Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMENWP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Frances Jones Dandridge

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

Taking to AFD since a PROD was contested. I don't see how WP:ANYBIO is met, and simply having famous relatives isn't by itself enough for somebody to a page per WP:BIOFAMILY. Furthermore, when many citations even mentioning Frances in any capacity are more focused on daughter Martha Washington, that doesn't really help establish who she was beyond this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Bateup

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

Failure to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies AndesExplorer (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Film. AndesExplorer (talk) 19:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Bateup is a notable athlete (three-time Coolangatta Gold champion (2005, 2006, 2008); Australian Ironwoman champion (2001); four-time Australian board champion (2001, 2003, 2005, 2009); winner of the 52km Molokai to Oahu Board Paddle in 2003). Sources that can be used to expand the article: ProQuest 3102191740, ProQuest 3102167148, ProQuest 376515379, ProQuest 1784841999, ProQuest 358897086, ProQuest 354540470, ProQuest 893725800, Tampa Tribune, (about-self content), GC Celebrity Pro-Am, PETA award, Gold Coast Bulletin, Gold Coast Bulletin Women of the Year (2018). Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above and am seeing a few sources in google news. Meets WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: though the refs in the article need upgrading - current refs 1 and 4 aren't working, and aren't in the Internet Archive either, but perhaps someone with access to Aus newspapers can upgrade the refs. Googling finds quite a few sources, she appears notable: Gladiators, celebrity golf, various other stuff. PamD 08:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Gallardo

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

Not notable radio disk jockey. Google search turned out dry (unless LinkedIn counts, and I don't know if it's the same person). Has been on this state since at least 2017. Was WP:PRODded twice (LOL sorry). Howard the Duck (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything about this person, sourcing is very scant. Reads like a resume, nothing needing an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astghik Safaryan

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

The article has only one reference, and that too is not reliable. I tried searching myself but couldn’t find any strong or credible sources. I don’t think this article deserves to stay on Wikipedia. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Women. Mehar R. Khan (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: I bring up some coverage, but they read like celebrity gossip articles. [1] isn't really helpful, this one I think is already used in the article [2], or sounds pretty similar. I don't see enough coverage to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Power

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

No notable independent wrestler. Worked mainly on independent level. Sources are WP:ROUTINE results of events, no in-deep coverage about her. A search shows only more ROUTINE events. [3] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : The Slam Sports article is fine (Canoe was a news source at the time), the Cape Breton article below it is rather local. I'd count those as maybe 1.5 sources. I tried to find more, no sourcing that I can find. With at least one more RS, I'd probably give this a weak keep. Just not enough at this time for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. In addition to the two sources noted above by Oaktree, here is another from the Windsor Star ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep The second source above from the Windsor Star shows notability. Covered in three different media from across Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Rocha

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable independent wrestler. Just worked on independent promotions. No in-deep sources about her, just WP:ROUTINE results of events. . [4] [5] Quick search shows 0 results HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Wrestling, Portugal, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you see the news sources listed in the prior AfD from 2007? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thekla Popov

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

A google search reveals nothing except for period sources from mid-September 1882 and I couldn't find anything in academic sources. Even those 1882 sources were simply a report of her crimes and that she was arrested. The only modern source I could find was this i Paper article, which is a brief mention. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Hungary. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of contemporary reporting, although more work is required. Modern commentary is based on contemporary documents. There may be more detail available if the Hungarian and Austrian orthography can be determined. Note that this is one of the highest claims for serial murder. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Küplüceli Öznur

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax, and I want to thank user Kerim Demirkaynak for bringing this to our attention. I removed the speedy deletion template. While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure. I tried to locate sources, and came across [6]. While not suitable as a reliable source, this gives a lot more information about the subject than the Wikipedia article or any of its translations. That could be part of the hoax, but I believe that it warrants a closer look.

Even if not a hoax, this article should be deleted as it doesn't meet general notability standards. Renerpho (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Women. Renerpho (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In User talk:Erdyuksel#re Küplüceli Öznur from February 2011, a few days after the creation of the English article, user Herostratus mentions a (no longer existing?) Turkish Wikipedia article, which apparently had additional content that Herostratus suggested might be used to expand the English article. I don't think anything ever came of that. Renerpho (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://eksisozluk.com/entry/176399582 Creator of the article confessed what she did there. Kolhisli (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was looking for, thanks Kolhisli! English translation at [7]. Renerpho (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added back the speedy deletion template. This removes all doubts for me. Renerpho (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kerim Demirkaynak write on the article talk page that This article seems to be a hoax. The subject does not exist and was created as a joke or trolling by a university student. No verifiable sources exist. What evidence is there to corroborate those details, that the author created it as a joke and that they were a university student? Did they admit to writing the hoax somewhere? Renerpho (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kolhisli: Any idea what this edit from January 2024 is about? The editor knew that it was a hoax, and they knew details about its inception. That edit was reverted 3 days later. Renerpho (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The information in this edit contradicts the information in the eksisozluk link I posted, since it was admitted that the wikipedia article was created by high school students. However, the same student may have later studied at Boğaziçi University and spread the prank among the students of Boğaziçi University. https://tr.linkedin.com/posts/mkadirtan_k%C3%BCpl%C3%BCceli-%C3%B6znurun-hikayesini-biliyor-musunuz-activity-7328831347366559745-kCqE Kolhisli (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I hate hoaxes. Renerpho (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mean, look. For individual statements of fact, we aim for 99.3% confidence that it's true. That's the best we can humanly do. That is not met by facts of which it can be said "most probably true" let alone "could be true" or "might not be false". So, "While I agree that it is probably a hoax, I'm not absolutely sure" is um well short of the confidence we need to state a fact, let alone keep a whole article. The statement admitting guilt by the hoaxers, above, is pretty damning. It could itself be a hoax, but I doubt it. Finally, the Turks deleted their article in 2017. While that doesn't prove anything, it's not an endorsement for the article existing here if the Turks themselves don't want it. Herostratus (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. I've added back the speedy deletion template. Finding a source from close to the article's inception, with information that was not present in the article, was enough to cast doubts for me. It seems that all of that came from the Turkish article, which was longer than the English one. I've since found an archived version of that here. Renerpho (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kateryna Polunina

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

This article has been marked as requiring additional citations for verification since June 2021 and still only has one PDF draw sheet as a source. The person themselves had a very minor tennis career reaching world 518 in singles and world 510 in doubles at their peak and winning one extremely low level ITF doubles title. As such she fails GNG. On top of that I can find no SIGCOV for her and I would presume if there was any it would have been found and added in the four years since the needs additional citations tag was added to the page. The only thing I could find was a short bio for someone with the same name on a meet the coaches type page at a Chinese tennis academy but that person has a different date of birth to that which is listed on the Wikipedia page. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Women, Tennis, and Ukraine. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the ukranian version of this article is the same one, but in ukranian, so i think that there is not much we can do to make it a better article. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Cherepanova

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Not supported by reliable and significant sources. More than half of the current sources ([8][9][10][11][12][13]) are primary. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Women, and ~~United Arab Emirates~~. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I draftified the page but the author moved it back to mainspace without improvement. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about any connection to the UAE? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant the United States. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oho! Makes more sense. In any case, I don't think she passes WP:GNG, so Delete Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 13:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have a google alert for my name and Mrs. Cherepanova's name - we authored a case together in 2020. The case study received a few awards, including Outstanding New Case Writer - https://www.thecasecentre.org/AwardsComps/winners/year/2020

I know that Vera has a number of other awards and honours but they are industry-specific, e.g. she was named best compliance officer by IBLF / E&Y in 2011 - http://iblfrussia.org/news/detail.php?ID=566

I don't think the article needs to be deleted, but in current form it definitely doesn't reflect Mrs. Cherepanova's achievements and overall impact the made in the EU & US compliance industry.

Needs more work. Normalnot (talk) 09:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jax Fox

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

I don't see how this article meets notability requirements. Aside from them being the first transgender politician (which is now quite common in Tasmania) the article doesn't have much significant information that would warrant being an article on its own. It also heavily relies on primary sources. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might this deletion request have anything to do with the "Distaste for the Greens" you have in your userpage infobox? Lord Beesus (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An editor's personal opinions are not to be considered in deletion discussions. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the article is [14] and [15]. Other secondary sources from the article only have passing mentions. However news searches easily find [16], [17], [18], [19]. Most of the sources I found are behind paywalls. Given that Fox is the subject of the reporting, I'd find it hard to imagine them not containing significant coverage of them. TarnishedPath^talk 10:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Ghitis

AfDs for this article:

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

Recently nominated for deletion by Scientelensia, who's rationale still holds true: "is of no relevance or notability, reads like a CV rather than a Wikipedia page." Currently only primary sources. My searches turned up the same thing as Oaktree's during the prior AfD: "I can only bring up articles or opinion pieces written by this person, nothing about them... I suppose if more book reviews are found, could have a chance at AUTHOR, but I couldn't find any." Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: why was this recreated? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 15:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was closed as a "soft delete" which equates as a "prod", which was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is about a notable political commentator fitting the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. All of the sources are secondary, not primary, sources. Among other things, none of the references are written by the subject of the article. While work can be done to improve the article, deleting it is not the appropriate remedy for any concerns. Coining (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see plenty of secondary sources. HitchensT (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Women with Disabilities National Association (EWDNA)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Of the sources currently in the article: Source 1 is a brief database entry on the organization, not WP:SIGCOV. Source 2 and Source 3 are from partner organizations, not WP:INDY. Source 4 is WP:ORGTRIV coverage; the organization's name is mentioned a few times, but only superficially. Astaire (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Disability, Organizations, and Ethiopia. Astaire (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Aye Moe

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

Bringing this back to AFD 8 years later. WP:NSOCCER has changed and this article fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, Asia, and Myanmar. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Myanmar women's national football team~~. ITYM "Bringing this back to AfD" not "GNG" above. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2025 (UTC) Note: Updating redirect target to List of Myanmar women's international footballers per discussion below. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as Cielquiparle stated. The main reason it was kept in 2017 was due to her national team appearances. However, many women's Burmese footballers don't have articles because they do not meet notability criteria (like her). Notaoffensivename (talk) 01:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - There really isn't any harm in keeping it. It isn't promotional, and does list an award she received. Notability could definitely go either way, but why get rid of it? I'd fall back on WP:NTEMP to keep it, even though it only explicitly applies to WP:GNG. - Ike Lek (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, because of how Burmese names work and how common a name Aye Aye Moe is, it seems really tough to determine whether or not she really does meet WP:GNG. Ike Lek (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers which is imho a better target @Cielquiparle and Notaoffensivename:. Giant Snowman 08:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If consensus is redirect, this is definitely a better target. Ike Lek (talk) 09:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Sounds good. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Myanmar women's international footballers per GiantSnowman. RossEvans19 (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Nicole Crystal George

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Not supported by reliable and significant sources. Obvious UPE. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 05:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Trinidad and Tobago. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 05:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:16, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wow this is PROMO. Nothing found in Gnews, not listed in Gscholar. I don't see this person as a notable academic. There are no book reviews to show AUTHOR notability, the business career is promotional. I don't see any sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear promo Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM: in 2025, everyone knows that Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per all above. Svartner (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makoura Keita

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

Declined prod. Only sources are database or results listings. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Attending the Olympic games a single time, without any notable achievement does not an encyclopedic article make. Considering the only other notable achievement seems to be 39th place in their sport at the 2019 African Games (I use the term notable here in it's loosest possible definition), and nothing since, this seems like a completely irrelevant article. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:03, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quick search shows she was unanimously elected president of Guinea's athlete commission in 2022, almost certainly more significant sources with a deeper search. Kingsif (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded a bit, from youth to post-career, and it seems clear from the already-found SIGCOV (in local sources) that she's considered one of Guinea's best athletes. Kingsif (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per expansion from Kingsif, this subject meets the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kingsif. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 16:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable. I question the amount of WP:BEFORE being done on these mass noms. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GOODFAITH. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is making mass nom after mass nom and again and again there's ones that are proven notable, how long are we to assume that an adequate BEFORE is being performed? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have behavioral concerns about the nominator, there are other places where that could be discussed. Respectfully, I don't think this is the place to discuss that. Let'srun (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even AGF, this was a declined PROD and there's two or three additions to the Delsort/Olympics list every single day. I'm just gonna say that doing BEFORE doesn't require a potential deletion nominator to improve the article with what they find, nor to find more than just enough to suggest GNG is likely. I think that gets forgotten. Kingsif (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Subject with demonstrated notability during this AfD. Svartner (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Giannino

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage (either for her acting career or her ice hockey career) in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Women, Film, Television, and Ice hockey. Joeykai (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: The CWHL fails Wikipedia:NHOCKEY/LA, and her career also fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Combined with the lack of media attention, I regrettably agree that this article should face deletion. That being said, there is something to be said about the inherent notability of someone who has consistently achieved at a high level, even when such achievement doesn't get media attention. Doesn't change my vote, but she is obviously extremely talented, and I dislike the deletion of the article because there isn't sufficient coverage. Unfortunately, we are at the whim of what media decides to cover, and what people decide to care about, and in this case, Women's professional hockey and inline skating is not it. Foxtrot620 (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two of the sources in the article, in Pulse magazine [20] and Telegram & Gazette [21], have sigcov of her. They do include interviews with her, but also have info about her career and her life outside hockey (studying biology and speech language pathology, which could be added to this article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tisdahl

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

Former mayor of a city with a population of ~75k. I don't think that's an inherently notable position, and based on the ROTM news coverage cited, it doesn't seem like Tisdahl rises above any other mayor in terms of notability. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notability of a mayor isn't contingent on the population of the city per se, but on the ability to write and reliably source content about her work: specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. Content and sourcing of that type is present here — although obviously more would be welcome if possible, this is already considerably better than the "So-and-so is a mayor who exists, the end" approach that's much more likely to get a mayor's article deleted. Bearcat (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Augusta Eugenie of Urach

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

Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There is nothing in this article about the article subject except family relationships. See Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. DrKay (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The page already exists in both the French and Italian Wikipedia sites so I don’t see a problem with it being on her, besides it contains more information and actual references unlike the other two. Also there are a lot of articles with far less information that are still up. Angelicvirgin (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are a lot of articles with far less information that are still up Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also, each edition of Wikipedia is independent from the others; see WP:OTHERLANGS. Keivan.f^Talk 16:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Klein Weidman

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

Fairly new article written by an inexperienced editor; fails WP:NBIO; only two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, Television, and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating these pages created by the same editor:

