Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Actors and filmmakers.
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.


Purge page cache watch
HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for actor AfDs

HILLBLU lente.png
Scan for filmmaker AfDs


Actors and filmmakers[edit]

Arpad Miklos[edit]

Arpad Miklos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

The only sources from reputable sites (1, 2) only really mention his suicide. The other sources are just publicity. Subject doesn't seem notable to me. Ficaia (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This AfD debate was not added to the daily log. It is now listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 January 12. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bettina Devin[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I can only find one interview, in something called Rivetting Riffs Magazine. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Phaedra Parks[edit]

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

Non-notable reality show participant. Keeps getting re-created from redirect. Fails GNG, absolutely no in-depth coverage about this person outside show. Onel5969 TT me 12:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Donnalyn Bartolome[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No independent reliable sources. Ctrlwiki • 13:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yoriko Angeline[edit]

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

non-notable actress. fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR Behind the moors (talk) 05:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Nidhish Kutty[edit]

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

Worked in only 3 movies, not significant coverages. PQR01 (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Faisal Rashid (actor)[edit]

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

Beyond cast lists, role announcements and an agency interview, I couldn't find any source, let alone reliable ones, covering the subject. hemantha (brief) 09:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Namashi Chakraborty[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR as the person is yet to debut. Also lacks significant coverage to meet GNG. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Suzanna Kempner[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

NOTNEWS isn't applicable solely to events. Please read it again. Also, which of her roles was notable? Literally none her roles would pass GNG. She doesn't pass GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I have read it many times. WP:NOTNEWS is meant to be used for breaking news about current events, people whose notability is derived from one current event, and trivia about current events. It does not supersede GNG or notability guidelines for people. Per WP:NACTOR, The Mikado is very obviously notable, and she played one of the significant named roles. Jerry Springer: The Opera is also notable (if you disagree, you should probably also nominate its article for deletion, though I don't think you'd be successful), and her role was significant enough to be mentioned by multiple unaffiliate reviewers and to have at least one solo number (i.e., not a generic chorus member/standin role), so this also counts toward WP:NACTOR #1. Et cetera for the other roles mentioned in the article and above. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Gnomingstuff - except she wasn't even in Jerry Springer the Opera, she simply worked with the composer. Her performance of The Mikado took place in a 96 seat venue and appears to have about three reviews when I do a search for it. There is no significant coverage of her, reviews of performances don't make her pass! Nobody has provided any significant coverage and that says it all. Because I've looked and it doesn't exist. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@ItsKesha: Why wouldn't reviews of her performances count towards notability? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above. The page seems to meet notability guidelines for actors/entertainers. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep -Sigcov for the subject to meet WP:GNG, lots of reviews, mentions in more substantial articles as well. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Sabri Kaliç[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. REFBOMB with book selling sites. Kadıköylü (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Emmy Morgan[edit]

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

Quite simply fails the WP:GNG guideline. The sources are almost exclusively self-published or not third-party and even then, the coverage is superficial. Her two books were self-published and the rest of her work appears to be on non-notable projects. Finally, the username strongly suggests that the article is an autobiography. Pichpich (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the move. It's now back in mainspace. --Finngall talk 16:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with all the other comments that this is an article likely to be deleted. But I don't think we're following correct procedure. The article's creator obviously intended to retract it back into draft-space, and we ought to respect that decision. If it re-emerges into main space it would be eligible for deletion, but I do think that the most helpful thing to do in the current circumstances would be to move to draft, and advise the creator to take a good look at the criteria for notability of biographies. Elemimele (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree; it's not helpful at all. Let's be realistic: the subject is light-years from notability, and if this is indeed a COI, never will be on account of her writing. All pushing this into draft space would do is kick the can down the road for a G13, and perhaps hoodwink the creator into thinking that there's a chance. I'd encourage the creator, instead, to improve her writing skills and seek to contribute in other ways. Ravenswing 22:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Ravenswing said it better than I could. Complete promotional piece and zero notability. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources and doesn't seem to have any claim to meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:ANYBIO or any other guideline Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete – A little too soon for someone who hasn't done so much. Anything she has theoretically worked on is non–notable as well. Should some form of notability be met in the future perhaps, but not now.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 22:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete - None of the provided sources are independent or reliable, and I found nothing better. @Elemimele: I wouldn't object to draftification if the state of the article was simply "needs work", but if I were evaluating this as an AfC draft, I'd be inclined to reject rather than simply decline. I've seen way too many COI authors create articles in mainspace straightaway or promote them from draftspace themselves without a proper evaluation, then quickly try to move their articles back to draftspace as soon as the AfD tag drops, trying to use the self-draftification as a means to avert deletion and divert scrutiny. It doesn't work that way, and such behavior should not be validated. --Finngall talk 23:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Max Olivier[edit]

