Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for actor AfDs

Scan for filmmaker AfDs

Actors and filmmakers

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arthi Venkatesh

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

Case of WP:TOOSOON. Please discuss. Jean Stair (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the CSD should not have been declined by a non-admin. David.moreno72 08:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jean Stair (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Monson

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

No apparent notability outside of YouTube. Appeared in only two independent films, both of whom were YouTube-related. Sources solely include YouTube and IMDb. Fails WP:ENT for the most part. Throast (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable YouTube performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable YouTube "celebrity". Gee, I can sleep at night now knowing that Wendy's won't respond to his tweets. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. not notable. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saniyya Sidney

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

Non-notable actress. No significant coverage in news or media. No significant contributions to note. HesioneHushabye (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Satisfies WP:NACTOR. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 13:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment: You are citing WP:NACTOR, which she does not satisfy. No large fan base, no significant roles, no unique contributions. Not notable for inclusion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets NACTOR #1 & #3 as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was keep. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Reclosing as No Consensus, per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Jordana

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

The AFD in February began with a majority for delete, but was closed as redirect to List of The Howard Stern Show staff. Since then, she's had a minor role in Sharknado: The 4th Awakens, and last month another editor re-created over the redirect. Now for my money, one Sharknado does not a summer make, and the newly-recreated article reads like a straight paste from a press release for her. Still, reverting to the redirect without a discussion doesn't quite seem to be in the spirit of the relevant policies, so I've taken it back to AFD. Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO outside of her association with one band; not notable per WP:NACTOR; has written some blogs, but the WaPo reference only mentions her in passing, so not notable per WP:AUTHOR. Her sole claim to fame seems to be her previous work on the Howard Stern show, for which she hasn't received much coverage in WP:RS outside of the shout-out on Jimmy Kimmel. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie role and the improved sourcing put this article over the edge of the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The sourcing is not very convincing, as many sources do not comply to WP:RS. The acting job is uncredited and only mentioned under "Rest of cast listed alphabetically". The Banner talk 18:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete for sure. Not only is the sourcing not convincing, but a lot of it isn't even sourced. The source for her attending the Connecticut School of Broadcasting doesn't even mention her.TBMNY (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has a lot of detractors who don't like her but she was apart of a very popular band, a regular guest and writer for the most famous Radio Show in history, had a movie role, written for many popular websites, and is verified on Twitter. More than enough to warrant a Wikipedia Page IMO. LeafK1 (talk) 1:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

LeafK1, judging by your edit history, your opinion is incredibly bias. It honestly seems like the people who are editing this page are either Elisa Jordana herself, or people who knows her. It all looks super suspect.TBMNY (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, without prejudice to relisting in the future if her career does not progress further. All of her achievements alone would not qualify her; Being a member of Cobra Starship doesn't qualify her for her own article (see Matty Healy from The 1975, for example, who was deleted despite being relatively high-profile), nor does the minor acting role or the radio appearances. When combined, though, I think she just sneaks in as an admittedly Z-list public figure, and as such we should have an article. KaisaL (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There appears to be no agreement on whether her awards can be considered "well-known and significant." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alektra Blue

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards; awards are fan-based or scene/group-related. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. Appearance in the mainstream outlets are trivial.