Speedy delete: Joan Klein Weidman, Barbara Allen, Dave Brandt, and Nelson Sears are clear WP:CLOP copyright violations - I am going to tag them with {{db-copyvio}}. There is evidence also of copyright violation on the Jeff Werner article, but it is less clear cut. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC) Comment - I have removed infringing content from Joan Klein Weidman and requested CV revdel. Barbara Allen, Dave Brandt, and Nelson Sears were speedy deleted under {{db-G12}} per The Bushranger below. Dave Brandt and Nelson Sears have subsequently been recreated; I make no comment on their suitability for an article, as my main concern was the copyvios. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Copyright violations are evendent. Nixleovel (Talk • Contribs) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note Joan Klein Weidman has been edited and no longer qualifies for G12. @SunloungerFrog: @Nixleovel:. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mvcg66b3r:
  - Also Jeff Werner (sportscaster) does not appear to be a copyvio per Earwig search (since no specific page for it being copyvio'd from was mentioned). The other three have been G12'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at that, @The Bushranger. [22] still looks pretty clear cut to me. Both the Early life and education and Career sections have a good deal of overlap. But I'll remove the copied text and request cv-revdel. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Werner has some SIGCOV, e.g. this. Didn't find anything on Weidman. Sears is notable, but seems to have been deleted already... BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -@BeanieFan11 - Sears seems definitely notable from the little research I did. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Do you feel like writing his article up? I don't have the time. Joan Klein is also this woman's more famous name from what I can find, not WeidmanKatoKungLee (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dave Brandt (sportscaster) is easily notable. See 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.KatoKungLee (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've corrected the redlink "Barbara Allen (journalist)", in the "also nominating these pages" list at the top, to the intended Barbara M. Allen (journalist). Note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Saylor, more "staff of the same television station" from the same creator but which has been listed separately rather than being added here. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Wing

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

Lacks SIGCOV of her career as an actress; the only significant source seems to be "Casting Might-Have-Beens" book. These ones cover her small business [23], [24], [25]. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and Colorado. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 04:25, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant roles in The Dungeonmaster, Retribution (1987 film) and Strangeland (film), and perhaps also in Return to Halloweentown (see List_of_Halloweentown_characters#Chancellor_Goodwin) and High School Musical (3 films) (see List of High School Musical characters#Parents and adults). Please see WP:NACTOR--Eva UX (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, she should be notable based on NACTOR policy, but I cannot find any coverage of her beyond mentions in credits to make her notable. If there are no coverage, the page cannot be meaningfully expanded into something +/-encyclopedic. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 11:33, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Return to Halloweentown, The Dungeonmaster, Retribution and The Cowboy and the Ballerina (Reviews here, here and here). Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There's some coverage here and here. Not sure if this is enough for GNG though I didn't look for very long. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Valentino

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

Not meeting the notability. WP:TOOSOON - The9Man ^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. - The9Man ^Talk 19:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PROMO, when the lead sentence mentions her talent agency... This [26] is about all I can find. Coverage now in the article is primary, or databases. I don't see that any musical notability has been met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources do not support the notability of this "up and coming" actress; the available online sources do not provide the kind of significant coverage to establish notability. Seems like WP:PROMO. Fails [[WP:NACTOR] and WP:NMUSICIAN. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the subject has won a songwriting contest and participated in local theater, the article relies almost entirely on self-published sources and IMDb. There is no significant independent coverage establishing notability as required by WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Cinelatina (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does read like WP:PROMO, but also per WP:TOOSOON the subject is not ready/notable for an article at this stage. Iljhgtn (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bear-girl of Krupina

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

Very few sources, very likely a hoax. Should be redirected to Feral child. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Newklear007 (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Feral child. The German version seems to have more reliability. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 14:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: historic possible myth, but with sufficient sourcing for notability. Worth having an article to explain that her status. Article sourcing can probably be improved from the German article. PamD 08:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aidonia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Megan

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

The subject of this article is only talked about in terms of her husband and her late son (who is primarily mentioned because of his dad). As notability is not inherited this subject does not have any sources of her own. In my before search I couldn't find anything else. I would be okay with a redirect to Aidonia Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Internet, and Jamaica. Moritoriko (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aidonia. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Adonia: no independent notability, but some of the content re son might be worth adding. PamD 08:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Drinah Nyirenda

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article is based on sparse and trivial references with no clear demonstration of notability. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Africa. THE ONE PEOPLE (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Food and drink, and Animal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the PROF test works against administrators rather than researchers. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Gynnild

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

This is just an awfully self-referential article, created by a WP:SPA, lacking any independent sources, and reading like a resume. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Norway. BD2412 T 01:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. The only sources I can find for this individual are from a university associated with the individual. Nixleovel (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. Shellwood (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I wonder. Gynnild seems to be pretty well-published for an academic and I'd have thought easily meets the WP:NACADEMIC criteria for notability. The article is a right mess and has been edited by two SPAs but if it's notable it needs tidying not deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing some articles published and some work leading that one journal, but I am not finding any biographical information, independent or not, that we can cite the information in this WP:BLP to. There is this which is thin on details. I am on the fence right now. Moritoriko (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essentially unreferenced BLP, too old to draftify. The external link to her faculty profile sources only her present position, and I suppose if we had evidence of WP:PROF notability we could use it to source a one-line sub-stub about her, but although she has some well-cited works there are not enough to make me willing to advocate for that outcome. The other path to notability would be through WP:AUTHOR and through published reviews of her books, which if they existed should also be usable to replace the unsourced biographical material with content about those books. But all I found was a review of one edited volume (doi:10.18261/ISSN.0805-9535-2018-04-07), not enough for notability that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well you may be right. I found a review of another edited volume so we haven't exhausted the sources of notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.38.224.201 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would probably pass academic notability, appears to have edited/contributed to two textbooks under Routledge. [27] and [28] Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Co-editing books with many contributors is not a major accomplishment in an academic's career. And even if Gynnild were the sole author of both books, "these books exist" is not really an argument for noteworthiness, either. At a bare minimum, books have to be reviewed in order to stand out. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that met criteria 4 for academics. Oaktree b (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merely having published books, of which there are thousands every year, isn't by itself an indicator of having "made a significant impact in the area of higher education". Are those books the standard texts for courses taught at many schools? Are they known by their authors' names, the way that every physics graduate student knows that Jackson is Classical Electrodynamics? I don't see any indication that Gynnild's co-edited volumes are remotely near that status. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Further research and the conversation on this page has led me to conclude that there currently are not enough sources to support an article on this topic at this time. Moritoriko (talk) 02:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Lamere

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

Lack of independant notability. Most refs are about Alan Vega. TheLongTone (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Liz Lamere was and is a major creator of music over the past twenty years as well as a key producer of her own work as well as Alan Vega's work. She has been a part of and mentor in a critical movement in music since the mid-1980s. Laurakdcwiki (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And we have no sources that talk about her beyond brief mentions, your statement is not supported by the sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Liz Lamere clearly meets Wikipedia’s notability standards as a musician, producer, and author with significant, sustained coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, including Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Pitchfork, and Magnet Magazine. Her career spans over three decades, during which she co-produced three posthumous Alan Vega albums — It, Mutator, and Insurrection — all covered in major media outlets. Lamere has released two solo albums on In The Red Records and co-authored Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, a professionally published biography featuring a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her work has received independent attention beyond her association with Vega, and the article is supported by 17 citations from high-quality sources. This is clearly more than trivial or incidental notability. Cannery Row (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that all the reliable sources are about Alan Vega?TheLongTone (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify which of the sources are more than trivial, as the only mention her name in passing. You'll need more than these to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough coverage on her own accord to set her apart from Alan Vega connection--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that two of the above opinions are of very new editors and the third, also a new editor, is the page creator. Call me suspicious, but....I'm suspicious,TheLongTone (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheLongTone Why do you say "the third, also a new editor, is the page creator"? The page was created by Cannery Row (talk · contribs), who has been creating and editing music articles since 2010. PamD 08:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, maybe you're assuming that a red-linked editor is always new. No, some just prefer to keep a low profile. PamD 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 4 are interviews with Liz, the rest are about her spouse. None of these are extensive coverage, most only mention her in passing. None of these are helpful. I don't see coverage about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Much of the cited coverage is indeed in the context of Alan Vega, however this reliable source is very clear that Lamere was not simply his spouse, but rather "his frequent collaborator" so provided creative input in her own right. Another example in Pitchfork magazine where the subject clearly has co-recording credit on Mutator. The subject has released two solo albums which have received coverage in independent sources, such as Gale A810819644. Furthermore the book she co-authored has received reliable critical attention, for example [29]. Multiple sources with non-trivial coverage of the subject and her works; enough in my view for a WP:BASIC/WP:MUSICBIO pass. ResonantDis_tortion 08:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of sourcing about her albums and book. An article like this (ref 17 at the moment) is about her and her album, not him, even though he gets a mention in the title ("Liz Lamere Alan Vega's Longtime Collaborator Announces Debut Album"). PamD 08:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment These so-called reliable sources lok pretty niche to me.TheLongTone (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources may be debatable/unassessed; but Record Collector, BrooklynVegan, and Pitchfork (magazine) are all listed reliable at WP:RSMUSIC. And certainly the Library Journal appears to meet RS criteria. ResonantDis_tortion 16:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: — Liz Lamere meets notability criteria based on her own professional achievements. She has released two solo albums on the respected label In The Red Records, both of which received independent press coverage. In 2024, she co-authored a professionally published biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, which received critical attention and a foreword by Bruce Springsteen. Her solo work and authorship have been covered in major media outlets including Rolling Stone, and she was personally interviewed by The New York Times in both 2017 and 2023. This establishes significant independent coverage beyond her association with Alan Vega. Additionally, her three-decade collaboration with Vega — during which she performed most of the electronic instrumentation on his albums, co-wrote songs, co-produced, toured extensively, and managed his career — is itself notable and should not be dismissed simply because many articles focus on Vega. Her creative contributions were integral to their joint work and form part of a documented career spanning more than 30 years. --99.42.1.246 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also strikes me as AI-generated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per Wikipedia guidelines requiring comments to originate with a human. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep: Liz Lamere’s co-authorship of the approximately 400-page hardcover biography, Infinite Dreams: The Life of Alan Vega, constitutes a significant literary achievement that deepens historical understanding of one of underground music’s most influential figures. Professionally published and introduced by Bruce Springsteen, the book offers rare primary insight into Vega’s legacy while highlighting Lamere’s own role as a cultural documentarian and creative peer. Her position as biographer and archivist is distinct from, yet informed by, her decades of musical collaboration with Vega. The book has received critical attention in national outlets, including an interview with The New York Times, reinforcing her notability beyond association. Lamere has also performed on numerous albums throughout the 1990s and released two internationally distributed solo records in 2022 and 2024, available both digitally and on vinyl. These were supported by solo tours in the U.S. and Europe, along with media appearances on radio and podcasts focused on her original work. Lamere’s combined contributions as a musician, author, and public voice underscore her notability, as does her enduring influence as a role model for emerging women artists in music. --2A0D:E487:118F:661A:3939:96C1:D3D6:1590 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentWhy are all these IP editors piling in to defend an article creared by a walled garden editor? I only ask,
TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be AI-generated. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is obviously AI-generated and should not be considered by the closer. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have relisted this per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_June_21#Liz_Lamere_(closed). I have also sem'ed the discussion to avoid further canvassing issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've gone through (what I believe are) all of the sources mentioned and I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject, Liz Lamere. There are plenty of trivial mentions of Lamere and her book and albums, a paragraph or two here and there, but nothing that meets the requirements of GNG, AUTHOR, MUSICBIO, or any other notability guideline. Woodroar (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quoted two applicable notability guidelines above. WP:MUSICBIO requires the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself, and WP:BASIC which states If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Regarding the former, this review is sigcov about a notable album, with a paragraph devoted to Lamere that is evidently not "trivial" - she is clearly inherent to the piece of work. Another example in the NME (another RS) where Lamere is not a mere passing mention, but is inherent to both the album production and release. There are multiple articles in BrooklynVegan (an WP:RSMUSIC source) with a variety of coverage that can be combined per WP:BASIC to form usable "non trivial" coverage. The review of her solo album in Record Collector is also not "trivial" coverage. Coverage does not need to be about the subject directly, it can be about their works. With multiple non-trivial coverage, MUSICBIO therefore appears to be passed, and that's before taking account of the book reviews, and further coverage in unassessed sources such as [30]&[31]. Regarding the latter guideline, WP:BASIC, there appears to be sufficient reliable sourcing to be able to easily write an article on the subject: paragraphs of coverage from many secondary sources does count. ResonantDis_tortion 05:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two or three passing mentions in an album review under someone else's name is the definition of trivial. Many album reviews mention band members, significant contributors, even cover artists, but we rarely consider these passing mentions to be significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 17:36, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions do not count toward notability. For GNG coverage must be directly on the subject, and it does not matter what the coverage says (or how "important" the subject is implied to be) if it is not significant in depth and detail. The Quietus contains a single sentence of secondary coverage shared with her husband (the recounting of the live music gig is primary) N. NME has passing mentions of Lamere, always in the context of Vega or her new collaborator, and with no real info on her specifically N. Brooklyn Vegan is the same, plus some quotes from her (which don't count either) N. Pitchfork has part of one sentence mentioning her N. "Regen Mag" is clearly user-generated/SPS and thus unusable N. Fused is the only source that could potentially be used, but I'm put off by their promotional vibe, the lack of info on editorial policy, and statements on their contact page like Whether you’re an artist with a story to share, a traveller in search of inspiration, or a brand that shares our values, we welcome your message. and We welcome article proposals and creative pitches in the fields of contemporary art, design, creative travel and global cultural experiences. [...] To pitch, send your full idea with supporting links or portfolio samples via email. And anyway, multiple sources are required for GNG.
A very brief blurb on a coauthored biography of Vega is not enough for AUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alan Vega#Life and career where the subject is mentioned several times. Fails GNG and lacks SIGCOV as most of the references are non-independent interviews or primarily about Vega. Frank Anchor 15:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Alan Vega#Life and career upon further review of references. The most credible articles (New York Times) focus on Alan Vega. Have striked out my original vote--Burroughs'10 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ResonantDistortion and PamD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luz Marina Geerman

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

Declined prod. The added source seems like a database listing. Lack of SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. Also does not meet WP:NATH. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Sport of athletics, and South America. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aruba at the 2000 Summer Olympics#Athletics – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 18:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added some info - FWIW, all biographical info currently at the article is related to her appearance at the 2000 Games and should ideally be present at Aruba at the 2000 Summer Olympics regardless of this AfD outcome. I believe more info about her youthful appearance is in the David Wallechinsky book on the 2000 Games, but this isn't available online. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James of UR (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Netherlands and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Wahlgren