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

None of the references provide much in the way of significant coverage, and several of them don't mention him at all. No indication he meets WP:NACTOR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae[edit]

List of awards and nominations received by Lee Jung-jae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · WP Library)

per WP:TOOSOON, I don't know if it meets the criteria, this article can be read at the main page easily before, I do not see if it needs to be split for another article. Ctrlwiki • 00:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ron Mustafaa[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Non-active actor with only one significant role (as a character in the US adaptation of Skins) and very little to no significant coverage. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. pinktoebeans (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Policy officer with the school board is a "low-level functionary" to be blunt, non-notable bit parts in movies or TV otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete. The character he purportedly played in the US version Skins exists solely as a redirect to a different character in the UK version of Skins, but is not mentioned at all in that article to contextualize why it redirects there (I had to go to a completely different article to figure that out!) — and being a policy officer with a local school board is not a notability claim at all, so that does nothing whatsoever to lift his notability. Simply having had a television role is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself; the notability test is not "article lists roles", but "article is referenced to reliable source coverage establishing the significance of said roles, such as analyzing his performances and/or showing that he won or was nominated for major acting awards for one or more of said roles". But there's none of that here. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Allan Maraynes[edit]

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

Appears to be an autobiography; no significant coverage from any reliable sources; sources are mostly just mentions or stories written by the subject. Awards listed appear to be mostly (if not all) awards for teams, and many aren't particularly notable. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Priyanka Mondal[edit]

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

The subject is previously rejected through afc process, so this article should go through afc process. Please check the creator's talk page for further information. Trakinwiki (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete The film credits may count towards NACTOR, but significance of some roles aren't clear. Falling back to sources, ToI articles on her are all two-three paragraph collections of her quotes. IE Indulge is a "luxury lifestyle magazine", a once-per-week supplement that shouldn't be presumed to be as reliable as the main paper; but setting that aside, the coverage is all shallow interviews that can hardly be considered independent. ABP/Sangbad links are movie announcements which do not mention her at all. There is a bn-wiki page, but it uses same sources as here. This bengali search https://www.google.com/search?q="প্রিয়াঙ্কা+মন্ডল" doesn't seem to turn up much, so I think there isn't enough for WP:GNG. --Hemantha (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Soleimani Nia[edit]

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

No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable independent sources or claim of notability in the article. Non-notable actor, may be WP:TOOSOON. Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Can you mention sources that cover him significantly (not passing a mention) in Farsi? Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hani (Yadav)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Unable to independently verify his acting credits, and he's not mentioned in the news refs provided. KH-1 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear wikipedian sir, I'm checked this article this article is transparent and it's show transparency, independently verify his acting credits, kindly checked External link, which is imdb link, all actings credit of this person are shown on IMDb Viveknigam7 (talk) 3 January 2022 (UTC)

IMDb is hardly definitive. There's little to no third party coverage in reliable sources of this person and I have my doubts about the veracity of his purported filmography.-KH-1 (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

dear sir, according to my perspective this person is child actor of 17 years old, and yet it's little popular as but it is notable because it's just child now, i think in future he becomes notable actor , i'm not helping this person, i'm just share my thoughts or opinions abouts abouts this person from my perspective, kindly keep it article on Wikipedia don't delete the article of this person . i'm respect all wikipedians, Thank you Viveknigam7 (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete: Lacks evidence of having significant roles to meet WP:NACTOR. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Recheck: kindly check references and exerternal links of this article Godluckhx (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 12:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Roshan Meka[edit]