AfD in 2007 closed as "keep" based on the awards but the consensus around adult biographies has evolved significantly since then, along with PORNBIO, so it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note: I have recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject here has won "a well-known and significant industry award", namely the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award (which is basically comparable to the People's Choice Awards) "Favorite Female Rookie", which is also similar to other well-known, major adult film award categories like the AVN Award for Best New Starlet & XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. The fact that the award winners tied that year is pretty much meaningless, and there is no restriction against "fan-based" awards under our inclusions guidelines. Guy1890 (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. WP:PORNBIO, especially term of "a well-known and significant industry award" are debatable, nominator - K.e.coffman and his "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! No, this is not a joke. Very destructive and controversial behavior. As for the second case: it does not matter whether a chosen people or "professors" (jury), there are many world-class awards in many industries where the winner chosen people. This is another attempt overstatement requirements by "deletionism pornography gang" with K.e.coffman and User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 15:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. The supposed "significance" of these short-lived awards is based only on an unatrributed quote sourced to the award's own promotional website, which should be given absolutely no weight. It certainly comes nowhere near outweighing the absence of substantial reliable secondary source coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Guy1890 has done a satisfactory job and the article now conforms to Wiki standards. Holanthony (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The F.A.M.E. Award may provide a narrow technical pass of WP:PORNBIO, but the sources in the article come nowhere near WP:GNG's requirements. Only one citation (a fairly routine XBIZ article) remotely qualifies as reliable, independent and non-trivial. The rest are republished press releases or unreliable sites like XRentDVD. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not a content guideline. Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets of PORNBIO + some other smaller achievements + fame (well known, 34 interwiki speaks for itself). Generally, 101% notable. For me, this AfD is trolling by user:K.e.coffman, he inserts to AFD more and more notable pornstars. I suggest a little break in the topic of pornography for K.e.coffman because he lacks neutrality. WP:PORNBIO is not the only argument that you need to consider, also in this case, status of F.A.M.E. Award – Favorite Female (in WP:PORNBIO) is still disputed, where is neutrality? Voices to removed continuously from the same users, i.e. user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz or user:Johnpacklambert (with still the same silly-empty text of "non-notable pornographic performer") are boring and destructive. I understand, to do the cleanup in pornography category (delete pornstars without any achievements), but this is an exaggeration. Compact group which constantly vote for removed, still the same users responsible for the mass removed pornography articles (blindly based on WP:PORNBIO like robot), often they are trying to misuse the official consensus of WP:PORNBIO (for example: AVN Award is the most exclusive award in the industry but for these few users, not all awards of AVN Award are important). More and more we are approaching the final: topic ban for these few users, who massively intercede pornography articles for AFD and massively voting for delete. This "gang" of these few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, what see on each votes (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). I and few other (inclusionist) users like @Rebecca1990: or @Erpert:, we gave up - a constant battle with the same gang. Time to end it. PS. I apologize for my voice during the Christmas season - then again, I forgot... Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 12:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more time: Interwiki links have no bearing on notability. Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines and some include articles because they exist in en.Wikipedia. AfD is not a battleground and this is not about winning or losing. I've kept away from voting in these borderline PORNBIOs with low-quality sourcing debates, but your call for a topic ban is ridiculous. Editors like HW take a hard line about reliable sources. The best response is to provide quality sources that cover the subject in a non-trivial manner, not to call the editors deletionists. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the amount of interwiki is not a sufficient argument to keep and I know that "Wikis in other languages have their own notability guidelines" but if article existed on 35 Wikis, and gang of (still the same) few users on English Wikipedia want to remove article based on disputed interpretation of WP:PORNBIO, something is wrong. Alektra Blue is well known pornstar and have 406 films, 11 years in industry, she was the Penthouse Pet of the Month, she has also been featured in several men's magazines, including world-known Hustler (I know, none of them individually are not arguments for keep, but to analyze a person can be taken into account). She won several awards including (individual as requires WP:PORNBIO) notable F.A.M.E. Award and the so-called pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards, the most renowned prize in the pornographic industry. Otherwise, Blue appeared in the music video for the 2010 single "Telephone" by Lady Gaga featuring Beyoncé (+ independent - non pornagraphic sources, meets of WP:GNG). Alektra Blue meets the basic guidelines of WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG and has additional achievements, even Wikipedia:Common sense speaks for leave. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 14:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate "dispute" over the application or interpretation of PORNBIO, at least in the direction Subtropical-man claims. The most recent RFC on PORNBIO "demonstrated overwhelming consensus" for making the guideline more restrictive. If there was any substantial dispute, it was over whether the guideline was not restrictive enough. Repeated deletion discussions and DRVs have also demonstrated strong consensus for the point that, as with every other SNG, failure to satisfy GNG/BLP sourcing requirements generally outweighs a technical SNG pass. Subtropical-man's argument that editors who consistently make policy/guideline-based arguments and achieve consensus for their positions are illegitimate demonstrates, at best, a mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE and, giben the level of repeated, groundless personal attacks ought to justify a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? There is no official consensus (on page reserved for this purpose, for example Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)) about awards: XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award (that these not meet of WP:PORNBIO) and also there is not official consensus for AVN Awards (that most of its prizes does not meet of WP:PORNBIO).
WP:PORNBIO say: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award", for some users (including you and your gang), XBIZ Award and F.A.M.E. Award not meet of PORNBIO, for some users these awards meets of PORNBIO. WP:PORNBIO does not specify exactly what prizes accepted, whether something meets the requirements or not, it is debatable case and based on subjective interpretation and own opinion. Until an official discussion and consensus on page reserved for this purpose, to new version of WP: PORNBIO who precisely show accepted awards, there will always be conflicts. PS. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if you think that you create quiet consensus concerning WP:PORNBIO between users of your gang on AfD pages (or other pages this type), you're wrong and you show "mind-boggling lack of WP:COMPETENCE". Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 21:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subtropical-man, you make perfect sense and your argument bears much merit, make no mistake. Wolfowitz's opinions lack substance as well as credibility as he makes it a constant point to eagerly resort to personal attacks and then whine about how everyone and their grandmother is conspiring against him (just read his signature, that should give you a flavor of what he's about). He is a BLP zealot who even goes as far as trying to invoke it on people who are long dead ("WP:BLP does not authorize scandalmongering about the dead"). [1] I am confident however, that the majority of users see through this charade of his and see this issue for what it i really worth and vote for "keep". @Gene93k, I disagree, I don't think Subtropical-man's call for a topic ban for HW is "ridiculous". As a matter of fact, I think it is highly warranted in his case as he only engages in disruptive, nonconstructive edits aimed at removing content rather than making it better or more constructive, often on completely erroneous grounds.Holanthony (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Holanthony, you and Subtropical-man conspicuously avoid arguments that are actually grounded in policy and guideline, preferring abusive comments about other users. You don't participate much in AFD discussions, and your !vote has never yet matched consensus. Subtropical-man's rate is as bad as I;ve ever seen for an experienced user, 16.6%.[2] In contrast, my "accuracy rate" is over 80& [3], while Gene93k, whose arguments you also decry, has an even higher consensus-match over 87%. Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive. Attacking editors for making consensus-based arguments is grounds for a topic ban; establishing or supporting consensus is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo), your percentages are nonsense and manipulation. Most of my votes in the AfD over the few years are in the field of pornography and... you with your "gang" with still the same few users have the clout that every AfD is their winnings, this gang vote in each AfD about pornography (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion#Closed). If there would be this "gang", my "percent" is about 90. These numbers do not show anything. You wrote also: "Pretending that the relevant consensus doesn't exist is disruptive at best, and likely deceptive" - there is no official consensus about AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other, there are no official guidelines for AVN Award, F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award or other in WP:PORNBIO. Official text from WP:PORNBIO: "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". For part of users, these awards are not meet PORNBIO, for part of users are meet of PORNBIO. For last months, I act according to the WP:PORNBIO (official consensus) but you not. You are constantly trying to increase the requirements, you falsify consensus telling other users that AVN Award (not all prizes) and F.A.M.E. Award, XBIZ Award and each other awards are not meet of PORNBIO, based on its opinion. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're spouting ridiculous stuff again. The "nonsense and manipulation" you claim exists (without evidence) are actually generated by the standard tool used for RFA evaluation. Yes, your percentage would go up if only people who disagree with you didn't vote. Big deal. Making arguments that you disagree with and getting consensus support for them is hardly improper. It is exactly what's called for by WP:CONSENSUS. Your failure to accept this shows a failure to understand basic Wikipedia principles and reflects poorly on your WP:COMPETENCE. Now stop attacking other editors and ranting tendentiously. If not, it's likely to lead to a topic ban. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above improvements and sourcing, BLP meets PORNBIO as well as GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the recent set of edits have not substantially improved the article: diff. In fact, it added more trivia cited to the XRent web site & interviews:

She credits fellow actress Taryn Thomas with her introduction to the adult industry, as they used to work at a call center when they both lived in Arizona.^[1]

References

^ Alektra Blue (13 November 2007). "Inside Alektra Blue" (Interview). Interviewed by Big D. XRentDVD. Retrieved 23 December 2016.

Sources are still very unconvincing for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the nomination, the objection was, "lacks coverage...that discuss the subject directly and in detail." Now the complaint is "added...trivia". Unscintillating (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The extra trivia was added after the nomination. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, we got that. Other people would identify that as "detail", or responding to the problem identified in the nomination. Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was that a royal "we"? :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Pornbio topics are typically massively notable directly, by the understanding of notability provided by the WP:N nutshell. This one seems to go well above any sense of "typically".
At the last AfD, closed as Keep, the actress only had 97 movies listed, now the number is 406. Nominator omitted WP:BEFORE B6, which reveals 24 interlanguage links, "which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles". The next year after the last AfD closed as keep, the model received recognition as Penthouse Pet of the Month, a recognition I consider just by itself to be sufficient for at least a mini-bio on a page of related bios on Wikipedia.
Pornbio topics needs to satisfy WP:V, and there are 17 inline citations, with 5 "dead links", which are acceptable as verifiable sources, and one citation needed tag. Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:PORNBIO guideline has been tightened substantially since the article was kept in 2007. Being a Penthouse Pet or Playboy Playmate is no longer an automatic pass. Prolificness and number of films was removed from PORNBIO later in 2007. Nominations no longer count and neither do scene-related awards. As for citations, quality (reliability) counts more than quantity. The sources that aren't junk are trivial mentions. The dead links at sites like AVN can be found by searching the site. They turn out to be republished press releases. As for inter-language links, Wikipedia in any language is not an acceptable source for supporting Wikipedia content, and many are just translations of the article in English Wikipedia (circular sources). As for giving the article more time, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of non-trivial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 05:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that the above post has mentioned more than one "that used to be an automatic pass" criteria that are applicable for this topic. Just because they are no longer an "automatic pass" doesn't mean that they don't still carry weight. And when the benchmark used to be 100 films, and this topic has 400, the weight is considerable.
Republished press releases are secondary sources that carry the reliability of the publisher, and reliability also depends on context.
An issue remains that WP:BEFORE B6 was ignored in the nomination, and at this point, we don't know how much the discussion has been confounded by opinions developed before knowing the basic facts.
If there is a problem in the sourcing of the article, this would be important and independent of notability, but based on the sources and tags in the article, in fact there appears to be consensus that the article satisfies WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:BEFORE, have you actually looked at the interwiki links? They use the same English-language citations that the en.Wikipedia article does. Some are even less well cited. Citing a failure to cross this T regarding an American porn star is legalism that defies common sense. Wikipedia is not a court of law. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the feedback loop here? From engineering theory, the concept of a "system" requires feedback. Are you a supporter of quality AfD nominations? Wikipedia may not be a court of law, but it is also not a back street alley. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re notability criteria: Before my time here, porn stars were kept for having an IMDb profile. As several Wikipedia guidelines and policies state, "Consensus may change." In the the case of PORNBIO, it has changed substantially over the past 10 years. There was a long drawn-out debate about what criteria about a porn performer predict likely notability, and that is the current WP:PORNBIO guideline. Nominations no longer count. Scene-related awards no longer count. X number of films was expressly removed in 2007, since film counts are easily inflated. We use the notability metrics agreed by consensus to determine whether or not an article is kept. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases: Per WP:V, press releases are self-published material. (See note #9 referenced by WP:Verifiability#Self-published sources.) They are not intellectually independent of the agency promoting the good or service being reported. WikiProject Pornography notes that Adult Video News does not indicated whether an article is original reporting or a press release, but a common indicator is contact information. (To book this performer contact.../For more information visit...). WP:V says to treat such sources with caution and not to use them to support claims about living people. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as (happening to look in) I'll state the applicable porn actors notability says "Scene nominations aren't notable" and that's what we have here, so citing WP:PORNSTAR is not the same thing if it's not actually stating what's otherwise suggested, hence there's no other significant awards and no actual notability, as the nomination states. GNG is especially not applicable since it's a gamble given how thin and unconvincing it can be used for nearly anything, so WP:PORNSTAR is what applies here alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Unscintillating regarding WP:GNG not being a content guideline. Content is not the main issue we are discussing. Notability is the normal standard we use to determine whether to keep or toss an article. The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met. • Gene93k (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast with this assertion, the relevant notability guideline is WP:Notability. The following quotes are from the top of the guideline.
WP:Notability "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."
The nutshell states, "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." Unscintillating (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied to you in another AfD debate, GNG is the main body of WP:N. The section you quoted stresses WP:RS which is the main problem with this article. Ignore all rules rules requires compelling evidence. As I stated above, I am not !voting in this AfD, but the recent trend is to IAR/use common sense and delete these won-an-award-but-is-crappily-sourced PORNBIOs despite looser interpretations of WP:PORNBIO that used to prevail. Then again, PORNBIO is the most permissive standard in Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is one of our ways we reach understanding of WP:N. WP:N can be determined without WP:GNG or any of the SNGs. [redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are pointing to a talk space essay/guideline fork that you wrote to expand on an assertion you made in an AfD discussion. Your complaint was that notability assessments are too GNG-centric. That AfD discussion closed as no consensus. A more productive path would be to bring the issue up at Wikipedia talk:Notability or the village pump. In this case, you propose satisfying it by ignoring all its related parts, another way of expressing "ignore all rules." Following WP:N without WP:GNG, we go to the relevant specialized guideline to the right, Wikipedia:Notability (people)/WP:BIO. The primary criteria (WP:BASIC) restate GNG in summary. Failing that without in-depth coverage by reliable sources, we go to secondary inclusion criteria, WP:PORNBIO in this case. Here lies our dispute: Are the awards won "well-known" enough to satisfy the PORNBIO guideline and do they overcome the lack of reliable source coverage? Again, IAR needs a compelling reason. What do you have? • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you don't seem to like my link. I've redacted the link because you don't show that you've understood it, so it is not helpful. The other two sentences of the post remain.
Other text above that stands is the statement that reads, "WP:Notability is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow...". WP:N is where notability is defined on Wikipedia; not at WP:GNG, not at WP:BIO, not at WP:BASIC, not at WP:PORNBIO, and not at WP:IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, you wrote: "The relevant notability guidelines in this case are the General Notability Guideline (GNG) and PORNBIO if GNG is not met" - yes, but in Alektra Blue case, PORNBIO are official met: two non-scene awards. The problem is only "deletionism pornography gang" based on subjective interpretation of PORNBIO and trying to convince others that XBIZ Award, F.A.M.E. Award are not well-known and significant industry award and even most of the prizes of pornographic Oscars - AVN Awards are not well-known and significant industry award! Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 20:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not found , they so called nomination awards,,, is sources from a proomotional website , i cant find enough independent Reliable sources Samat lib (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... but very interesting that - from the beginning - your account is only for AfD (except for a few editions): [4]... and also you were blocked for being / use of sock-puppet. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 22:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ Subtropical-man ... You know i have made a lot of contribution in good faith , honestly if it meet Wikipedia criteria , personally i will defend the article ... Samat lib (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samat lib: [5] shows lifetime AfD history of 45 delete !votes and one merge !vote.