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldnt find sources online about this subject hence doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 03:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:08, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent WP:SIGCOV. GoldRomean (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/comment I took the opportunity and edited the page. Used proposed edits and links to at least give it a chance because I believe that people who were notable when articles were not posted on the internet widely or when the digital age wasn't booming, deserves a chance. Also the article is very old so it passed all the screening for years. We can remove some parts though. AppleBoosted (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant coverage on reliable resources. Fails WP:NACTOR. LKBT (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, India, and Delhi. LKBT (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:59, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Her only accomplishment is who she married. Not notable. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Williams

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

Non notable singer. Participating in America's Got Talent is not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Found a little local interest but nothing significant. Asheville singer does something normal type thing. Despite the claim on the page, she was not nominated for that regional Emmy. (not the Mississippi Mass Choir Katrina Williams) duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has plainly not been established. I think it could return to draftspace to allow for more work, but coverage is simply not extensive and has not expanded since appearance on television show. PickleG13 (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:00, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I deprodded this because she has a claim to notability and a fairly strong fan base; see "beloved" and "praised". Bearian (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two gig announcements that contain the same false information as here. She was not nominated for that Regional Emmy. These two sources lack factchecking and just repeat from her promotional bio. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Agent 007 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Willard

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

WP:BLP of a local historian, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for historians. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have or had jobs, and have to be shown to pass certain defined notability criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about their work in media and/or books -- but this is referenced entirely to primary source content self-published by non-media organizations she was directly affiliated with, and shows absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy sourcing at all. (For example, people do not become notable enough for Wikipedia articles by having staff profiles on the websites of their own employers, or contributor directories on the websites of publications that they wrote for — media unaffiliated with her work have to write about and analyze the significance of her work as news to make her notable on that basis.)
As her potential claim of notability is primarily local in nature rather than national, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to the necessary resources than I've got can actually find sufficient RS coverage to get her over the bar, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: She did win awards, including a state-wide award for her work. WP:Author doesn't require national accomplishments. One might make the case that winning an award from the state's primary historical society might be "significant critical attention"? --
Jaireeodell (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say people always have to have nationalized accomplishments to be eligible for an article — I said that because her notability claim is local rather than national in nature, I lack access to the kind of resources necessary to determine whether the article is salvageable with better referencing or not on my own, without bringing it to wider attention. People can get into Wikipedia on primarily local significance — but regardless of whether their notability claim is local or national in scope, people aren't exempted from having to have WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing.
Also, every award that exists does not constitute an automatic notability freebie — a person is not automatically notable just because the article has the word "award" in it, if the article doesn't have GNG-worthy reliable sourcing in it. "Significant critical attention", for the purposes of GNG, is a question of whether she's had news reportage and/or books written about her and her work, not just the fact of having been singled out for just any old award that exists — an award might help if it could be referenced to a newspaper article treating "Shirley Willard wins award" as news, but it doesn't help if you have to depend on content self-published by the organization that gave her the award to source the statement because media coverage about the award doesn't exist. We're not just looking for "has done stuff", we're looking for "has had media coverage and/or books written and published about the stuff she did". Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ミラP@Miraclepine 21:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wonderful woman, no doubt, but I simply cannot find any of her writings that aren't "self-published" - i.e. by the historical society she was working with in some capacity. She did get two awards from the Indiana Historical Society, but I don't think that is going to confirm notability. She is given credit for unearthing the story of this "Trail of Death" but I only find a very few mentions of it by folks not directly associated with the historical society. Lamona (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking for clarification on what you are asking for here- are you asking for the historical veracity of the Potawatomi Trail of Death? If so, there is already a Wikipedia article discussing its history. I am not writing that she was responsible for discovering it, she is just a historian who has taken important steps to preserve its memory in local history. Willard is responsible for the Trail of Courage festival and commemorative caravan, if that's what you meant. Here are some mentions of the Trail of Living Courage Festival and caravan from sources not associated with Willard or the Fulton County Historical Society:

https://www.dar.org/national-society/american-spirit-magazine/beacon-history-shirley-willard (Page dedicated to her on the Daughters of the American Revolution website, already in article)

https://www.southbendtribune.com/story/news/local/2018/09/13/caravan-to-trace-potawatomi-trail-of-death-from-rochester/45724091/ (News article about about Trail of Death commemorative caravan Willard organized)

https://www.in.gov/ibc/legacyprojects/3261.htm (entry on Indiana government website about the festival, already in article)

If these sources are satisfactory, I can start reworking the article around these and replace the Fulton Co. Historical Society ones. DeishaJ (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at these sources, but, no, I'm not asking about the trail of death. This article is about HER so we need sources about HER. Lamona (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources I've found:

https://www.carrollcountycomet.com/articles/historian-recognized-with-statewide-award/ (News article referencing her Lifetime Achievement award. I have contacted the Indiana Historical Society to see if they have any writings or press releases on her that would work as citations).

https://www.rochsent.com/willard-featured-on-publishers-blog/article_1ec925d0-4190-541b-9020-c01655ba74d8.html (Lists her history and achievements with the Fulton Co. Historical Society. Also mentions her Lifetime Achievement award and Golden Hoosier award, mentions her being a torch bearer in the Indiana Bicentennial Torch Relay. I have confirmed her participation, she is listed here under Fulton County. Link to the page of the Indiana government website I found the PDF on.

Additional sources for consideration:

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2016/09/28/chairman-barrett-honored-at-2016-trail-of-courage-festival/

https://www.potawatomi.org/blog/2017/06/27/indiana-declares-indian-day/

I will let others decide if these sources are good enough to work in this article, as they are technically blog posts. I will argue, though, that they are from the official Potawatomi tribe website. These sources mention Willard playing a key role in securing proclamations from Mike Pence and Eric Holcomb in recognition of the Trail of Death and establishing remembrance/heritage days. These might be notable additions to her article, but I am unsure if they would meet proper reference criteria. Is there any way to find good sources for these proclamations:

Mike Pence declaring Sept. 20, 2014 Potawatomi Trail of Death Remembrance Day

Eric Holcomb declaring April 22, 2017 Indiana Indian Day

Thanks!
DeishaJ (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, blog posts are not considered reliable because they are informal and lack a true editorial oversight. The DAR one is pretty good but may not be considered independent because she was a member of DAR and this is a "member profile." Press releases are never considered reliable sources because they are by definition promotional, and thus have a non-neutral point of view. I hope that others will weigh in on the awards. (I advise looking at the documents about those awards - unless you are already familiar with them.) Lamona (talk) 02:42, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois ODP

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

Creator seriously removing speedy deletion tags on article created by themselves, Article generally looks promotional, fails WP:GNG fails to have significant coverage, not properly writings, lacks inline citations. Allblessed (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sports. Allblessed (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This program is not a promotional piece or a non-notable subject. It is a state affiliate of U.S. Youth Soccer and has produced multiple players who went on to compete at the professional and international level—including Olympic medalists like Casey Krueger. The article is being actively revised to remove any non-neutral language and to include coverage from independent and reliable sources.

If you feel parts of the article were too close to promotional or lacked sufficient citations, that’s a fair concern—but it’s something that can be improved through editing rather than deletion. Milicz (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and keep on improving. Nominator is right that the article could be improved, so I have tagged the article accordingly with the issues they have identified (more and better references needed, needs to be revised to be more neutral in tone, likely contains original research). I have also added {{citation needed}} tags throughout, and added a reference and confirmed that there is other significant coverage that could be added (via ProQuest). In any case, the reasons given essentially amount to an argument to delete because cleanup is required, and this is invalid per WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. (Even though the desire for cleanup is appreciated.) Furthermore, there is no mention of any WP:BEFORE search. Strongly advise nominator to gain more experience in reading Wikipedia guidelines and editing in their areas of competence before nominating more articles for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you see [32] there is likely a possible COI, tho I’m still checking, my issue is why the creator keeps removing tags, moving articles back to mainspace, creator lacks experience and temperament. Also can you show me how that article meets WP:SIGCOV? Allblessed (talk) 14:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
your comment that I “lack experience and temperament” falls afoul of Wikipedia’s civility and personal-attack policies. Per WP:CIVIL (“avoid personal attacks”) and WP:AGF (“assume good faith”), we’re encouraged to critique content, not contributors. I’ve been an editor for over 21 years and remain committed to improving this article. If you have concerns about neutrality, sourcing, or structure, please point to specific passages or sources so we can address them together. Milicz (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milicz Point taken. It is kind of you to defend the nominator and to ask for specific feedback. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address tone, and have added citations or removed claims I could not find proper citations for. Added ProQuest citations. Thank you for your suggestions Milicz (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. First of all, it is very clear to me that neither of the tagged criteria for speedy deletion (A7 and G11) apply. A before search, which appears to have not been performed by the nominator, shows there is at least some indication of significance. G11 requires the article to be exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopedia articles (emphasis included in policy). Cleanup is required but not to the point that the article is not salvageable. Much of the content is unsourced and the references there are not great. Most are either not independent or are player profiles with one-line mentions of the subject program. Moving to draftspace will allow any interested user to build the article up to encyclopedic standards before moving it back into mainspace. Frank Anchor 13:14, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:17, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:14, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced, promotional article written by SPA - they've also written similar topic Illinois Youth Soccer Association. Giant Snowman 10:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting that my article must be self-promotional because “someone involved in ODP” wrote it is an ad hominem circumstantial (genetic) fallacy: it rejects the content based solely on an assumed motive or origin rather than evaluating the article’s actual sourcing and neutrality. I have zero involvement in that organization and am still researching it.

For context, this article emerged directly from the research conducted to answer the community question in Chicago: “Is Illinois ODP still worth it? Does it genuinely help with college recruitment?” You’ll see that the article:

Notes ODP’s changing reputation, including that it has lost some of its earlier luster rather than presenting it as the undisputed pinnacle of development programs.

Cites independent coverage—local newspaper articles, US Youth Soccer annual reports, and academic analyses—rather than relying on press releases or self-published claims.

Maintains a neutral tone, focusing on verifiable facts about the program’s history, selection process, and outcomes.

If there are specific passages you feel remain promotional or poorly sourced, I’m happy to rewrite them or add better citations. I’m committed to meeting WP:NEUTRAL and WP:RS standards, so please let me know any additional reliable sources I should include. Milicz (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program. This fails notability for organizations. There is simply not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant an individual article for this org. Citing affiliated clubs is not independent. I mean Reddit is referenced despite our policy on Reddit. Two incidental mentions in the Chicago Tribune and sporadic mentions in the context of high school player plays soccer in regional newspapers does not cut it. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The citation to Reddit was for the "Criticisms and challenges portion" and is not used to support any of the facts or notability. Milicz (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Please read WP:RSREDDIT. You should not be using it as a citation at all.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles about things you like are not necessarily good things. --Mpen320 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who says I like Illinois ODP? Article itself emerged directly from the research conducted to answer the community question in Chicago: “Is Illinois ODP still worth it? Does it genuinely help with college recruitment?” As you can see (if you read it), that's an open question. Milicz (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I am not accusing anyone of anything. I have started linking to that essay in AfDs because there is a subset of editors who think a Wikipedia article is a badge of honor and spend a lot of time trying to keep articles that should not exist. I could just as easily assume you hated ODP and wanted to create an attack page for this organization or that you are just very, very into youth soccer.--Mpen320 (talk) 00:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Striking my earlier !vote. Leaning either draftify or redirect to U.S. Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program; this article absolutely cannot be kept as is. Milicz You can't cite other Wikipedia articles. See WP:CIRCULAR. You need to remove all those citations you've added to other Wikipedia articles (I removed one for you and then stopped) and replace them with other reliable sources (see WP:RS). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia citations are used to support any of the points, they're only used to link to the individuals or orgs, I will remove them and simply use the appropriate tags [[ ]] Milicz (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Milicz...starting to look a bit better. Do you think you could work out a way to explain that Illinois ODP also fields competitive girl's soccer teams in inter-state competitions in the lead paragraph? I think that is not really coming through unless you read further down. (If you only say "program" it sounds like a purely administrative thing which makes people want to delete it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:The Tags on the article are too alarming, check creators contributions, there are high similarities on articles created, now for example the article title is "Illinois ODP" but the first text is "Illinois Girls Olympic Development Program", It seams to have a slight deviation from the article title to be honest. I was to suggest that instead of the creator creating similar pages with different Page names, It would have been wise to just create one or two and provide good source, good writing, formatting skills and make the writing clearer to anyone who comes across the article to understand.

Allblessed (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not uncommon at all for the article title to be short (see WP:CONCISE) versus the first bolded reference to the subject to be long (as examples, see Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush). Please also have a read of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. You are right to want good sources and good writing, but AfD should not be your first port of call in addressing cleanup issues. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the contributions of the user? Did you see the consistency in removing CSD tags and moving drafts back to mainspace? Allblessed (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Allblessed it doesn’t help to challenge my removal of the CSD tags when those tags were added without proper justification. Wikipedia’s guidelines need to be applied consistently—both when adding and removing tags. Rules aren’t one-way streets. Rather than creating disputes, which you have done on my article), it would be more productive to collaborate on refining and improving the article itself. Milicz (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Milicz There is a proper and well outlined procedure for handling allegedly improper CSD tags, and it isn't removing them yourself. When you create an article, you are connected to it more than any other contributor, whether one likes it or not. We know you support the existence of the article, you created it, and it is a conflict of interest to remove these types of tags from something you created, no matter how repetitive or improper they may seem. When you are closely connected to a subject, as it appears you are (whether you're affiliated with them, whether you are working for them, whether you just really like youth soccer in the Land of Lincoln; I don't care, it's not relevant, what is relevant is the level to which you obviously care about this), it is imperative that you operate above reproach, so as to not even give the impression that you may be acting in a biased manner. You are held to a higher standard of behavior because you created the page. You are inherently unable to view any of this completely objectively, and that goes for any author, who creates any page.