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

Two films WP:NACTOR, but no reliable sources for WP:GNG. Sources, both in English and Telugu, are all routine movie announcements/reviews, event galleries/listicles or about his father. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hemantha (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:NACTOR; played lead role in two notable films and won a notable award. Film reviews are not routine, they are independent criticism of the work and are primary indication of notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    NACTOR is an Additional criteria which shows People are likely to be notable if they meet it. WP:BIO specifically says about these criteria that meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A movie review which devotes two lines to the subject isn't the sort of coverage that meets WP:GNG (some of the sourced reviews don't even have a single specific line about him; they combine both stars like "The duo makes the most" and leave at that). Award isn't notable, like say Padma awards, to merit inclusion without sources. Hemantha (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    Meeting SNG (much like meeting GNG) means that the subject has merit for inclusion. However, consensus can determine whether the article can be merged elsewhere (such as WP:BLP1E) or deleted for reasons other than notability (WP:NOT). Its not a advocacy for GNG over SNG because an article may still be deleted in the above conditions even after that subject has met GNG. I mentioned the reviews part to support "significant roles in multiple notable films," for the NACTOR requirement, not GNG. Goes without saying that any review rarely spares more than two lines for a single actor because they ought to cover the film in a comprehensive manner. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. ShahidTalk2me 11:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    Can you say which source covers him significantly enough? Hemantha (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've cast my vote and do not intend to argue over it, but since I see you feel very strongly about it for some reason, I'll answer shortly. Movie reviews are not routine, as you say above (especially not by The Times of India, which positively reviews his performance). Neither is the award he's won. Neither is a leading role in a major production released just a couple of months ago. Both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR support his notability. I don't know this guy, but I think there's a strong case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT here. I think it's better if you withdraw this gratuitous nomination. He's notable, period. ShahidTalk2me 11:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    I hardly would've expected aspersions like above from a long-term contributor like you. I request withdrawing them or providing diffs to support the bad faith I'm accused of exhibiting.
    On the content of ToI reviews, there's literally two sentences about him in each of them. Also see WP:TOI; its reliability is contested. Hemantha (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • No aspersions are being cast or intended to be cast at all. I definitely assume good faith, and that's why I suggested that you consider withdrawing it. Anyway, TOI is perfectly legitimate for film reviews (its reliability is contested in the case of contentious claims), and I can hardly think of more sentences than two for the mention of an actor's work within a film review. It is a review of the film after all, that's how it's done most of the time. But just having gone over Google results with his name, I see plenty of reliable sources, interviews and what not. He's already won an award, and his films are notable, too. I believe he is notable, that's all I can add. ShahidTalk2me 15:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Since this raised hackles, I've gone back to see how consensus has evolved about barely passing NACTORs. Josh Hammond case is very similar as well as the recently deleted Anusha Rai. Note that NACTOR doesn't mention awards; the WP:ANYBIO award is for significant ones, a regional "debut award" simply does not apply. I see enough justification to not withdraw.
Year of AfD, AfD Notes Result
2021 Anusha Rai Two films lead (one was AfDed later even though it has similar coverage as Roshan's movies), voters claimed NACTOR fail deleted in admin closure
2020 Khushi Ravi Two film leads, one film isn't on en-wiki, but has coverage similar to Roshan's movies, voters claimed NACTOR fail deleted in admin close
2020 Sree Leela Lead in two films draftified in a nac
2020 Shivani Rangole Lead roles in a film and serial plus more lead roles in serials with no wiki page deleted in admin close as GNG fail
2020 Anjali Dinesh Anand Two lead roles in >100 episode serials and an award nom; lots of TOI sources were questioned deleted in admin close
2020 Josh Hammond at least three film leads deleted in admin close with specific comment: 'While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not'
2020 Lakshmi Devy barely passed NACTOR, but at least the sources name her in headlines and cover in-depth keep in admin close
2020 Ashwin Kumar Lakshmikanthan Two lead roles in serials, multiple film support roles, 'Best Actor in Tamil' award for a short film deleted in admin close, recreated since
2019 Michael Treanor two popular film leads no consensus in admin close with comment 'falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened'
2019 Sandile Mahlangu multiple leads in TV no consensus in admin close, because GNG fail but plausible NACTOR
Hemantha (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
NACTOR vs GNG debate
  • In most of the cases above tells me you didn't read any. I request you read Josh Hammond close at least. Anusha Rai too had lead in two local language films, with requisite two reviews in Kannada and similar English coverage (except for Hindu); why you would consider one strong but other weak is beyond me. Hemantha (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Rai's films did not have the requisite reliable reviews (atleast two for each film), in fact, her second film was deleted in AfD. In Hammond's case, there was a lack of sufficient evidence whether he played "significant" roles in notable films to meet NACTOR. In any case, each subject is better evaluanted on its own merit rather than trying to draw parellels. With leading roles in two notable films, Meka passes #1 of NACTOR, that's all is needed. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    Quoting from that close once more While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Your interpretation that NACTOR is all that's needed is at odds with community's, as expressed through past AfDs as well as WP:BIO.
    To make it clear once more, I'm claiming that the sources do not meet WP:GNG. None of the arguments above are even engaging with it. Hemantha (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • When NACTOR is met (not might), the question of GNG does not arise. Quoting WP:N: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;". -- Ab207 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 5 January 2022‎
And if you click that link on presumed, the "presumption" is defined as an assumption ... that is taken to be true unless someone comes forward to contest it. This is that challenge; I'm disputing that a two film credit that barely passes NACTOR is enough to prove notability in light of the absence of any significant coverage in independent sources. --Hemantha (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Neither SNG nor GNG trump each other, they are just a different set of tools which are used to guage a subject's notability. I believe there is adequate non-trivial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources to justify a standalone article. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Some of the disagreement may be from fundamental issues in notability guidelines and/or due to differences between NFILM and BIO/NACTOR. Your assertions would be completely correct with NFILM. NACTOR though is different. I've struck part of my comment above. Anyway if I had read this late 2020 WT:N discussion and the subsequent RfC, I'd have tried to drive this AfD to consider sources than getting bogged down in an SNG vs GNG discussion; which I've done now. --Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - for what it's worth, the article is notable per both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR (and yes, if the latter is satisfied, the former can be easily excluded, although it's met too). It's just a redundant nomination, imo, and no offence is meant to the nominating user. The comparison to other articles is exactly the kind of argument one should avoid on such pages. WP:WAX is a useful read - I highly recommend that we all focus on the merit of this particular article. ShahidTalk2me 10:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment To focus the discussion towards sources, here's the source assessment. He's been an actor since 2015 and the even the local language press (at least the most important IMO) is accessible via internet. There's not enough even for WP:BASIC.