Two recent !votes were, "this article lack independent reliable sources" and "No evidence of notability , the article lack independent Reliable sources". From these two !votes, it appears that you don't understand the difference between notability and article sourcing.

Your !vote here is unclear. What do you mean "notability not found"? Where did you look? Unscintillating (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- as an alleged member of the Deletionist Gang^(TM), I'd like to add that some may view this nomination as "evidence-based editing" & "adherence to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". I'm going to add this to my Hard-line Anti-Nazi^(TM) label. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Front Montgomery

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

Was de-prodded without reason. Other than press releases like marketwire and another marketwire in the Philippines New Digest, a personal bio, and a commercial link, the search engines returned zero hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Lots of coverage in Thai, even long after her active years. Most are celebrity gossip pieces though. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Blair

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

A BLP that lacks coverage in reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO due to lack of awards; only nominations are listed. Sources include online profiles, interviews and trivial mentions in tabloid-like publications -- these are insufficient to establish notability via GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing about this review is lack of pictures! come on what's wrong with this review board am I right? :) Rebekahalnablack —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Pagel

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

The bauble from the Cannes Corporate Media & TV Awards seems to be a claim of notability, but imo it's too niche. WP:GNG. Google hits all self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant abuse of Wikipedia as a resume host, based on how it is written. No credible allegation of notability has been raised; only one source. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Adam Barnett

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

Non-notable actor. Has only appeared in 1 film (as noted by IMDB). Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. Article is bloated with content unrelated to subject and includes his website as a source. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 00:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a long list of name-dropping does not bring this up to notability. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Masson

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

Reference state he is not a principle. second ref states: Nicholas Masson is thrilled to "Seize the Day" in his Broadway National Tour debut as MUSH.

I don't think he is notable quite yet.

I think the article doesn't satisfy WP:Artist and fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I believe this is just a case of applying the wrong notability guidelines. WP:ARTIST does not apply to actors. WP:NACTOR does. Subject's role in a multiple Tony-award winning, Broadway touring production, of a Disney-produced show, is sufficiently notable in itself. Equally notable, subject also appears in the same role in the feature film[6]. Subject also currently stars in Disney Cruise Line's live musical show[7]. Article also features subject's RS coverage in Broadway World, Broadway Connection, the Internet Broadway Database and Playbill and local coverage[8]. It should also most likely include reviews from the 65 cities the subject appeared in during his show's multi-year run.[9]. Per the article, the subject has also performed in another notable touring production[10]. Also notable, per NACTOR, subject also has thousands of followers on social media.[11],[12]. So I think subject's notability is pretty clearly and easily established. Not just with NACTOR, but he also passes WP:BIO generally, and WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO, specifically. So I think the nominator should withdraw this nom under speedy keep. X4n6 (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per X4n6. Hang googles (talk) 10:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)User is now CU-banned[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference 1. The musical filmed on stage. IMDB although not a ref, similar to ref 1, which is ticket page, DOES NOT list him, as he is not a primary player. 2. An Instagram page. Says he is a main stage performer, not a lead or a Star nor a guest lead or star. 3. States he as made his Broadway introduction, a Broadway newcomer is the first sentence. 4. Isn't valid as it doesn't mention his name. 5. This is a blog and invalid, although it points to the fact he is a newcomer. 6 and 7. You assert he has a big following on social media. A big following is considered above 200-250,000+ people. That is the established number on Twitch, Spotify, Instagram, LinkedIn and Twitter. On Instagram he has 9 1/2 thousand followers. On Twitter he has around 2500. So it all points to him being a newbie, starting out. As regards the Tony Award winning show. Notability is not conferred nor inherited. He doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and he fails to assert WP:BIO. I truly think at some point he will be in here. But not at the moment. scope_creep (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment sooner, I concur with the nomination since the analysis above and my own shoe it to be too trivial and none of it establishes the substance actually needed. To specify, the links simply consisted of announcements and mentions, yet the Keep labels then as "significant" and also the cited "notabilities" are in fact suggested notability guidelines, not policy; with this said, WP:NOT is our policy here and it explicitly states we are not IMDb, therefore since nothing else was significantly shown to be substantial, Delete (sources themselves never actually focused with him let alone lend actual convincing). SwisterTwister talk 08:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am concerned that the only objections I see, are based on either incorrect assumptions/conclusions, misinformation, or misinterpretation of policy. For example, perhaps the nominator can explain, for our purposes, what difference it makes if a movie is filmed on a stage or a soundstage, if it has a theatrical release in movie theatres? Regarding IMDB, the current entry also does not list the director, producers, musical director, cinematographer or any crew or post-production. That just means the current IMDB entry is incomplete. However, he is listed there now. Besides, the official website also lists subject and his character name. So the claim that he is not a "primary player" is disproved by the official source - which, since it's Disney, is reliable and conclusive. Their link: Meet the cast and creative team proves the subject plays one of the principal roles. Also the Instagram/Twitter pages only approximate social media followers. But as the nominator originally misapplied WP:ARTIST here, which does not apply to actors, the nominator does not seem to understand WP:NACTOR, which does and subject clearly passes. Subject's extended body of work on a Broadway national tour; a prior national tour; an upcoming feature film; and current touring engagement, all of which are reliably sourced in the article, combine to easily satisfy NACTOR#1. While subject's thousands of social media followers and the thousands of likes subject generates with each post, by definition, constitutes a "cult following," per NACTOR#2. Subject also satisfies NACTOR#3, in that it is both unique and prolific to have a two-year run in the same role in a major Broadway national touring production, and then to reprise it in a Disney-produced feature film. Subject's current coverage already surpasses WP:BIO and WP:BASIC. The fact that, as a cast member, the subject shared in Tony Award nominations and other awards and is listed in the historical record of this production, also satisfies WP:ANYBIO. So not only is there no basis for deletion now, but even if there were, it would most likely evaporate following the additional coverage subject will receive upon the release of his upcoming film. Finally, it appears to have been ignored that this article is a WP:STUB. The threshold for deletion of stubs is "little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability." Neither of which apply. X4n6 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Venturini