Regarding the actions of other editors, it's important to remember that each situation is evaluated independently. While it can be frustrating if you perceive another editor as not following guidelines, their actions don't justify a similar response. Our focus should always be on adhering to the established procedures for every situation. Further, they did not create a dispute, you created a dispute when you removed a CSD tag from a page you created multiple times. (Almost) any repeated editing back and forth as was clearly done here is a violation of Wikipedia:Edit warring. Wikipedia is a community of editors working to help bring knowledge to the world. The task we have is infinite. We are guardians of and contributors to one of the last stanchions of truly free knowledge, the responsibility is awesome, and it must be treated as such. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Foxtrot620 I completely agree with you. Two wrongs don't make a right, but no one was harmed here and you can all still delete the article. Milicz (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @Cielquiparle I went ahead and made your suggested change and I think it works better. Now that I’ve reviewed the title, the article should be split into two sections—one for the girls’ program and one for the boys’. I’ll research the boys’ side before drafting that section. Milicz (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Regardless of any behavior by any editor, this organization simply does not meet the bar of notability or importance. Foxtrot620 (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep Regardless of any behavior by any editor, this organization clearly meets the bar of notability and importance. It'd be great if the delete crowd could backup the lack of notability argument. Do you not like women's soccer? Do you not think it's clear this org developed players that went on to represent the USA? Is the fact that those notable players advertise that they were in this program not an indicator that those individuals thought it was notable that they took part in it? It's referenced in plenty of material, but not the material you want? 20+ citations is not enough but other articles with a "need citations" tag can stick around for decades? I'm having trouble with the merits of the delete crowd. Easy call on this one for me. 4025MG (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment above !vote is by a confirmed sockpuppetry of Milicz and has been blocked. RedPatch (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. RedPatch (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Rathee

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

Her brother Ankur Rathee is notable but Notability is not inherited. The references used in the article are typically WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Mentions, interviews, and unreliable sources. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, United States of America, and California. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fully agree with nominator rationale. Chronos.Zx (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PERNOM. Zuck28 (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She had multiple significant roles in notable productions, including lead roles in Tara vs Bilal,Broken But Beautiful and roles in the main cast of Kapkapiii, and Decoupled, thus clearly meeting the notability requirements for actresses, see WP:NACTRESS.--Artus Sauerfog Dark-Eon (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. She fails WP:GNG. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Go4thProsper, I’ve noticed that you’re frequently participating in active AFDs and voting too quickly. For example, you’ve cast four votes in just three minutes and eight votes within 14 minutes. This seems suspicious because it takes longer to properly evaluate the articles.

Are you familiar with the guidelines for participating in Afds? I want to inform you that if you’re randomly voting on Afds without any evaluation, it’s best to stop.

Zuck28 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I enjoy setting aside time to read the dialogue and the articles under discussion, generally people. Sometimes I also edit those articles to try to improve them. I don’t vote on all of them, but try to weigh in on those that are most egregious or sometimes easy keeps. Once I see a few on which I see value in weighing in, I do. That’s the whole point of the AfD community discussion, no? Go4thProsper (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In your vote, you just said, ”Delete: per nomination. She fails GNG.”

Can you elaborate how you came to the conclusion that she fails GNG? If you carefully check the article, there is enough significant coverage in secondary reliable sources to pass Wp:GNG and by evaluating her filmography, she easily passes wp:NACTOR.

Zuck28 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. I advise new editors not to tell others to go find sources. It looks like you are asking them to do work that you are unwilling to do yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helina Daimary

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. The article is promotional, and the sources are not reliable Cinder painter (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Assam. Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion. Helina Daimary is notable. Covered in reliable sources like TOI, Northeast Today, and News Mill. Please improve article, not delete. Others may fix citations if needed. Thanks. Akash Boro (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The article has potential but is not yet ready for the main space. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 05:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for relisting. I still believe that Helina Daimary meets the notability criteria based on coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. I would appreciate it if editors can help improve citations rather than delete the article. Let's preserve notable voices from underrepresented regions like Northeast India. Akash Boro (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

FC St. Louis

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

Redirect to Women's Premier Soccer League as I am unable to find much of any coverage of this team after searches on Google and Newspapers.com, let alone enough to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Missouri. JTtheOG (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just found a huge article about them on ProQuest, searching for "FC St. Louis" and then "soccer". (Log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library first and link should work.) Don't have time right now but looks like there is more. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 03:37, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Davis

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

Delete or Redirect to Bernie Mac Show. The subject notability guideline #1 for entertainers state "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Subject does not have notable roles plural. Her only non-guest role/non-appearance as self is the Bernie Mac Show. Her portfolio of guest roles is also small. She otherwise on IMDB has three guest roles. I will also note that while IMDB is considered generally unreliable (per Wikipedia:IMDB), the roles mentioned in the article do not show up there. A redirect would be a similar outcome as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmy Clarke who had a similar noted for one thing situation of a filmography of one recurring role as a child over a decade ago and no roles since. Mpen320 (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she appeared in over 100 episodes of a network TV show. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NACTOR she has not appeared in multiple notable films; The Bernie Mac Show from 20 years ago seems to be the only one. GoldRomean (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Contino

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

Doesn’t meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Coverage is tied to a two incidents, not enough for lasting notability—see WP:BLP1E. Sources are mostly local news or advocacy stuff, not deep or independent enough per WP:RS. Her gaming and social media gigs don’t get serious attention in solid outlets. Delete or redirect. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions.

Comment not that I'm moved one way or the other yet, but surely Coverage is tied to a couple incidents (emphasis added; nom changed 'couple' to 'two' after I posted this comment) and WP:BLP1E are contradictory, no? (see WP:BLP2E) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is not notable. 37.96.108.74 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alot of the transphobia against Lily comes from her actions at Disneyland, and complaining to managers about servers doing what they were trained to do. This isnt supporting the transphobia, but alot of the bludgeoning say the same thing -that Lily is not notable whatsoever only notable because of her actions. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:8CDD:2D1C:CAC2:3DE7 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Respectfully — no. That’s exactly the point. WP:BLP1E and WP:BLP2E exist to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a permanent record for individuals only known due to a small number of controversies or viral moments. The subject of this article is not independently notable — the “coverage” amounts to reactionary media commentary about the incidents, not about her as a person in any substantive or sustained way.

We’re not talking about someone with a career, long-term recognition, or encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about fleeting media attention tied to drama. “A couple incidents” is literally the textbook definition of BLP1E, and trying to twist that into a justification for notability is a dangerous precedent.

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It’s not a diary of internet virality. And it sure as hell isn’t here to eternally memorialize people for 15 minutes of controversial fame. If the coverage dies with the event, so should the article. Per policy, this should be deleted.

— End of story. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)#[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Coverage in 2022, 2023 and this in 2025 [33]. Some analysis here [34], so another coverage found in 2025. Not so notable for the various "issues", but being a streamer, of which we have ample confirmation. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the Toronto Sun story was field under "weird". And the study is hardly about her but using it as a speech analysis example. IgelRM (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing, with added WP:CIV considerations. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Toronto Sun article cited (“NO LONGER FEEL SAFE”) is another incident-focused tabloid-style piece. It doesn’t provide in-depth or sustained coverage of Contino’s career. The academic analysis cited (a speech acts paper) is not journalistic coverage and is hosted on ResearchGate, which is user-contributed and generally not considered a reliable secondary source for establishing notability.

There is no significant, independent, and reliable secondary source coverage that discusses the subject in detail beyond viral moments. Lacks the depth required to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV. The rule has a number as its middle name: BLP1E, not BLP2E nor BLP3E. Life is now a series of viral moments, and it might have been always this way. We have never deleted an article, as far as I can recall in the tens of thousands that I've participated in, where a person who was known for two separate events to be deleted, with the exception of political candidates being held to a higher standard, to screen out all but perennial candidates. The consensus might be faulty but hasn't changed yet. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I think this recent AFD on a Moroccan streamer probably had two events and was deleted. IgelRM (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

With respect, that interpretation stretches WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG beyond their intent. This isn’t about counting events — the core issue is quality and depth of coverage, not just quantity.

The Toronto Sun piece is incident-driven, reactive, and tabloid-style — it doesn’t offer any sustained analysis of Contino as a public figure. The ResearchGate article is academic, not independent journalistic coverage, and is hosted on a user-upload platform, not a recognized mainstream publisher. Neither source meets the standard for significant, independent, and reliable secondary coverage as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO.

While “life is now a series of viral moments,” Wikipedia’s inclusion standards haven’t changed: viral ≠ notable. Two viral events with no in-depth profile or sustained coverage don’t override WP:BLP1E — which still applies where coverage is narrowly event-focused and fails to establish enduring notability.

We’re not here to build permanent encyclopedic entries from fleeting internet controversies. If a subject’s only enduring relevance is through misgendering incidents that go viral, that’s precisely the kind of situation WP:BLP1E warns against.

Additionally, viral incidents—even when notable events—do not automatically justify an independent article. Often, these topics are better suited to be covered within broader articles or merged elsewhere, to avoid creating pages based primarily on fleeting internet attention.

Redirect or delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. After reviewing all sources, there is no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Most references are either incident-only (triggering WP:BLP1E), promotional, or do not meet reliability standards. Here's a breakdown:

WeWork.com – Corporate blog; not independent, not reliable, no significant coverage.
PocketGamer.biz – Interview published while subject worked at Ryu Games; borderline source, promotional tone, fails independence.
GameDeveloper.com – Author profile, not coverage about the subject. Not independent or significant.
48 Hills – Local alternative outlet; mildly reliable but not in-depth or sustained coverage. Does not establish notability.
CBS News, The Hill, Advocate, KRON4, Daily Dot, LGBTQ Nation – All focus on one of two viral incidents (either the Cheesecake Factory confrontation or the Crown & Crumpet livestream hoax). These are WP:BLP1E events and do not provide broader notability or career-spanning coverage.

In short, there is no meaningful coverage establishing lasting notability beyond two viral moments. Subject does not meet inclusion criteria under notability guidelines. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article was created by User:Willthacheerleader18, who has created a number of similar articles on internet personalities. A current example is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katelyn MacDonald, which is also under AfD discussion due to concerns related to WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. The pattern of creating biographies based on recent or viral incidents — rather than long-term, significant coverage in reliable sources — raises questions about whether these articles meet inclusion standards. This does not reflect on the subjects themselves, but highlights the need to apply Wikipedia’s notability criteria consistently. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yes, I created the article (and was surprised to find I was not given notice about it's nomination for deletion.. so thank you for mentioning me here!). I have written a number of articles on TikTokers, as a member of the WikiProject TikTok. I created MacDonald's article this year, and Contino's article last year, while participating in LGBTQ+ edit-a-thons created by WikiProject Women in Red. I do not have a strong opinion either way whether or not this article is deleted. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Response: Thank you for clarifying your role and intentions. However, Wikipedia’s inclusion standards must be applied impartially, regardless of how an article was created or the good-faith motivations behind edit-a-thons. Here are the critical points:
  1. 1. Intentions Don’t Override Notability Policy
  Participation in WikiProject TikTok or Women in Red and enthusiasm for representation are commendable, but they cannot bypass WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON. An article’s merit rests entirely on whether independent, reliable sources provide substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject beyond fleeting viral moments.
  1. 2. Coverage Remains Event-Driven and Shallow
  As previously noted, nearly all reliable coverage of Lilly Contino is tied to two similar viral incidents (Cheesecake Factory misgendering, Crown & Crumpet prank). These produce short news briefs or opinion-style blog posts, not long-form journalistic profiles or analytical features that treat Contino as a figure of lasting significance. This pattern fails the “substantial coverage” threshold required by WP:NPERSON and WP:SIGCOV.
  1. 3. BLP1E Applies Squarely
  WP:BLP1E exists to prevent standalone biographies based solely on a small number of events. Even if multiple events occurred, they are of the same nature—viral controversies without broader context or ongoing achievements. Creating multiple similar articles in edit-a-thons magnifies this issue rather than resolving it. The policy warns precisely against this: a subject known only for episodic viral attention does not warrant a permanent entry.
  1. 4. Independence and Reliability of Sources
  Many sources are local or advocacy-leaning, or retell the same incidents across outlets. There is no evidence of independent, investigative coverage of Contino’s career (e.g., video game writing, lasting impact as a critic). Academic papers on speech acts do not count as independent journalistic coverage establishing notability. Promotional interviews and author profiles likewise fail to establish notability under WP:RS.
  1. 5. Precedent and Consistency
  Allowing this article to remain simply because it was created via an edit-a-thon sets a dangerous precedent: any viral figure with minimal coverage could be added en masse during events, swelling Wikipedia with entries lacking true encyclopedic value. Consistency demands that we apply notability criteria uniformly, regardless of how articles originate.
  1. 6. Neutrality and Good Faith
  This response is not an attack on contributors or on efforts to improve representation. It is a strict application of policy: if the topic doesn’t meet the standards, the article should be deleted or redirected. Good faith editing still requires adherence to notability and reliable sourcing.
  Conclusion: Despite the effort and intentions behind its creation, the Lilly Contino article does not satisfy Wikipedia’s notability requirements. The sources reflect fleeting viral incidents rather than sustained, in-depth coverage of lasting impact. Therefore, the article must be deleted (or at most redirected into a broader topic). Momentoftrue (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was entirely unnecessary to type out as I am not arguing for keeping the article. I did not claim that intentions override policy, nor did I suggest any argument against any claims you've made. I created the articles because I believed them to pass WP:GNG. If you feel that is not the case, totally fine by me. As I stated, I am not voting on this. Please save your lecture for someone else. And next time please remember that You should notify the article's creator or other significant contributors by adding a tag or other appropriate text to contributor talk pages. -- Willthacheerleader18

Understood — and to be clear, my reply wasn’t about your vote (or lack thereof), but about clarifying the notability issues tied to article creation patterns that keep recurring at AfD, especially when they lean on borderline WP:GNG interpretations for recent viral figures.

As for the notification, fair point — I’ve since followed up accordingly. But let’s not pretend context doesn’t matter here. When an article’s inclusion is based on passing GNG through incident-driven press, it’s absolutely relevant to examine how those assumptions play out across similar cases.

This isn’t personal — it’s procedural. If the article doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, then discussing the basis for its creation is part of the AfD process, whether someone casts a !vote or not. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nomination discussion for one article, not a discussion about patterns with AfD nominations and rationales. Furthermore, that point could/should have been made in your original nomination, not by berating the article creator who, other than acknowledging that this nomination exists, was not taking part in the nomination discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If pointing out policy violations and systemic patterns that are clearly influencing article creation is “berating,” then maybe the issue isn’t the tone — it’s that the critique hit a nerve.

Let’s be real: this article wasn’t created organically based on strong SIGCOV. It was drafted in the middle of an edit-a-thon with a political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this. That’s not just relevant context; it’s a red flag under WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:POVFORK. When coverage is shallow, event-driven, and duplicated across multiple bios, and those bios are systematically produced during representation-focused drives, then yes — it's absolutely fair to raise this *within* an AfD.

This *is* about one article, but it’s also about how it came to exist — and that’s entirely valid to scrutinize. If the same sourcing pattern (brief viral news, no depth, no sustained independent attention) keeps surfacing, and if those articles are being batch-produced in advocacy-driven sprints, then AfD isn’t the wrong place to raise that. It’s *the exact right place*. Pretending otherwise is a convenient way to deflect from policy, not defend it.

No one’s questioning your good faith or motivations. But let’s stop pretending good intentions immunize content from policy scrutiny. Wikipedia has inclusion standards for a reason, and editorial accountability doesn’t get suspended because the subject is part of a social justice campaign.