Source assessment table:
(This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.)
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ibtimes.co.in/6th-siima-awards-2017-live-updates-tamil-telugu-malayalam-kannada-winners-list-photos-732824 Yes No WP:IBTIMES No mention in a list No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/nirmala-convent-nagarjuna-sets-stage-for-sons-of-srikanth-mahadevan-rahman-and-koti-3022952/ Yes Yes No One quote from him, two quotes about him by his parents in an article about a movie No
https://telanganatoday.com/srikanths-daughter-to-make-on-screen-debut-in-telugu Yes ? No Two lines in a 3 para article on his sister No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/srikanth-s-children-to-play-key-roles-in-rudhramadevi-113072200215_1.html No Agency feed. Article is fully made up of quotes from film director. ? No mentions his role only No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/movie-review/nirmala-convent-movie-review-akkineni-nagarjuna-roshan-meka-shriya-sharma-star-rating-3034270/ Yes Yes No Movie review; single line mention No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/nirmala-convent/movie-review/54377989.cms Yes No Movie review; single line mention No
https://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/cinema-reviews/Nirmala-Convent-Needed-more-homework/article14983764.ece Yes Yes No Movie review; single line mention No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/siima-2017-day-1-shivarajkumar-jr-ntr-rakul-preet-win-big-here-are-the-winners-list-see-photos-videos-4730224/ Yes Yes No mention in a list No
https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2020/oct/09/srikanths-son-roshan-to-star-in-pelli-sandadi-sequel-20700.html Yes Yes No Single line mention in a 3 para movie announcement No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movie-reviews/pelli-sandad/movie-review/87040497.cms Yes WP:TOI No single line mention in 300 word movie review No
https://www.thehansindia.com/movie-reviews/pelli-sandad-movie-review-rating-2255-78516 ? ? no author credited, spells his name wrong No Movie review; three line mention No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/regional/rudhramadevi-to-release-on-october-9/ ? reads like PR ? uncredited, agency post No no mention at all No
https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/reviews/pelli-sandad-movie-review-done-and-dusted-old-school-romance/article37017971.ece Yes Yes No movie review; mentioned in two sentence No
https://telugu.samayam.com/telugu-movies/cinema-news/kovelamudi-raghavendra-rao-pelli-sandad-trailer-released-by-mahesh-babu/articleshow/86420554.cms ? quotes tweets ? No movie announcement; one mention No
https://www.ntnews.com/cinema/srikanth-meka-son-roshan-trying-to-get-mass-hero-image-in-tollywood-205266 ? promotional tone ? No 1 para plus 1 quote; mostly focuses on his father No
https://telugu.samayam.com/telugu-movies/cinema-news/roshan-meka-shocking-comments-in-dasara-bullollu-special-program/articleshow/87016300.cms ? No churnalism content focusing on his tweets No No
https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/180916/nirmala-convent-movie-review-outdated-syllabus-in-nirmala-convent.html Yes Yes No 230 word movie review; single ungrammatical line mentioning the subject - "As far as performances go, Roshan is is an easy performer" No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/telugu/movies/news/look-at-roshan-doesnt-he-want-to-make-you-fall-in-love-nagarjuna/articleshow/54348386.cms No interview WP:TOI No 400 word interview with producer, in which subject is asked a single question No
Table created using {{source assess table}}
Hemantha (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC) updated Hemantha (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - (sigh) I'm sorry, the above table is pointless, and it is based on nothing but your personal opinion of what constitutes significant coverage rather than what policy says. I can't think of how a film review can give better service to an actor than just mention him in a line. ShahidTalk2me 14:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Adding to the above, WP:BASIC does not necessarily need substantial coverage from a single source; non-trivial coverage from the various reliable sources also fits the bill. Not every actor gets a mention about their performance in the film reviews. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment @Shshshsh: and @Ab207: We seem to be meeting up on the same deletion discussions. Maybe an WP:SPI is in order? As for this article which was reviewed by me, my understanding is that he played the sole male lead role in 2 movies, both of which are considered notable by our standards. WP:NACTOR point 1 - significant role (sole male lead) in multiple films (2 in this case) is met which was why I approved this. Since I reviewed this page I will recuse from voting, but just thought you should know the rationale. Jupitus Smart 02:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
misunderstanding of WP:FBDB comment
  • @Jupitus Smart, For NACTOR and GNG, please see the closure statement of a 2017 rfc, this 2020 discussion on WT:N and the RfC that followed it; all of which I've linked above. I don't expect everybody to be completely aware of policy minutiae, especially one as confusing as WP:N, but to jump to accusations based on partial understanding is bad behavior. I know these are sock-infested waters (I came across this page from one I filed) but I strongly resent the repeated, uncalled-for WP:ABF here and request striking it. Hemantha (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Hemantha, arguments aside, I'm sure Jupitus Smart was humourously referring to an SPI on them, Shshshsh and me. It's not an accusation or ABF on you in anyway. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
(ec with Jupiter) Okay, the wording was confusing. I've struck parts of my comment. Hemantha (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Humour is like the virus, not everybody gets it. You should tone down the WP:ABF though. As I said I am merely stating the rationale for approving this and not getting into voting here. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Jupitus Smart (talk · contribs): Maybe an SPI is indeed inorder. ;) Anyway, the fact that you reviewed this article doesn't mean you can't vote, quite on the contrary actually. This is not a page for article promotion where some kind of CoI should be avoided, this page determines if this page should stay at all on WP and naturally all people involved or uninvolved (including its creator, not just first reviewer) who have an opinion and can defend it with policy are encouraged to vote here. ShahidTalk2me 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shshshsh: This is probably going to end in a keep anyway, and the nominator somehow seems to be taking this personally, which is a reason why I would rather not be drawn into this. I generally stay away from articles pertaining to the Telugu film industry of which I know little about, but approved this article based on my interpretations of the rules, which I felt obliged to explain. Best. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
As this has turned into a banter thread, I'd like to greatly thank @Ab207 for challenging me productively here. I've understood so much more about nuances of the WP:N guidelines than I'd have thought possible. I would probably not have found this highly illuminating WT:N thread if not for that exchange above. Hemantha (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Much commenting, not a lot of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Crystal Kung Minkoff[edit]

