added, and a WP:BEFORE search came up dry as all I found in ProQuest was the blurb and a small handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of events.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any book reviews, or much of anything in sources otherwise. Nothing in news or a general Gsearch. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see three reviews for "Lickin' the Beaters 2: Vegan Chocolate and Candy" via Proquest, but not much else. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, reviews exist for Lickin' the Beaters 2 from Library Journal [2] and Vegetarian Journal [3], and there are two shorter reviews for the two Lickin' the Beaters cookbooks from Broken Pencil magazine [4][5]. Broken Pencil also has a good number of reviews on her zines, e.g., one for The Day I Stopped Being Punk [6]. There's also an interview with her in Joe Biel's Beyond the Music: How Punks are Saving the World with DIY Ethics, Skills, & Values (Microcosm Publishing) on pages 150–152. With more research, I think we could probably find more reviews of her works that would warrant inclusion of this article (per WP:NAUTHOR). Best, Bridget (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a lot of reviews/mentions are before the internet existed as we know it. Broken Pencil reviewed all the zines, even some not listed on the wiki page. I've just found a Fascinating Folks from Broken Pencil (hopefully I'm doing this correctly, first time in one of these discussions... Maulydaft (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I "vote" Not to Delete. To the article I added an example of the HeartaCk column (magazine defunct), an inclusion of Fascinating Folks in Broken Pencil, an interview with Boardwalk Chocolates with T.O.F.U Magazine. Bitch Magazine also highlighted Fascinating Folks in an article but Bitch is also defunct. Maulydaft (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here's another review. Nfitz (talk) 01:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Found and added another radio interview on CFBU, Animal Voices, and website; Bitch Magazine article; others have found numerous other reviews of writings that weren't even on the list previously. Maulydaft (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Several zines have been reviewed, though many are reviewed in Broken Pencil, with which Moffat seems to have been involved. Many of the reviews are quite short, as well. However, I believe we have enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, author has never had any direct connect with Broken Pencil - only been reviewed. Maulydaft (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torontow

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Bit-part actor. scope_creep^Talk 14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played the title character in Sweeney Todd, among other major characters and has been nominated for Dora Awards both as a leading actor and a director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable enough to me, given his stage career and existing sources. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per @Ssilvers. Subject appeared in various plays have sources which support them. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creep^Talk 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: keep !votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Other than the CBC article about the one-man show, rest are simply confirmation of various performances... I don't consider the award terribly notable. Perhaps the Dora, rest are rather small/non-notable. I don't find additional coverage of this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my comments above, has zero WP:SIGCOV on him in any quality British RS (and nothing internationally). Is 46, so is well advanced in their career with no sign of their notability improving. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the comments above, his own website says he "is arguably most “famous” for helping remind you to switch modes on your phone in the Air Canada in-flight safety video." This is not a notable person. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable existing sources. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 02:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:SPA editor has made few edits to Wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the CBC story, this article lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable national sources. The subject fails WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesiMoore (talk • contribs) 15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick BEFORE finds an in-depth significant media coverage - Ottawa Citizen 2004 (ProQuest 240730536; GNG met with other articles already mentioned. . A lot of other material (224 hits in Proquest!). Nfitz (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a bit of international coverage on the actor, some reviews, even country wide would be ideal. Torontow is an Ottawa born guy and local papers always report on their local folk. It their duty of care, if you like and a well known phenomena. It likely fails WP:AUD. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUD is reserved for companies and organisations, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is the only piece on him and it is from a minor Canadian newspaper from Ottawa, and the subject is from Ottawa. There is no SIGCOV that I can find on him as a notable person in any national RS in any country (even Canadian). Given his job is promotion, Scope Creep's reference to WP:AUD in not unreasonable. At 46, if this is all he has, he is unlikely to be a notable person in his profession of performing? His Wikipedia article would be the biggest 'plank' in his notability. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nima Asgari

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

Disputed draftification. I would have returned to draft, but WP:DRAFTIFY dictates that cannot happen, so here we are. Fails WP:NFILMMAKER. References are passing mentions that they have made such and such a film 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear @Timtrent, Thank you for your review. I would like to highlight that Nima Asgari is a well-known documentary filmmaker in Iran, recognized for his significant contributions to environmental and wildlife documentaries. He has won several prestigious awards at international festivals, such as the Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival in the USA and the Green Screen Film Festival in Germany. Additionally, he has served as a jury member at events like the Matsalu Nature Film Festival in Estonia. I have updated the article with reliable sources and references that showcase his notable achievements and contributions to the field.

I hope this additional information helps in reconsidering the decision regarding the article. Siavakhsh (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Despite the statement above, the additional references aren't at all useful. This is not a review. Reviews are different. This is a discussion leading to potential deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review (and more participation) would help come to a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, the sources are not WP:SIGCOV. As for WP:NFILMMAKER, I saw news coverage (but more WP:PRSOURCEs of some film festival category wins, but no reviews of his work in independent, reliable sources that would indicate a pass on WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Giri

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems WP:TOOSOON. Or Redirect to List of Nepalese actors. nirmal (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't the inclusion in the list be challenged if he has no page himself? If the inclusion seems OK, I could support that outcome too, given the so-so coverage he received in Nepalese and the sourced list of films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meet WP:NACTOR according to the given refrences ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]. for more info

References

^ "फिल्ममा 'ट्वीस्ट' ल्याउने चरित्र मेरो छ : तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". www.ratopati.com (in Nepali). Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "तेज गिरी". Himalaya Times. Retrieved 2024-09-17.
^ "अभिनेता तेज गिरी भन्छन्: 'उपहार'मा मेरो अभिनय सुधारिएको छ". nepalkhabar (in Nepali). 2019-06-03. Retrieved 2024-09-17.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources. User:Endrabcwizart, please remember to sign all discussion comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources presented by @Endrabcwizart are unreliable. Ratopati(1,2) and prixa.net (4) aren't reliable. The only reliable newspaper The Himalayan Times was linked from a tag, which doesn't justify notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I mentioned it because there is a substantial information available on this topic. Below are some links to reliable newspaper sources:

I believe a more reliable source available on Google . I will also update this discussion with better, more informative sources if I come across them.Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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