You’re welcome to disengage from the discussion, but you don’t get to dictate what parts of the sourcing and editorial history are “appropriate” to analyze. This isn’t a personal attack. It’s a necessary look at a growing pattern that’s diluting the encyclopedia with biographies that do not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, or WP:BLP1E. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:Civility before you continuing engaging with other editors. "political advocacy goal in mind — your own words confirm this", Oh really? Which words of mine confirm that I created this article with a "political advocacy goal" in mind? What "social justice campaign" am I supposedly a part of? Are you claiming that writing about queer people, or women in general, ,must always be from a mindset of political advocacy? Is writing about men then? People of color? You've been notified various times in this discussion by other editors and now I shall remind you again, don't bludgeon the process. And don't make accusations against other editors. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s clear something up right now — no one said that writing about queer people, women, or any marginalized group is inherently political. That’s a mischaracterization, and frankly, a deflection.

What was said — and what I stand by — is that creating multiple articles during themed edit-a-thons focused on identity, without ensuring those subjects meet core notability criteria, creates an appearance (key word: appearance) of prioritizing representation over encyclopedic standards. That’s not an accusation — that’s pattern recognition based on edit history and stated affiliations. If that observation makes you uncomfortable, maybe the focus should be on ensuring the articles can withstand scrutiny, not on painting valid criticism as “uncivil.”

As for “bludgeoning,” let’s stop misusing that word. This is a content discussion, not a vibe check. If several keep !votes repeat the same flawed reasoning — such as mistaking fleeting, incident-driven media coverage for lasting notability — then yes, those points get addressed. That’s not bludgeoning. That’s defending the integrity of Wikipedia’s standards. You don’t get to cry “bludgeon” every time someone challenges your rationale with actual policy.

And if you truly believe raising concerns about how and why biographies are being added — especially when notability is marginal — counts as a personal attack, then you may need to re-read WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:DISPUTE, and WP:OWN. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed I am using Wikipedia for advocacy when I have not. You claimed that I was politically motivated, which I am not. You are calling into question my integrity as an editor, which is not what is in question here in this nomination discussion. I am not deflecting, I am reminding you to behave properly in a deletion discussion, which you have completely disregarded. Need I remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground nor is it about winning. Behave accordingly. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep invoking civility and decorum, yet you’re mischaracterizing legitimate scrutiny of editing patterns and policy compliance as a personal attack — that’s not how AfD works. This is not about your personal integrity, and if you perceive it that way, that’s a problem of framing — not of conduct.

Let’s be precise: I raised concerns tied to article creation patterns during themed edit-a-thons that repeatedly intersect with borderline notability. That’s not a reflection on you as a person; it’s a reflection on editorial outcomes. If pointing out that trend feels accusatory, perhaps it’s because it surfaces a discomfort with what the policies actually require — WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NPERSON — and how they’re being tested here.

Wikipedia isn’t a battleground — but it’s also not a sanctuary for unexamined assumptions. Discussions like these are exactly where hard policy distinctions must be made. Not based on who created the article, but on whether its inclusion dilutes the encyclopedic value we’re all here to preserve.

So let’s not pretend civility is violated when someone demands rigor. No one accused you of “being politically motivated” — I described how repeated contributions centered on identity topics during advocacy-themed edit events can resemble a political project if not checked against policy. That’s a structural critique, not a personal one. If you believe there’s no tension between that pattern and notability, you’re free to argue that — on policy grounds, not moral outrage.

This isn’t about winning. It’s about whether we, as editors, are willing to say that good faith alone doesn’t entitle an article to survive if the subject lacks durable, independent coverage. If that’s uncomfortable, it’s not incivility. It’s the encyclopedia doing what it’s meant to do. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s clear something up right now- you are not behaving civilly. You have made your point a hundred times. Frankly, I'm tired of this spam. Good day. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If calling policy-based critique “spam” is the only way you can disengage from legitimate scrutiny, that says more about the strength of your position than mine. Repeating a point isn’t uncivil — especially when the point remains unaddressed. What is uncivil is trying to shut down a contributor by declaring exhaustion instead of responding with policy.

Let’s be clear: Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first. It’s governed by content policies — WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E — and those remain at the center of this discussion. If you’re “tired” of seeing them cited, perhaps it’s because they’re inconvenient to the outcome you’re hoping for.

Calling this “spam” is rhetorical deflection. This isn’t Reddit. This is a deletion discussion. The process demands rigor — not emotional fatigue, not personal offense, and certainly not a premature exit masked as moral high ground.

You said “good day.” Wikipedia says “see it through.” Momentoftrue (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critique is not spam. Berating every person who offers a different opinion regarding policy or validity of an article (which I did not, mind you) with paragraphs of text reiterating the same information over and over again is, in fact, spam. I never claimed that "Wikipedia is not governed by vibes or by who gets tired first", so why you feel the need to berate me about such matters is beyond me. I am very tired of engaging with you, regardless. What "outcome" am I "hoping for"? I clearly stated multiple times that I have no strong feelings about this discussion. I am fine with the article being kept or deleted. Good grief. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No — what you call “spam” is persistence. What you call “berating” is the repetition of unrefuted facts. What you call “paragraphs” is called argumentation, and it’s the backbone of AfD — not a nuisance to be hand-waved when inconvenient.

You’ve now pivoted from misrepresenting my position to mischaracterizing the very function of this process. Let’s break it down:

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a different opinion. You explicitly said you’re not voting to keep the article. So what you’re objecting to isn’t disagreement — it’s discomfort with scrutiny. You object not because the arguments are wrong, but because they’re relentless. That’s not “spam.” That’s called consistency — and it’s what happens when policy is applied without bending to personal sentiment.

“Reiterating the same information over and over again…”

Yes. Because the same violations are recurring — and they remain unaddressed. Policy doesn’t change because someone grows weary of hearing it. If repetition makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps consider how often editors have had to cite WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTNEWS just to hold the line.

“Critique is not spam…”

Then you should know: policy-backed critique that challenges systemic patterns is the most vital form of critique Wikipedia has. It’s not noise — it’s friction. It’s how we stop this encyclopedia from becoming a reaction blog fueled by viral moments and advocacy-driven creation. This isn’t about you. It’s not about me. It’s about the integrity of the project.

You say “good day.” I say: this is AfD — not a coffee shop. If you don’t like long responses, you’re in the wrong venue. Because Wikipedia, unlike social media, doesn’t reward brevity over substance. And if the truth is long, it will be typed — again and again — until it’s finally read. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. This argument has gone far past the topic of whether to keep or delete Lilly Contino and the entire debate is flooded with walls of text reiterating the same points over and over. The conversation is being bludgeoned to death at this point. Cool off and keep future conversation here civil and concise Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 20:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No.

Enough is when policy has been upheld, not when discomfort reaches a boiling point.

Let’s be perfectly clear: this isn’t “bludgeoning.” This is holding the line when attempts at dilution, derailment, and passive-aggressive tone-shaming try to drown out legitimate critique with cries of exhaustion. If the conversation feels “flooded,” it’s because the policies being ignored are ocean-deep — and defending this project from erosion demands we swim in it.

You say this has gone “far past” the topic. I disagree. It is precisely on topic when the creation of an article represents not an isolated lapse, but part of a broader pattern: one that sidesteps WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E through emotional appeal, surface-level coverage, and the insulation of assumed good intent. That pattern must be interrogated.

Let’s not pretend that length is the enemy here — vagueness is.

Let’s not pretend that repetition is the crime — silence in the face of failed sourcing is.

Conciseness is not a virtue when it’s used to truncate scrutiny.

Civility is not a shield when it’s deployed selectively to protect comfort over policy.

You may call it “bludgeoning” — but I call it the inevitable result of an unwillingness to engage the actual argument.

If a point has to be repeated, it’s because it keeps getting deflected, minimized, or ignored.

So no — I won’t “cool off.” I wasn’t heated. I was focused.

And I will remain focused until every last ounce of this article — and others built on similar quicksand — is measured not by emotion or exhaustion, but by notability, sourcing, and the rules that make Wikipedia what it is.

The temperature of the conversation doesn’t matter.

The strength of the argument does. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critique isn’t spam — you’re right. But when critique is met with defensiveness masquerading as detachment, don’t expect silence in return. You entered this discussion. You participated. Now you want to cry exhaustion when confronted with a full, unblinking analysis of your contributions? That’s not “being tired.” That’s dodging.

You say you haven’t argued for the article.

You say you don’t care what happens.

You say you’re “tired.”

But here you are — again — investing more energy into tone-policing responses than addressing a single actual policy cited.

“Berating every person who offers a different opinion…”

Except you haven’t offered a policy-based “opinion” at all. You’ve offered affect — exhaustion, disengagement, performative neutrality — and expected that to insulate you from pushback. It doesn’t.

“With paragraphs of text…”

That’s called argumentation. If you wanted Twitter threads and emoji reactions, you’re on the wrong site. Wikipedia’s foundation is deliberate, sourced, structured reasoning. The fact that the arguments are long doesn’t make them spam — it makes them thorough. And maybe that’s the problem: this process doesn’t bend to who gets “tired” first.

You’ve now made this about your personal feelings of fatigue, when the core issue is one you still refuse to address: a repeated pattern of creating articles about individuals based solely on viral incidents, with no sustained, significant coverage. That’s not just a content problem — it’s a systemic notability failure.

“What outcome am I hoping for?”

Let’s stop playing coy. The pattern is clear. A string of articles created through the same methodology, relying on borderline sources, timed to advocacy-driven edit-a-thons. Whether you “feel strongly” or not doesn’t change the effect: it dilutes Wikipedia’s standards. That’s not an opinion — that’s policy enforcement.

So no — this isn’t about “good grief.” This is about good policy.

And if citing WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, and WP:SIGCOV with full analysis is now called “berating,” then maybe the real issue is that the arguments aren’t wrong — just uncomfortable.

Wikipedia is not governed by who runs out of patience first.

And if that makes you tired, then step back.

But don’t mistake persistence for hostility — it’s simply what happens when someone refuses to let the rules get buried beneath feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay on topic. As I stated before, I am not voting in this discussion. I merely joined to acknowledge that I saw the discussion was going on, since you neglected to follow the proper protocol by alerting me on my talk page. Since then, I've merely been responding to your accusations towards me, which are not relevant to the discussion at hand. This discussion is for reaching consensus on whether or not the subject is notable. I recuse myself from this, as I have no strong opinion on the matter. Good luck to you all, I hope consensus can be reached with civility. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging the discussion and then claiming detachment doesn’t exempt you from scrutiny — especially when the article under review is your creation and your name has become a recurring presence across multiple similarly situated deletions. You don’t get to step back into neutrality midstream while simultaneously framing every correction of record as a personal “accusation.”

Let’s dissect that mask of recusal a little closer.

You say you’re “not voting.” Noted.

But what you are doing is trying to redirect every policy-based critique of article pattern creation into a conversation about tone, intent, or imagined incivility — as if that shields content from evaluation.

You say you’re “just responding.”

But what you’re doing is engaging in repeated attempts to minimize legitimate scrutiny, frame persistence as “accusatory,” and posture as a neutral party while actively shaping the thread’s atmosphere with passive-aggressive signaling.

Let’s remember:

WP:BEHAVIOR applies to how we create and defend content.

WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTABILITY don’t pause just because the article was created in good faith.

And WP:CONSENSUS is not just about whether editors feel tired — it’s about policy-aligned outcomes.

I don’t fault you for creating the article. I fault the consistent use of surface-level, event-driven sourcing under the veneer of representation — and the refusal to engage when that pattern is critically examined.

So yes, I will stay on topic: the article’s notability, and the broader editorial behavior enabling similar articles to repeatedly slip through cracks. Your “recusal” may work as a rhetorical posture — but policy doesn’t recuse you just because you say “good luck” and bow out with a soft close.

Facts don’t care whether you choose to participate.

The record does. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go back and read through the above text and you will see that not once have I argued or disagreed with you over policy. What I have said is that you've already made your point multiple times. You appear to be trying to pick fights, not reach a resolution. Furthermore, I have not disagreed with you on whether or not the subject is notable. So this entire conversation is not necessary for the end goal of reaching consensus on what to do with the article. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempt to deflect by clinging to the claim that you “never disagreed over policy” is precisely the kind of rhetorical sleight of hand that is the problem. It’s not just about open disagreement — it’s about how one participates, or pretends not to, while subtly shifting the terrain from content to conduct, from substance to tone, and from facts to feelings.

Let’s be clear:

You don’t need to say “I disagree with WP:GNG” to erode its standards. You do it by consistently creating borderline articles based on viral incidents, then distancing yourself when scrutiny arrives — all while trying to control the tone of the conversation and framing any criticism of editorial patterns as “picking fights.”

You say this isn’t about “reaching consensus”?

On the contrary — this is about ensuring that consensus isn’t derailed by surface-level recusal and soft deflections. Repetition isn’t the issue; pattern-recognition is. When the same names, same justifications, and same shallow sourcing return again and again, they require repetition because the problem is repeating itself.

You created the article.

You failed to notify yourself.

You entered the thread under the banner of neutrality.

You responded multiple times, escalating tension and framing detailed critiques as personal attacks — then claimed fatigue to sidestep further engagement.

That isn’t neutral.

That’s performative disengagement wrapped in bureaucratic politeness.

And it actively undermines the AfD process.

This nomination was never just about one article. It’s about patterns that dodge notability thresholds by leaning on thin sourcing, then attempt to gaslight critics into silence under the weight of exhaustion or “civility” when those patterns are called out.

So no — this conversation is necessary.

Because Wikipedia’s editorial integrity depends on calling this out in public, in detail, with diffs, policy, and a record that can’t be handwaved away with “good grief” or a polite exit.

If you don’t want to engage — then don’t.

But don’t act like calling out an entrenched editorial behavior is a sideshow.

This is the main event. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just it. This nomination is just about one article. That's how AfD works. If you are concerned about my editing, this is not the place to call it in to question. This is the space to determine whether or not the article on Lilly Contino should be deleted. Feel free to file a report on me at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard or one of the other noticeboards, if that is what you take issue with. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is dangerously close to casting aspersions and is entirely uncivil behavior. I'm saying this as respectfully as I can as the third person you're now bludgeoning out of this discussion(I'm removing this page from my watchlist after I reply): drop the stick, you've reiterated some of your points more than twenty times(I counted) in this discussion, particularly against people who were not arguing against them. You don't need to(and in fact explicitly shouldn't) argue with every single reply made that you perceive as disagreement. It's not only disruptive but weakens how your arguments are received. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s be perfectly clear:

What’s truly disruptive here is not policy critique — it’s the coordinated deflection from those who repeatedly present borderline articles, then weaponize civility guidelines the moment those patterns are scrutinized.

You say this isn’t the place to “call into question” someone’s editing? That’s flatly incorrect. AfD is precisely the place to examine how and why articles are being created — especially when multiple, nearly identical biographies are submitted under similar conditions and sourcing failures. See WP:DELREASON and WP:NOTABILITY — context and creation matter. If the same editor continues producing marginal articles rooted in fleeting viral incidents, it’s not “casting aspersions” to point that out. It’s enforcing standards.