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

Reality show performer. Not enough in-depth coverage outside of the show to show they have any notability outside the production. Should probably be a redirect, but was reverted. Onel5969 TT me 18:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 03:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Aisha Tisha Mohammed[edit]

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

I don't believe the references here support WP:GNG but it couldn't be speedied A7 but there is a claim of significance. But a search just brought me social media and blog coverage. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: We should be looking more at N:ACTOR, her role is My Name is Kadi, despite being panned by critics for poor acting 1, 2, 3, 4 was the lead role in a very notable film. If I get another of such role in a film it will be an easy keep based on the requirements of the SNG (don't have the time to look through the filmography section right now). HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello HandsomeBoy, her role in 'My name is Kadi' has been added. She played the lead role. Thanks for pointing that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikkyly (talkcontribs) 18:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I know that. Can you mention another film she played the lead role that has reviews like My Name is Kadi? I don't have the time to do the search myself. If you can give me one or two more, I will vote Keep. Once an actor has multiple lead roles, it is easy to meet N:ACTOR.HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete — I’m in agreement with the assessment of Liz, and paradoxically also in agreement with HandsomeBoy, in the sense that state that they know WP:NACTOR requires lead roles or significant roles in multiple movies for NACTOR to be met, unfortunately I fail to see this movies. HandsomeBoy, a problem I see almost immediately is that the four sources you made use of are unreliable, (or at least some of them the sources as a whole, whilst some, although reliable sources, are unreliable pieces) a breakdown; the the first source is pre packaged sponsored material, the second source has no presence of a staff reporter in the byline, indicative of an op-ed piece, a sponsored post or an editorial opinion piece all of which are not considered reliable as they bypass the editorial oversight team. The third source is pretty much without an editorial oversight team so isn’t reliable either. The fourth and last source you linked above is self published which is literally a quintessential example of an unreliable source. So in all, it seems that we really do not have anything tangible. Honestly, when reviewing articles I’m somewhat lenient when the articles are of persons or topics of great encyclopedic value, but in cases of most entrepreneurs or most entertainers who tend to want to get a Wikipedia presence for the sake of it, I’m rather strict, unless the article creator can come up with a list of multiple movies which shows her in lead or significant roles, or can show us that she has clinched a prestigious award for her acting skills as documented in WP:NACTOR or can show us at least three sources that meet WP:RS standards, I’m afraid this is not a good fit for mainspace. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Josita Anola[edit]