The irony here is suffocating:

You create an article.

You don’t notify yourself of its nomination — violating AfD protocol.

You enter the discussion not to !vote, but to continuously post, reactively, to every mention — all while insisting you “have no strong opinion.”

Then, when your editing pattern is critiqued in the exact venue where it is relevant, you cry incivility and redirect the conversation to noticeboards?

That isn’t disengagement — that’s manipulation.

And Taffer:

The idea that repetition weakens an argument is laughable in the face of systemic problems. You counted twenty iterations? That should raise alarms — not about me, but about how often these same issues arise, across articles, across editors, across AfD after AfD.

The issue here isn’t tone. It’s accountability.

Wikipedia’s inclusion criteria are not optional. And when patterns emerge that exploit gray areas of notability and then hide behind etiquette, it becomes necessary to repeat, to reinforce, to resist the erasure of hard policy under a flood of soft pushback.

This is not a battleground.

It’s a defense line — against the quiet erosion of standards dressed up as polite disengagement.

If that offends anyone more than seeing notability diluted over and over again, they’re not defending Wikipedia. They’re defending their comfort. Momentoftrue (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A reminder that follower counts and social media popularity do not, on their own, establish notability per WP:NUMBERG. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In this case, while the subject has over 400k followers on TikTok, the sources largely revolve around two incidents and do not reflect the kind of in-depth, career-spanning coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Momentoftrue (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to be clear that I fully support and respect all genders and sexual orientations—trans, gay, lesbian, straight, and everyone else. My position here isn’t biased against anyone’s identity. Personally, one of my favorite trans media stars is Dylan Mulvaney, who I think has made a strong impact. However, after reviewing the coverage, I believe that Lilly Contino, sadly, does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards to have a dedicated article at this time. Momentoftrue (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not seeing this pass WP:NPERSON. If events are notable, an article should be made about those specific events rather than necessarily the people involved in them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst a lot of the articles about her are quite opinionated, together they demonstrate broad coverage and meet WP:NPERSON. Similarly, this coverage is over a number of events, meaning the article meets WP:BLP1E. With respect, it appears that Nom is incorrectly applying BLE1E to individual sources instead of to the subject as a whole. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 14:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing, with added AI-generated walls of text. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

- Rebuttal: This argument completely misrepresents what constitutes notability under WP:NPERSON and misapplies WP:BLP1E in a way that ignores the spirit of both policies.
Let’s rip this open properly:

1. “Broad Coverage” Is a Mirage — It's the Same Story, Copy-Pasted

Multiple articles parroting the same two viral moments (Crown & Crumpet, Cheesecake Factory) isn’t breadth — it’s repetition. Nearly all coverage is just variations of "Internet reacts to viral TikTok." It’s event-based noise, not significant secondary analysis. This is textbook WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOTNEWS territory.

2. NPERSON? Absolutely Not.

WP:NPERSON requires significant (i.e., in-depth), independent, and sustained coverage. There are no long-form profiles. No editorial insights. No coverage of her game dev career. No notable accolades. Just TikTok recaps and callouts. This fails the bar miserably. You could swap in any influencer’s name and the articles wouldn’t change.

3. BLP1E Was Written For Situations Like This

Contino’s notability is entirely derived from two misgendering incidents — and the "multiple events" defense fails because those events are nearly identical in nature and covered the same way. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E warns about: temporary notoriety from viral outrage cycles, not lasting, encyclopedic significance. She is known because of the reaction, not for enduring achievements.

4. This Is a Manufactured Biographical Article

Let’s not pretend this is organic coverage. It was created during an edit-a-thon tied to a political initiative (as admitted by the article’s creator). That’s not a neutral reason for inclusion — that’s a Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY violation waiting to happen. The project goals are noble, but the sources must still pass GNG and SIGCOV, and this one simply doesn’t.

5. This Article's Existence Undermines Wikipedia’s Standards

If we keep this, we send the message that anyone who goes viral twice—regardless of depth, career, or recognition—gets a Wikipedia page. That’s a dangerous precedent, and it floods the project with bios that hinge entirely on fleeting controversy, violating WP:NOT and weakening trust in the platform.
Bottom Line: DELETE.
- Not significant coverage.

- Not broad.

- Not lasting.

- Entirely event-driven.

- Fails WP:GNG, WP:NPERSON, and absolutely meets WP:BLP1E criteria.

Wikipedia is not a mirror for TikTok trends. This subject can be mentioned in coverage of the incidents themselves, but does not merit a standalone article. Delete.

– Momentoftrue (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong enough opinions about keeping or deleting, but I would like to gently draw your attention to WP:BLUDGEON. You've made your point, repeatedly dissecting every keep vote isn't helpful. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 16:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully noted. However, engaging with arguments presented in a deletion discussion is entirely within the bounds of WP:AFDPURPOSE. This is not “bludgeoning,” it’s addressing flawed logic and misapplications of policy. If a “keep” !vote contains reasoning based on a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E or WP:NPERSON, it should be scrutinized. That’s how consensus is built — through critical analysis, not silence Momentoftrue (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should be capable of responding to any new points raised without the WP:WALLOFTEXT mainly restating points that you have already made, several times over, because what you posted above does also seem WP:BLUDGEONy to me too. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The responses are pretty clearly AI generated, which is frowned on. @Momentoftrue, AI tends to be excessively verbose, consider summarizing its points in your own words instead. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that’s a reach. Just because something is thorough, well-formatted, and cites policy accurately doesn’t mean it’s AI-generated — it means it’s serious about deletion. The issue shouldn’t be how points are delivered, but whether they’re grounded in policy — and mine are.

If clarity and consistency are getting mistaken for AI, maybe the bar for deletion arguments needs to be raised — not dismissed.

Let’s focus on the content, not the style. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you — but reiterating policy isn’t WP:BLUDGEON when editors continue misapplying it. This isn’t about “restating” for the sake of it — it’s clarifying misuse of notability guidelines that risk setting a precedent for hosting articles built on temporary outrage and media flares, not long-term significance.

If multiple keep !votes continue to ignore WP:BLP1E by conflating coverage of incidents with coverage of the person, then yes — it deserves correction, every time.

You say don’t post walls? Cool. Then let’s be real clear:

She’s known because of the incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E. This article doesn’t belong.

Clean. Sharp. Policy-backed. No apologies. Momentoftrue (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is you've made your case and we all pretty much understand your interpretation of policy. Something important to remember is that people can reasonably disagree with you on questions of policy, and that doesn't necessarily mean they're misapplying it. Nor, if your right, does it mean its helpful to your case to to keep stating your point of view in response to each keep comment. If their arguments are so obviously fallacious and yours so obviously enlightened, the closer will be able to figure that out.

And because I can't help my self: incidents, not in spite of them. That’s BLP1E No, incidents (emphasis added) would suggest more than one event i.e. not covered by WP:BLP1E. There's no such thing as WP:BLP2E. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 17:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the reminder, but let’s not act like a firm stance is the same thing as being disruptive. I’m not here to hand-hold every Keep vote when many are restating the same vague rationale or ignoring core notability policy. This isn’t about ego — it’s about consistency in applying WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E, which are being stretched to fit a narrative here.

And to your “can’t help myself” moment: no one said WP:BLP2E exists — that’s your strawman. What was actually pointed out is that coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E when those incidents are minor, viral bursts lacking lasting, independent significance. That’s a textbook misunderstanding of what WP:BLP1E protects against — superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance.

I’m not here to bludgeon — I’m here to make sure deletion-worthy articles don’t slip through because folks got too comfortable confusing press coverage with policy-based notability. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
coverage across multiple incidents doesn’t automatically sidestep BLP1E If they are covered for more than one event, as far as I can see based on what is written at WP:BLP1E, then they definitionally do pass WP:BLP1E. Of course, passing BLP1E says absolutely nothing about passing GNG/NOPAGE but it's actually not BLP1E primary job to to protect against [...] superficial fame being confused with encyclopedic relevance. Pehaps you where thinking of WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NOTGOSSIP. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re treating multiple incidents as an automatic override of WP:BLP1E, but that’s not what BLP1E says — nor how it’s historically applied. BLP1E is fundamentally about protecting living subjects from being reduced to a series of isolated or tabloid-level events that do not, individually or collectively, constitute lasting encyclopedic notability. The bar isn’t just more than one event — it’s about the depth, independence, and enduring relevance of those events.

We don’t carve out encyclopedia pages just because a subject had two viral moments. That’s not notability — that’s noise. And that’s exactly what BLP1E safeguards against.

Even if you technically satisfy the “more than one incident” phrasing, if those incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist by nature, then you’re still within the spirit of what BLP1E aims to exclude. That’s why this clause exists: to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a digital scrapbook of controversies.

And yes, while WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP support the same principle, BLP1E goes further — it’s not just about editorial discretion; it’s a living person safeguard. We’re talking about reputation protection, not just notability enforcement.

So to clarify:

BLP1E does not get invalidated simply because two events happened — not when those events are closely tied in theme, source, or moment (i.e., coverage collapsing into a single notability arc).

The presence of multiple news stories doesn’t automatically form a valid GNG case if they stem from echo chambers of non-independent, event-centric reporting.

Applying BLP1E is about the spirit of policy, not just a literal count of media incidents.

Wikipedia is not a viral hall of fame, and not every name trending for a month deserves to be canonized in an encyclopedia. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so when you previously said you were reiterating policy with arguments that were Clean[,] Sharp [and] Policy-backed, while accusing others of continue misapplying it and parroting vague rationale, you weren't referring to the policies as they are actually written but instead the spirit of policy and what you recon it's aims should be. See I was going off what these PaGs actually said, my mistake. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising this point. Wikipedia policy interpretation involves reading the literal text of guidelines and also considering the broader intent and context in which they are applied. Policy pages often give concise criteria, but explanations, examples, and precedents clarify how those criteria work in practice.

For instance, BLP1E warns against standalone biographies based on a few events without deeper coverage. It mentions more than one event, but it must be understood in context: the events need to reflect lasting, independent significance. Treating any count above one as sufficient ignores explanatory guidance and how BLP1E has been applied in deletion discussions.

Literal reading of policy requires awareness of examples and precedents. In practice, multiple brief news items covering essentially the same controversy do not amount to the substantial coverage envisioned by GNG or BLP1E. Saying that coverage across multiple incidents does not automatically sidestep BLP1E reflects established application, not a subjective override.

The key issue is distinguishing between a literal count of events and substantive coverage. If multiple incidents are interconnected, fleeting, or sensationalist, they do not collectively support lasting notability. This interpretation aligns with the policy’s intent to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a scrapbook of controversies rather than an encyclopedia of enduring significance.

Referring to the purpose of policy helps avoid misapplication. Every guideline aims to ensure Wikipedia covers subjects of lasting interest, not ephemeral trends. Understanding that purpose is standard practice: policy interpretation relies on literal text, linked guidance, community consensus, and documented rationale.

AfD discussions exist precisely for detailed scrutiny. Addressing misunderstandings of policy is appropriate to clarify for new editors and the closer. It is not WP:BLUDGEON if each reply corrects a misreading or adds nuance. This ensures that GNG, NPERSON, and BLP1E are applied correctly as measures of substantive, independent, and lasting coverage, not merely a count of mentions. Treating any “more than one” mention as sufficient would undermine policy intent. Therefore, it is necessary to address each misinterpretation to maintain proper application of guidelines.

Momentoftrue (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One would think it's quite difficult to have a misreading of policy when apparently we don't even need to read what the actual words of a policy says, but instead can imagine would they should be. I happen to think would think it would help your case to refer to the PaGs that do actually say the things your trying to say (such as WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, or in fact the rest of WP:BLP, which is about defending people from gossip).

I don't intend to respond any further to this thread, as its clear we have fundamentally different understandings of what a policy based discussion is. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 19:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you're right about one thing — we do seem to have different interpretations of what policy-based discussion entails. But for clarity: I’m not advocating we ignore policy wording. I’m saying we apply it *in context*, as intended, not just literally.

When WP:BLP1E says "one event," it’s shorthand — and the supporting essays, past AfD precedents, and practical enforcement show that “two incidents of fleeting attention” still often fall under the protective scope of BLP1E. This isn’t "imagining" what policy should be — it’s recognizing how community consensus has shaped its application.

Yes, WP:GNG, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and the rest of WP:BLP all matter — and I’ve cited or echoed each of them throughout. But WP:POLICY is not a vending machine. You can’t drop in a citation and expect an automatic Keep. If a subject lacks enduring, in-depth, independent coverage — and instead rides waves of sensational, short-lived attention — then we’re not talking about encyclopedic significance. We’re talking about transient noise.

Policy without practical interpretation is useless. Wikipedia is built on words *and* consensus. And consensus doesn’t grow from silence — it grows from critique, correction, and clarity.

If we disagree on that, then yes — we’re speaking different languages. But one of us is still speaking Wikipedia’s. Momentoftrue (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider stating the points of your argument in the nomination itself, instead of waiting for people to reply and dropping your argument directly below theirs. At this point, you have made more than half of the comments on this page, making it hard to read and resulting in points being restated again and again. There's nothing wrong with editing the nomination to update your argument, and it's much more helpful for people joining the discussion later. See also WP:TLDR. Thank you. // PYRiTEmonark // talk // 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the concern, but let’s not conflate participation with disruption. This is a contentious AfD — not a vote count — and each “Keep” rationale that misrepresents policy warrants a precise, context-aware reply. That’s not WP:BLUDGEON — that’s due diligence. I’m engaging substantively and specifically, not restating or padding. If multiple editors make parallel policy misreadings, it’s entirely valid to address each one in turn.

As for the nomination: AfD is not static. WP:AFDPURPOSE encourages iterative debate, and policy consensus often sharpens in response to how arguments evolve — not in a vacuum. I’ve expanded on the rationale through replies, just like others have clarified theirs across multiple comments. This isn’t TL;DR — it’s transparency.

And let’s be honest: if an article’s survival hinges on misapplied BLP1E logic, misunderstood GNG claims, or event-linked echo-chamber sourcing, it deserves thorough scrutiny — not a polished summary followed by silence.

If clarity is the goal, I’d be happy to consolidate and annotate key points. But I won’t step back from challenging flawed keep rationales when policy is on the line — especially with a living subject. Momentoftrue (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree with @PYRiTEmonark.. this has become very difficult to read and instead of making a clear point you have berated other people in the discussion by making the same points over and over again. I am not sure why you consider this discussion contentious.. I don't see any more "contention" than on any other deletion discussion I've been a part of. Please be sure to read through Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Behavior when nominating an article for deletion, which states: The purpose of the discussion is to achieve consensus upon a course of action. Individuals will express strong opinions and may even "vote". To the extent that voting occurs, the votes are merely a means to gauge the degree of consensus reached so far. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves. Thanks. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s dispense with the performance of concern and get to the truth beneath the etiquette: this is not about tone, or density, or how many times I’ve replied. This is about editorial discomfort with rigorous, policy-grounded scrutiny — the kind that threatens weak “Keep” rationales built on fleeting virality, notability inflation, and uncritical repetition of GNG fallacies.