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

No major roles as an actress, pageants all seem minor and the sources are meh at best without much significant coverage. Ravensfire (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:55, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Kendra Sunderland[edit]

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

BLP1E applies, aside from being unwillingly viral on pornhub and being fined for it, It appears that all the sourcing is standard porn ecosystem noise, and there is not sustained evidence of notability outside a single event, Spartaz Humbug! 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment You can't be serious. In what reality, is The Independent part of the so-called "standard porn ecosystem"? In fact, the only specifically porn-related source here is AVN which was used to confirm that she signed a contract with Brazzers in 2020, even that could be replaced with Paper, which isn't a pornographic magazine. The source of the other job she had in college pre-dates the indecent exposure event. So how is this any different than Mia Khalifa (now a good article) who only had a "career" for 3 months and was only "notable" for being "number 1 on Pornhub" and performing in a hijab. Did she willingly go viral?Sunderland didn't disappear into obscurity (if that were the case, I never would have created this legitimate article and she still gets coverage to this day), she started a career. Two years after this, Rolling Stone was calling her "adult performer Kendra Sunderland" in a story about Ron Jeremy of all people. I'll never understand the goal post moving that goes on when the article is in the scope of porn. Not all of them have to write an op-ed in the New York Times. Trillfendi (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:BLP1E surely doesn't apply as a successful porn actress with over 2 million Instagram followers can hardly be a "low profile individual." The Library Girl incident generated enough coverage to meet GNG, but it is not the only thing she is known for. That the Daily Beast published her article on being kicked off of IG is proof of that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Plenty of coverage about the "event" in the library, not sure it's enough for an article. Nothing of substance after than, seems run of the mill porn actress. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: If she really was known as Library Girl it would be sensible to create a redirect, if the article survives AfD. PamD 08:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Porn amateur busted in morals incident is a WP:DOGBITESMAN story in sex work. A minor porn award after going professional doesn't break this biography out of 1E territory. • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep by significant coverage in [2],

[3] and [4], notable has been established. Brayan ocaner (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Two of those 3 sources, the New York Post and the Daily Star, are unreliable tabloids per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Also per WP:RSP, AVN is generally reliable. So that alone settles the issue; she has significant coverage in secondary RS? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - Easily surpasses GNG. BLP1E does not apply since she did not remain a low-profile individual per Pawnkingthree after the incident.[5][6] And yes, AVN ecosystem noise does count as RS.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep per Morbidthoughts and Pawnkingthree; easily meets GNG. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Typical BLP1E. Being a non-notable porn actress following a one-off wider-than-the-porn-industry story is all that is here. Zaathras (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    If she had never been heard from again after the library incident, there might be a case for BLP1E. But she became a porn actress instead, so she has not remained a "low profile individual" as BLP1E requires. Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, she did remain a low-profile individual. "Low-profile" is about reality, not intent. Becoming an unremarkable, run-of-the-mill porn actress does not get her up out of 1-event territory. Zaathras (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject lacks sustain reliable source coverage over a significant time. She does not pass notability guidelines over the long term, and the coverage of the one event is not in and of itself enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Delete Where is independent coverage outside BLP1E. This is typical BLP1E fare. scope_creepTalk 09:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I and others have already given examples of articles that came before or years after her so-called claim to fame, which contribute to significant / sustained coverage. Trillfendi (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment surprised this was still open; I've looked at the new info above, still nothing notable. One "incident" then just blended into the woodwork in the porn industry. Oaktree b (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ramana Sayahi[edit]

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

WP:GNG. The references are not any major news agencies. Random websites here and there. Ladsgroupoverleg 00:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Which references meet the criteria? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Keep Because she has acted in several films that are famous, a person has the criteria of recognition of actors.--5.124.163.98 (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some analysis of the sources would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Marie Forså[edit]

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

Absence of RS. Fails GNG & ENT and is woeful for a BLP Spartaz Humbug! 10:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This is related to the Swedish sin. Book hits include [8], [9] and [10], though the hits are not very in-depth, Forså's name is brought up as a selected mention. Another article related to a book is behind a paywall, but the Google preview gives the quote Alltmedan svenska nakenmodeller som Christina Lindberg, Marie Forså och Marie Ekorre gör internationella karriärer, i.e. international careers. What about contemporary sources? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. As pointed out above, several writers keep coming back to Forså as a central figure in Swedish pornography of the era. Not just a journalist and writer like Kalle Lind (linked above), but Swedish scholar of pornography Mariah Larsson keeps including Forså multiple times. I've added a few references, expanded the article somewhat, and ordered one of the books mentioned above from a local university library (though this AfD dicsussion will be over by the time I've read it). /Julle (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk Edits 01:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable actress. Oaktree b (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep - per improvements made by Julle. Per book hits. Per overall sourcing. Falls within WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Melissa Harrington[edit]