If policy were being cited accurately, you wouldn’t be reading so many replies from me — but you are, because time and again, I’ve seen arguments that misstate, flatten, or ignore WP:BLP1E, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NPERSON. That’s not a coincidence. That’s a pattern, and if anyone’s tired of seeing it called out, they should be far more tired of seeing it happen.

You quote Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and accuse me of violating its norms. Read deeper:

“Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves.”

That’s exactly what I’ve done — with policy diffs, with case law precedent, with sourcing analysis. I haven’t copy-pasted one comment twenty times. I’ve offered individualized critiques to individual misreadings — and that distinction is everything. Responding to multiple editors is not equivalent to repeating myself.

You say this AfD isn’t “contentious.” No offense, but I’m not interested in how it feels — I’m looking at what’s on the page:

Editors accusing others of political motives.

Subjectivity presented as sourcing analysis.

Claims of neutrality while defending article creation patterns with no regard for long-term significance.

Dog-piling the one person applying BLP1E with surgical clarity.

That’s contentious. That’s politicized. That’s why I won’t default to quietude just to make the page easier to skim.

And let’s talk about “spamming.”

A 500-word wall of vague sentiment is spam.

A thread of 20 replies that each dissect a unique policy error? That’s editorial service.

If clarity is desired, then let’s reframe the situation properly:

I will always respect good-faith disagreement grounded in policy.

I will never stand down when notability criteria are repeatedly diluted through event-driven sourcing and apathy toward living subjects.

And I will not be silenced through weaponized civility, especially by those who invoke “guidelines” only when their position gets challenged too effectively.

You want a cleaner discussion? Then apply policy accurately the first time.

Because until that happens, I will continue speaking — clearly, repeatedly, and unapologetically: Momentoftrue (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "I'm right and your all wrong" over and over, louder and louder is unlikely to win you anybody to your point of view and is a waste of digital ink frankly. While its very nice that you feel so metaphysically WP:CORRECT in your idea, you are actively failing to communicate them to others, which is the point of this discussion. Multiple people have told you your bludgeoning, and failing to Assume good faith and yet your just failing to WP:LISTEN to anybody (even to the tamest criticism). At some point you have to WP:DROPTHESTICK Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s dead this real quick — if holding people accountable to policy feels like “saying I’m right and you’re all wrong,” then maybe that’s because the policy is right… and y’all are just mad it doesn’t fold to groupthink.

This isn’t me shouting louder. This is me refusing to sugarcoat how badly notability is being bent just to keep an article that wouldn’t survive two seconds outside of an echo chamber.

You call it “bludgeoning”? Nah. I call it precision fire. Every single response I dropped was targeted, relevant, and anchored in policy. I’m not here to coddle misinterpretations or vibe with “consensus” built on shaky logic and feelings. This ain’t a support group — it’s Wikipedia, and what’s at stake is a BLP about a living person, not your comfort.

“You’re not listening.”

Bruh, I read every line and countered with receipts. Just because you don’t like the reply doesn’t mean I didn’t listen — it means I didn’t bend.

“You’re just repeating yourself.”

You’re right. Because some folks keep repeating bad takes, so I’ll keep countering them with the same unshakable facts. We don’t let errors slide just because someone’s tired. You don’t get to shout “drop the stick” when I’m still seeing people picking it up and swinging it wrong.

You want “civil”? Be civil with policy. Respect the process enough to argue correctly, not softly.

You want me to stop? Then stop misapplying notability guidelines like they’re fanfiction rules. Until then, I’ll keep pulling up. I don’t play nice with policies that protect real people — I play correct.

This ain’t WP:BITE. It’s WP:BITE BACK — when bad arguments try to outlive good policy.

Now save your digital ink. I brought receipts, not feelings. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your not holding people accountable because this isn't a court of law nor is this the place to raise conduct concerns, that's WP:AN/WP:ANI/etc. And perhaps clicking on WP:LISTEN would show you that I wasn't saying you weren't reading. I don't doubt your reading all of this but you aren't listening to what people are telling you. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep tossing out “WP:LISTEN” like it’s a shield, but here’s the thing: WP:LISTEN doesn’t mean submit. It doesn’t mean I have to nod along when consensus gets cozy with contradiction. It means I engage. And I have — line by line, source by source, argument by argument. I didn’t dodge a single point. I ripped them open, cited policy, and showed my work.

And now you’re shifting goalposts — saying this isn’t a courtroom? Right, it’s not. But don’t twist that to mean there’s no accountability. Wikipedia doesn’t run on vibes and “we’re tired now.” It runs on verifiability, due process, and community standards. If those are being misapplied, calling it out is participation — not misconduct.

“You’re not holding people accountable.”

I’m not dragging people. I’m holding up policy like a mirror — if the reflection’s ugly, that’s not on me.

“This isn’t the place to raise conduct concerns.”

You’re damn right — and I didn’t. What I did was respond when folks tried to paint good-faith critique as “bludgeoning,” which is code for: “stop being loud with facts, you’re making us uncomfortable.” That ain’t a conduct concern — that’s a silencing tactic, and I won’t bite my tongue for anyone’s digital comfort.

If policy is being misread, warped, or ignored, I’m pulling up. And no — I won’t do it gently, because the subject at hand is a real, living person whose notability is being papered over with puff, not substance. This ain’t just about an article — it’s about the bar we set for inclusion, and whether we let it slide when it feels socially convenient.

You don’t gotta like my tone. You don’t have to agree with the heat. But you will respect the foundation it stands on: policy, precedent, and protecting the project.

So unless you’re ready to actually dispute the arguments with clarity and citations, this whole “you’re too intense” angle is just noise — and we don’t do noise. We do facts. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you've already told us how you're the only one that understands policy, can understand logic and the rest of us are just misunderstanding/misreading/misinterpreting PaGs that may or may not actually exist on the policy pages that you link to (or in fact anywhere, they may just be there in spirit). May I recommend some WP:BRIE to pair. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 23:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s cut the sarcasm and dress this down to the bones — because I see the play:

When you can’t counter the policy, you go after the person.

“You think you’re the only one who gets it.”

Nah. What I am doing is standing firm in the face of a dozen shaky takes trying to pass as consensus.

But you’re right about one thing:

I do know the difference between policy applied and policy waved around like a glowstick at a rave.

So miss me with the passive jabs — “PaGs that may or may not actually exist”? C’mon. That’s not wit, that’s deflection. You’re not disproving anything — you’re hoping the crowd laughs loud enough to drown out the receipts I brought to the table.

You wanna recommend WP:BRIE?

Cool. Here’s my edit:

BRIE: Be concise — unless you’re trying to untangle a mess of half-baked arguments dressed up as policy, in which case clarity > brevity every time.

Don’t like the length? Don’t misapply policy.

Don’t like the tone? Don’t mock someone doing the work.

Don’t like the heat? Then step out the kitchen, because I didn’t come here to vibe-check feelings — I came to make sure a BLP doesn’t get waved through on smiles and misunderstanding.

“They may just be there in spirit.”

Nah. They’re there in black and white.

WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E. WP:SIGCOV. WP:RS. WP:NEXIST.

Pick one. Or better yet — read one, without the spin.

This isn’t a TED Talk. It’s a deletion discussion.

And if that means making sure each “Keep” vote gets actual scrutiny instead of a group nod? Then yeah — I’ll be “that editor” every time.

So keep tossing jokes if that helps you cope.

But policy doesn’t laugh — and I don’t blink. Momentoftrue (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (might as well get back on topic here), The topic is covered in multiple reliable sources that cover the subject of the article (i.e. WP:NBIO). These include WP:THEHILL, The Advocate, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391#LGBTQ Nation, WP:CBS, Pocket Gamer. These cover multiple events and seem to pass WP:BLP1E per my reading of the actual policy (not an imagined version only viewable in my head; see above for context). It's week because I do think its close to the edge and lots of it is passing. I actually think (unlike some it seems) it's reasonable to disagree with this reading of the sources. P.S. I'm unlikely to respond to a bludgeoning wall of text under this, so feel free to save it unless you have something new to add. Many thanks, in advance. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. Nah. You tossed a match in a dry forest and now it’s time to deal with the blaze.

You say these sources “cover multiple events”? False. They echo the same viral incident and do it through a limited lens. This isn’t WP:NBIO — it’s WP:1EVENT in disguise, trying to wear a press badge like armor.

The Hill? Syndicated reprint with no original reporting.

The Advocate? Advocacy journalism with a narrow frame and minimal depth.

Pocket Gamer? That’s niche industry commentary, not biographical substance.

CBS? Local affiliate regurgitating the same incident like the rest.

We not cherry-picking logos here. Notability isn’t a sticker collection. You need depth, independent insight, and substantial coverage — not a stack of reactive headlines off one event thread. Per WP:GNG, passing coverage must build a narrative beyond a single flashpoint. This ain’t that.

Now let’s talk BLP1E: This person is only in the news because of one isolated controversy. Not a career, not a body of work, not sustained relevance — just an algorithmic moment. And if we’re really upholding Wikipedia’s values, we don’t preserve pages built on the backs of virality alone, especially when it risks long-term harm to a living subject without lasting notability.

“Might as well get back on topic.”

Then let’s stay on topic, and the topic is not who feels warm fuzzies from visibility, it’s whether this article meets the threshold for inclusion. It doesn’t.

And finally — if you don’t want “a wall of text,” maybe don’t build a wall of shallow logic and expect people not to knock it down. This ain’t bludgeoning — it’s surgical teardown of a weak argument hiding behind fake neutrality.

Don’t confuse verbosity with rigor. I brought both. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s be crystal clear: You don’t get to swing in with a “Weak keep”, cite a bundle of barely-there coverage, then duck behind a polite “I probably won’t respond” and expect your take to go unchecked. No actually, I can and I will, thanks. It's not actually up to you how other people WP:!vote and nobody has to run anything past you for approval. This will be closed in ~6 days by an uninvolved closser (who'll have to wade through this mess). I trust them to separate the wheat-discussion from the chaff-bludgeon. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 22:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me return the favor with equal clarity:

You can say “I can and I will” all you want — but when that “will” is propped up by flimsy sourcing and a disclaimer that you’re too checked out to defend it, don’t be shocked when someone does check it.

This ain’t about who’s allowed to WP:!vote — it’s about whether that vote means anything when it leans on misunderstood policy, shallow sourcing, and a “don’t @ me” energy. If you drop a take into a public, policy-driven discussion, you invited scrutiny. And if your sources don’t hold up? Expect someone to say so. Loudly.

“Nobody has to run anything past you for approval.”

Cool. Nobody said they did.

But if you step into an AfD and toss in weak rationale, don’t act brand new when someone holds it under a microscope. That’s not gatekeeping — that’s quality control, and it’s the backbone of this whole project.

And about that closer?

Yeah, I trust them too — to cut through the feel-good “keep” takes that crumple under GNG or BLP1E. To see the difference between good-faith diligence and what y’all are calling “bludgeoning” just because I’m not folding.

So no — this ain’t about me needing your permission.

It’s about you not getting a pass when your vote comes wrapped in weak policy and a warning label that says “won’t engage further.”

Because guess what?

Wikipedia isn’t a safehouse for bad arguments.

It’s a platform that lives and dies by evidence, policy, and the will to enforce them — no matter how “messy” that gets.

So go ahead.

Drop the “weak keep.”

Mute the thread.

But don’t confuse silence with strength — I’ll still be here, dissecting every claim, line by line, while the real consensus builds around the truth — not convenience. Momentoftrue (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Biography (A&E taskforce) has been notified of this ongoing discussion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Comment some recent sources for Lilly Contino that have not been used in the article but may provide guidance in the deletion discussion include:

For what it's worth, I do not like these sources as many of them are blatantly transphobic in their reporting (regardless of how one feels about Contino and her actions, which are not the focus of this discussion). However, they appear to all be credible sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I thought I would add them here. If someone else wants to add them into the article, please feel free to. If they do not appear reliable, then please disregard.

-- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added these to the article talk page, though the WP:IBTIMES and WP:DISTRACTIFY links were quickly removed, the rest seem reliable enough from a very cursory glance. I lack the interest in incorporating them into the article myself(nor do I have the stomach to read that transphobia, my god), but perhaps another editor will be able to make use of them. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 17:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you for doing that! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEONing. —Fortuna, imperatrix 12:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The sources being offered in this AfD are not reliable. They’re barely sources at all. Every link cited—International Business Times, Distractify, National World, Florida’s Voice, P-Magazine—they’re not independent, in-depth journalistic outlets. They are shallow content farms, tabloids, or politically biased blogs, trafficking in ragebait and recycling the same surface-level controversy. There is no meaningful original reporting, no sustained coverage of a career, no exploration of significance, and no biographical depth. These are not WP:RS-compliant sources. They are digital mirrors reflecting the same viral moment. That’s it.

Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) is crystal clear: significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Not a few throwaway articles echoing Twitter drama. Not reactionary posts exploiting culture war tension. Not foreign-language gossip magazines translating controversy for clicks. Real notability is proven with depth, substance, and multiplicity. This has none of that. What’s being presented is a hollow loop of exposure—not evidence of lasting importance.

This article exists because of a single viral backlash tied to a one-time incident. That is textbook WP:BLP1E territory. Wikipedia does not exist to document every person who went viral once and caused outrage. That’s not biography. That’s spectacle. Encyclopedias do not serve outrage cycles. They record lasting relevance. There is no long-term significance here, no follow-up trajectory, no transformation of public conversation that warrants preservation in an encyclopedia. There’s no book, no movement, no platform beyond short-term TikTok fame. Once the algorithms move on, there’s nothing left.

And let’s be absolutely clear: throwing procedural notices like “this was tagged under WikiProject USA” or “Authors” or “A&E Biography” does not prove notability. That’s just process. It’s internal housekeeping. It doesn’t validate the topic. It doesn’t magically elevate a gossip piece into reliable coverage. Stop treating basic template tagging as if it establishes merit. It doesn’t.

What we are looking at is not a person with an encyclopedic footprint—it’s a page built on the back of virality, controversy, and digital rage. A house of cards held together by screenshots and bad headlines. There’s no framework of notability underneath it. There’s no reason for this article to remain. It doesn’t meet Wikipedia’s minimum threshold for existence.