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

Frankly a massive BLP vio through undue coverage. Literally all the reliable coverage is minor league legal stuff. She isn’t notable enough to have any meaningful coverage and if all we can cover is this, then its impossible to have a balanced bio that covers the subject fairly. Spartaz Humbug! 23:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 23:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and my own research supports the apparent impossibility of writing a BLP-compliant article. Beccaynr (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Passes the GNG in that she has received significant coverage in multiple RS for different events. In addition to the ones in the article.[11][12][13][14][15] Arguing that the coverage is not meaningful is just a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. She courts controversy, and if that is the majority of the coverage, so be it because it is WP:DUE under our BLP policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment Sources, including ones cited above, do not appear to support an article based on her 'courting controversy', e.g. "Melissa Midwest has now "demanded that she be withdrawn as a plaintiff" because she never agreed to be part of the lawsuit, according to the document." (NY Daily News) (as compared to the Omaha.com article linked above that relies on and links to the WP:NYPOST); "It appears that nobody informed Ms. Harrington that she was the lead plaintiff." (JDSupra linked above), and there is a 2008 article linked above that is mostly based on an interview, reports of allegations, and a 2004 fine, 2007 conviction, and a 2007 lawsuit, that by 2008, she dismissed. The secondary commentary seems mostly limited to references such as 'hottie' (NY Daily News) and 'vixen' (The Register). Per WP:BLP, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, so cobbling together brief bursts of superficial coverage of each scandal does not appear WP:DUE per WP:MINORASPECT, For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you are citing MINORASPECT when these are not isolated events or the NY Daily News (a non RS) when I didn't. Bait and switch argument? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I’d argue you are making my point. There is literally nothing in RSs about this person that isn’t sensational reporting about her legal issues. This is no basis for a BLP and unless we can portray a balanced and fair portrayal of this person who is, at the end of the day, marginally notable, then we should not have one on the overriding arguement of NOHARM. Spartaz Humbug! 10:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:RSP, Most editors consider the content of New York Daily News articles to be generally reliable, but question the accuracy of its tabloid-style headlines, and NYDN reports in 2014, tabloid-style, on a lawsuit JDSupra reports "was dismissed in its entirety." So from my view, this is a sensationalized and isolated legal issue, similar to the other sensationalized and isolated legal issues. Her notability is primarily supported by brief bursts of tabloid-style coverage, but in a BLP, WP:NOTSCANDAL requires us to meet an especially high standard. I mentioned WP:MINORASPECT because it is the WP:NPOV section below WP:DUE, and I think it highlights the problem raised by the nom and in WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. It is not fair to the subject, per policy, to be sensationalist, and we don't appear to have sources to otherwise support a balanced and fair article about her and her career. Beccaynr (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The arrests and lawsuits are a pattern of legal issues, not isolated. She courted controversy. Just because she stopped years later in refusing to join a lawsuit with her ex-husband does not mean she courted controversy as a WP:PUBLICFIGURE for many years (2004-2013). It's completely fair if her biography reflects that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Not if that is literally all we can source. Do we really have to bluelink WP:NOTASCARLETLETTER? Spartaz Humbug! 21:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Should it go to Tericka Dye or Morganna? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither is really our best work but I feel really sad for Tericka Dye. Spartaz Humbug! 08:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
From my view, if Harrington was a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, only noteworthy, relevant, and well documented allegations or incidents are suitable to include, and If [we] cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The article has two reprinted links to a brief 2003 AP story, one filed in CNN's "offbeat news" section, and another published by USAToday, about allegations related to a ticket for being naked in public, and inclusion of the various allegations and incidents do not otherwise appear supported per this policy.
To the extent she 'courted controversy', the available sources indicate she was unsuccessful in becoming "noteworthy, relevant or well-documented", and per policy, Wikipedia is not intended to simply be an extension of marketing efforts. In addition, the BLP policy against sensationalism appears to apply without a caveat related to the role the subject may have had in contributing to sensationalized coverage.
However, she also does not appear to be a public figure, based on the limited secondary commentary or context in sources that also otherwise fail to support WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENT notability. Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, because she is relatively unknown, we should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. The low-quality secondary sources and the recommended restraint therefore further supports deletion of the article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
She's WP:PUBLICFIGURE based on the linked WP:LOWPROFILE guidelines. Being a porn star and making national radio appearances to promote herself[16][17][18] is nowhere near low-profile. Her incidents have also lead to a conviction[19] which satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: does not meet WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. Tabloid blotter about a ticket and a voluntary dismissed lawsuit; BLPs deserve better than this. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Seems to have some general notability as a porn star... but also as an entrepreneur. On top of that, she has also appeared in various news titles for various reasons, over a period of time. Meets WP:GNG and seems to pass WP:PUBLICFIGURE . As mentioned, apart from the articles discussing her various legal issues, this article features her, discussing her as an entrepreneur/businesswoman. I suspect she may qualify on WP:BLPCRIME. On the whole, just enough here to push her over the line. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete; this seems to fall short of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep Per Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian. The coverage could've been better in detailing her life and career, but you aren't going to get very detailed biographical profiles on porn stars very often outside of the porn press. --GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep: Agreed! Morbidthoughts and Deathlibrarian have won me over; very strong arguments. — Ret.Prof (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is considerable disagreement over whether the sources presented here constitute substantive biographical coverage; more detailed discussion of these sources would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Delete Non-notable for an on-air rape. Frankly disgusting. Her career isn't notable based on what I've seen here either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me if I have misinterpreted your comment, but your remarks seem to indicate that you are deleting her because you dissaprove of one particular thing she did. That's not what we are voting on here. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
She got fingered basically, the rest of her career isn't notable. Still leaning towards delete. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:PUBLICFIGURE, there are not a multitude of reliable published sources available, as required by this policy, and this discussion has therefore been unable to establish noteworthy, relevant, and well documented incidents as required by this policy. To clarify my comment above, I was trying to explain how she does not appear to be notable per our policies and guidelines, even if she is considered a public figure, and also how she should not be considered a public figure. The WP:LOWPROFILE essay states it is intended as a supplement to WP:BLP1E, and while I see some overlap with the public figure article linked in the text of the WP:PUBLICFIGURE policy (e.g. the Eminence section), it seems clear there is a policy distinction, and a public figure is someone with a much wider scope of social influence than Harrington has ever achieved. The Daily Nebraskan source linked by Deathlibrarian and mentioned in my comment above as based mostly on an interview is a student newspaper, and therefore should not be considered substantial independent biographical coverage per our guidelines. The policies and guidelines of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT all appear to support deletion, and this discussion has failed to identify sufficient independent and reliable secondary sources to support any alternative to deletion. Beccaynr (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Evan Beloff[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO. Ploni (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More specifics, please? Why does the topic not meet BIO? Which results from a Google search indicate notability? Bare assertions of notability hold little weight when weighing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete The SNG for WP:BIO that is most applicable to Evan Beloff is WP:CREATIVE. Per that he fails all four of the criteria. We can then fallback to WP:NBASIC to consider if he is notable per that. There are a number of sources mentioning Evan Beloff, but in almost all of them he is not the focus of the article and it is more of a passing mention where he is noted for being the director of a film and is thus WP:INHERITed notability. Interestingly, it does seem that his movie Just As I Am might be notable enough for its own page, which is why I am advising delete versus redirecting to Kosher Love. snood1205 18:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Tina Ona Paukstelis[edit]

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

An actor which does meet the inclusion criteria of WP:NACTOR as they do not have significant roles multiple notable productions or made any sort of innovative contribution to their industry. I don't see any evidence they meet WP:GNG either. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 19:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:10, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment Re sigcov and Kenosha news articles: this is what WP:GNG has to say about sources: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So having a dozen articles from Kenosha News is not necessarily helpful for determining if GNG is met. Samsmachado (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
  • this is, I think, an over-interpretation of the rules. If one author writes multiple times about someone, it remains one opinion. But it's natural that newspapers write multiple articles about notable people: there is only one Washington Post, and if you do three things in your life that attract the attention of the Washington Post, those three articles all count towards your notability: taken together, they mean you have sustained appearances in the public sphere, and you're not a one-off flash in the pan. The key thing is that the newspaper is independently triggered to write about different events in your life, and that the articles aren't all published in quick succession based on a single event. I assume the Kenosha news is a local newspaper; three references separated by a number of years therefore indicate sustained (but possibly local) notability. But I know nothing about this actress and have no plans to form an opinion. Elemimele (talk) 11:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's some other things I found:
I tried to get a copy of the Femme Fatales article, but it's one of the issues that isn't on the Internet Archive, annoyingly. SilverserenC 21:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment Fails WP:NACTOR. I don't recognise any films or series. They are small films. The coverage is from Kenosha News, is that is her home town newspaper. Where is the other coverage? Where is the national or international converage? Newspaper interviews. Seems to be a bit part actor, and seems to have barely done any acting at all. Its not even in WP:NACTOR. Not notable in the least. scope_creepTalk 09:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahil Abbas

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazanin Bayati Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izzy Canillo Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenna Garcia Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DM Sevilla Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paw Diaz Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogie Escanilla Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Roces Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrawan Ghimire (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Barton (filmmaker)


Proposed deletions[edit]

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

2007-2008

Categories[edit]