And on top of all this, let’s not ignore what’s really happening. Most of the coverage is hostile, inflammatory, and borderline or overtly transphobic. Wikipedia’s policies on living people (WP:BLP) and neutrality demand exceptional care, not reckless documentation of online mobs. The subject is not notable. But even if she were, the weight and tone of this coverage would still make inclusion dangerous and unethical. Wikipedia is not a vessel for channeling outrage into permanent record. It must be responsible with how it treats real people’s lives. This article is not responsible. It is not ethical. It is not encyclopedic.

This is deletion beyond reasonable doubt. Every standard—GNG, BLP1E, RS, NOTNEWS, NPOV, TOOSOON—is being violated. This is not a close call. It is not a gray area. This page should be gone, fully, cleanly, and without delay. No redirect. No merge. Just delete. Momentoftrue (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, Momentoftrue. It's clear that you have misunderstood what the notices "WikiProject USA”, “Authors”, and “A&E Biography” are for. Especially as you directed this, again, at me, when I have made no argument for keeping this article. I don't care if it gets deleted, but I do care about clear discussion and consensus being reached. These discussion inclusions are not to establish notability nor validity. They are notices showing that this deletion conversation has been added to their topics pages because those topics are relevant to the deletion subject. It's simply to encourage more people to engage in the conversation (whether for or against deletion). Contino is American, hence this discussion being included in the List of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Contino is a video game writer, hence being included in the List of Authors-related deletion discussions. Continio is a content creator/social media personality, hence the notfication to WikiProject Biography A&E Taskforce. None of this is done as a way to try and "prove notability" nor is it done as a way to "validate the topic". As you can see, earlier on this discussion was also included in internet-related deletion discussions and biography-related deletion discussions, as both are also applicable. Hope this helps clear up any confusion you have on how deletion discussions work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that these WikiProject tags are “just notifications” as if that somehow matters. The problem isn’t that anyone thinks they prove notability — the problem is they’re being dropped in bulk to pad this AfD with a false sense of legitimacy. It’s distraction, plain and simple. Tagging a bunch of projects does nothing to change the fact that this article has zero significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources per WP:GNG.

Contino being American, a writer, or an influencer means absolutely nothing without notable coverage to back it up. This is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E: a one-time controversy endlessly recycled through tabloid sources, not lasting significance. No deep reporting. No career overview. No impact documented by reliable outlets. That’s the actual issue here — not how AfD banners are used.

So instead of doubling down on procedural noise, let’s keep the focus on what matters: this article doesn’t meet the notability bar and needs to be deleted.

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you don't understand what inclusion in deletion discussions is for. Please re-read what I stated above. I am not arguing notability, nor have I, nor will I. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then why bring it up at all? If you’re not arguing for notability, stop padding the thread with procedural noise. This isn’t about understanding what inclusion in deletion discussions technically means — it’s about why you’re using it in a way that distracts from the real question: Does this subject meet WP:GNG?

Spoiler: It doesn’t. No significant, independent, in-depth coverage. Just a viral moment regurgitated by tabloids and low-tier blogs. WikiProject notices don’t change that. They don’t strengthen the article. They don’t rebut deletion. So if you’re not using them to argue for keeping, then they’re irrelevant to this discussion. Full stop

Momentoftrue (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already stated above why deletion discussions are included in sorting lists. You didn't seem to have an issue earlier when User:Wcquidditch added this discussion into the sorting lists for Women, Journalism, Video games, Sexuality and gender, California, and Minnesota.. so why are you having this reaction now with me? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that sorting lists are standard practice. But let’s be very clear: inclusion in these lists is meaningless when it comes to establishing notability. It doesn’t matter if this was added to Women, Journalism, Video games, or the Galactic Senate — that has zero bearing on whether the subject meets WP:GNG. These are organizational tools for participation, not arguments for inclusion. No one’s “having a reaction” to you — the reaction is to a pattern of editors propping up a fundamentally hollow article with procedural fluff.

What actually matters — and what continues to be completely absent — is significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not gossip sites. Not recycled outrage. Not tabloid blurbs about one viral controversy. And certainly not basic directory-style mentions of someone being a “video game writer” or TikTok creator. There is no serious journalistic engagement with this person’s career, impact, or body of work. Just a one-time firestorm that faded as fast as it came — textbook WP:BLP1E.

This page is not encyclopedic. It is event amplification, plain and simple. No amount of name-dropping project tags will change that. So let’s cut through the procedural noise and get back to the core of AfD: Does this article satisfy the standards of notability and verifiability? It does not. And until someone produces actual WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources, all the sorting lists in the world won’t fix that.

Momentoftrue (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Willthacheerleader18, I hope this reads as well intentioned as its meant to be, but I'd encourage you to drop the stick as well. Momentoftrue's bludgeoning is obviously unacceptable, but the continued back and forth is fanning the flames. The closing admin will handle what's happening here appropriately, I recommend disengaging. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 06:57, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that but they continue to spam regardless. I will no longer participate in this discussion. I hope someone deals with this. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 07:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment (strongly felt) I'm not surprised, Willthacheerleader18. This is a ridiculous AfD and I'm ashamed to be involved. Arguments are not measured by how many kilobytes you use to repeat the same argument over and over again. I've not read all of it. I would be surprised if anyone has. It seems that the thrust is that editors should not be repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea or an aim for good work...... and to convince anyone who cares to read it ... someone is repeatedly creating needless content based on a single idea!! Talking of "textbook WP:BLP1E territory" ... this is ONE article and ONE AfD. If an article was written in this way then it would be instantly deleted. My advice is to stop typing... no one is listening... and you undermining your argument by restating it over and over again. I could repeat this message below in umpteen different ways, but it would undermine this message. Pleased read and heed this short message. Victuallers (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victuallers: Thank you. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b, Bearian and the sources identified by Taffer. —Fortuna, imperatrix 13:21, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for hatting parts of this discussion, Fortuna imperatrix mundi. I read a lot of it but it was extremely repetitive, both the phrasing ("clear" ["Let’s clear something up", "let's be clear"] was used 28 times) and the policy arguments. Textbook bludgeoning. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as right now, it looks like a probable No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the current sources being used for the article, this subject has mostly been covered by dubious/unreputable sources. If this subject can only exist in the context of one or two incidents and any other editions are bound to be unhelpful, it may be worth deleting the article. I doubt Lilly Contino will ever be notable outside of niche internet discussions.

Rylee Amelia (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Contino seems likely to end up in the news again in the future for other events, but the reporting on her does seem overall dubious. I'm not sure if it's necessarily useful to keep an article on a subject whose notability seems to hinge on "rage baiting" since reporting on that is likely to remain questionably notable/reliable at best, but I'd love to be proven wrong on those fronts. Taffer 😊💬_(she/they) 02:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. While there is enough coverage, it does not come from quality sources. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Has relevance as an anti-trans activist as many others in the internet, but is not scope for encyclopedic content. Svartner (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP1E. Tiktoker and video game writer. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayshree Misra Tripathi

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

This article does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR the specific notability guidelines and the sources cited in this article are not considered as WP:SIG. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 18:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Odisha. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have added reviews of her work, though the 2025 book is an edited book so it accounts less towards notability. I also revised the page and removed citations that were non-notable mentions of Tripathi. DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom there is nothing to demonstarte subject's notability. Fails WP:GNG. CresiaBilli (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for keep is that she meets WP:AUTHOR, not WP:GNG. Any thoughts on that? DaffodilOcean (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

Nominator is currently blocked as a sockpuppet. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagamani Srinath

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Winning an award does not grant inherent notability. Sources are mainly WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, Music, and Indiana. CNMall41 (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - per nom. SachinSwami (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nomination Destinyokhiria (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award is really "the highest Indian recognition given to people in the field of performing arts.", then this loks like notability. PamD 15:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that she has an article in Telugu Wikipedia - I have merged her two records in Wikidata, so it now shows as a link from the en.wiki article. PamD 15:41, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Wikidata merge. I understand your contention but do not believe notability is inherent for simply winning an award. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 OK, looking at WP:MUSICBIO, criteria 7 and 8 appear to be met, unless you consider that 8 only applies to western popular music. PamD 19:51, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think something on the level the award is being claimed to be would fall under that criteria so Western/India would have no bearing. What I am saying is that even with an award, we still need significant coverage. Just winning an award does not guarantee notability. It even specifically says "may" be notable under that criteria. The sources we have are pour such as this (presented in the comment below) which is clearly unreliable as WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- In addition to the Sangeet Natak Akademi Award, Nagamani Srinath was also honored with the Rajyotsava Award in 1998, the second-highest civilian honor conferred by the Karnataka Government[35]. Furthermore, according to an article published in The New Indian Express on June 22, 2015, she was awarded the Sangita Kala Acharya Award by the Madras Music Academy, Chennai, for her outstanding contributions to the field of Carnatic music[36].-SachinSwami (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source she has won some other notable awards such as Karnataka Kalashree. Also she has significant coverage in The Hindu and Deccan Herald.Afstromen (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Afstromen, all the sources I included don’t fully support the claim; they are all weak. Mentioning an award alone isn’t enough; you need sources that clearly reference Nagamani Srinath’s work, like a review. For example, in Akaal: The Unconquered, when I checked, all the sources you added were weak. Later, I searched and added 5 reviews in the Reception section, which are sufficient to fully support the film and pass WP:GNG. Though the rules for films and individuals differ, reviews clearly referencing the work are sufficient for support. (I have no intention of misleading editors, so I apologize.) SachinSwami (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Afstromen: you duplicated one of the sources which could indicate you did not look closely enough at them to see they are mainly routine announcements. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41 Are you talking about The Hindu article or both?Afstromen (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You listed the DH twice in your comment. Both the DH and The Hindu are her giving the information by the way. Interviews and all content provided by her so not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh No, I listed the source initially to point the awards. It was not my intention to list it twice or to give the impression that the sources were different. Afstromen (talk) 17:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that now. Thanks for the explanation. I still maintain that neither of those are independent. I would also think if she won the "highest award" as claimed, there would be more than just NEWSORGINDIA and a few interview type references. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 04:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Endorse PamD above; subject meets WP:MUSICBIO#7-8; also this bio suggests that #11 (and to some extent #12) can also be met. There's more biographical information about the subject in (Rajagopalan 1990, pp. 171) though with limited online preview. Also, the use of "may" in MUSICBIO, to my understanding, means that the fulfilled criteria should be verifiable in reliable independent sources, and not that a significant coverage is required in addition. WeWake (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you address the rebuttal as well? There is no such thing as inherent notability. The "may" is there because it indicates the subject is likely notable, not that they "are" notable. Otherwise, why include may when it can be replaced with something more definite. Note WP:BASIC ("presumed notable" but not "are notable"), which also covers "one event" which may apply as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, For a decades long career that's been recognized with several notable awards is not a case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion–the award makes it easier to obtain some news coverage but is not the only basis of notability here. For niche-musicians, traditional coverage might be hard to come by (as is the case here, though I found one tertiary source above). Nevertheless, my two cents is that the subject is "worthy of notice" or "note" through a verifiable statements capturing several subject-specific understanding (of the community) of notability, and should be kept with {{Sources exist}} if existing are insufficient for a BLP. The SNGs allow us to contextualize the requirements of WP:BASIC and avoid a renewed reinterpretation with every article. The use of 'may' in that language broadly captures that these policies are consensus driven and evolve, and thus it cannot (possibly ever) prescribe a definitive criteria of notability. — WeWake (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Worthy of notice would have more than just mentions or unreliable sourcing. I would agree a sources exist tag could be used, but that is assuming sources exist. They do not. All we have is what has been presented which falls short. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Including a source analysis table for reference as well (link here):

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Sangeet Natak Akademi Award	govt. body	official bio	India's highest honor for arts	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Autobiography Feature		per RSPLIST	In-depth article on her book	✔ Yes
The Hindu: Festival Concludes		per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
The Hindu: Disciples' Showcase		Per RSPLIST	passing	✘ No
News18: Concert Review	concert review	~ minus points lack of byline	performance review	~ Partial
Deccan Herald: Musicians Rue Lack			passing	✘ No
Deccan Herald: Feature	Independent feature		in-depth article on her career	✔ Yes
Deccan Chronicle: Different Artist			passing (award notification)	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

— WeWake (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1) first source you say passes the test is this. It is not independent as it is simply taken from her bio and can be seen in this press release, this bio, and this YouTube video description. It is not something that was independently verified. Simply a reprinted bio. 2) Not sure how much indepdnent journalism was invovled in this one based on this. But, let's assume it passes. That gives us one piece of significant coverage. 3) The third is not and "independent feature" or "in-depth article on her career." Unless the link provided is wrong, it is clearly an interview with the subject providing the content. Far from independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 – thanks for taking a look. Few comments: (1) The press release and linked PDF are the same (because they were published by the same source, the award committee). For the shaale.com bio, it's hard to say if they simply didn't copy the bio from the award publication. There's no wayback archive so I can't go back and check and would lean towards trusting the bio from the notable award committee (between the two). The video link seems wrong? It doesn't have anything about Nagamini. (2) The PDF you've linked is something that tons of coaching/preparatory academies or predatory colleges in India compile for students to study for exams that test them on general knowledge. I can say with some confidence that The Hindu article wouldn't borrow from that. (3) source is an interview, but it is a mix of primary (interview) and secondary source in my opinion. For example, the first two paragraphs in this case contain non-trivial coverage that's not coming from the interview/subject per-se. Also, not to mention the book citation from my comment. Cheers! — WeWake (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Jefferson

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

No sources. Only external link is IMDb. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. User:Tankishguy talk :) say hi 21:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be worth noting that the article title probably should be Stacey Gregg (the page with that name has been deleted a few times previously). Don't think she was ever known as Stacy (without the e). She was also known for roles in the US as Stacey Maxwell, eg in The Virginian, The Monkees and Batman. In the UK she's known for roles in Crossroads https://www.newspapers.com/image/893742133 and playing Sandy in Grease alongside Richard Gere eg https://www.newspapers.com/image/840906998 There's a few more hits at https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22Stacey+Gregg%22++&region=gb-eng worth checking the British Newspaper Archive as well, see also this two-page articles from the TV Times in 1971 (page 8-9) https://mcmweb.co.uk/tvtimes/1971/Nov%206th%201971.pdf Piecesofuk (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Stacey Gregg she meets WP:NACTOR. She has also been credited as Stacey Jefferson and Stacey Richardson. As well as voicing the roles mentioned in the current article, she played Daffy in all episodes of Tottering Towers and Nurse Baxter in 23 episodes of Crossroads from 1977-1978. On stage, she played Sandy opposite Richard Gere in the British premiere of Grease (musical), first in Coventry and then on the West End. As well as the coverage found by Piecesofuk, there is coverage and information about more roles in the British Newspaper Archive. I'll add more info and sources to the article. There appears to be another Stacey Gregg, probably also notable, who is director of Here Before and co-creator/director of other shows. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 05:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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

Deletion review