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

Per several source searches, this television personality does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks notability and significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as another week has formed nothing else (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Shaw

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

Delete: Sorry but she is NOT a notable actress. Quis separabit? 06:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR because of major roles in many notable films. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she was an important part of the AIP stock company in the 60sDutchy85 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly insufficiant sources. Her multiple roles are not at the level of significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some extra information and references to highlight her notability Dutchy85 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes NACTOR with multiple role. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Running through a WP:BEFORE search, particularly in books, there appear to be several sources which gives further weight to the arguments that WP:NACTOR applies here and the sourcing problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. Mkdw ^talk 06:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Hopper

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

Questionable notability with no WP:RS. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appears to fail WP:ENT. reddogsix (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete roles are not enough to pass notability guidelines for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G4 and salted. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Hovey

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

This article was deleted very recently on the grounds of lack of notability. The current version of the article still does not show notability. Kash Hovey has had minor roles in several movies and a TV show, and his only major role is in an indie film that has gone virtually unnoticed by the media, and is itself currently proposed for deletion. In terms of sourcing, nearly all sources are either IMDB or some type of trivial mention. The most substantial source in the article is one interview he gave to The LA Fashion. Neither the general notability guideline nor the actor notability guideline have been met. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't see where this actor currently passes notability guidelines. I'd also recommend salting this article to prevent any further recreations. Looking at the name of the editor ~~creating~~ who first created the article, I have to assume that this is Kash Hovey or someone affiliated with him trying to add him to Wikipedia by way of this article and what looks like the start of a walled garden with the creation of articles for some of the movies he's been in, Undateable John and Jack and Cocaine, neither of which look to be independently notable. I'm going to nominate each one for AfD (one is PRODed) in the hopes of keeping both from being recreated any time soon and I'd recommend a salt in that instance as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Undateable John and Jack and Cocaine for deletion and also blocked Kashmoney17 for promotional editing. I think that the person who created this one is likely related, so I'm thinking of opening up an SPI. (I'd mistaken Kashmoney17 as the article creator initially.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has been added that indicates any more notability than was in the previous version of the article, and the actor didn't acquire more notability in the five minutes (only a slight exaggeration) between the deletion of the previous article and the posting of this one. Largoplazo (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as the previous discussion, does not meet notability requirements. This individual/article did not meet them 8 days ago when the discussion started or 24 hours ago when it was closed and the lack of notability remains. Also the massive COI and promo like material reamins. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Séguin

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

Self described young cinematographer, with slim sources, mix of blogs and IMDB. Unable to determine why he is notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. scope_creep (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, there is a bit more real media coverage present here than the nominator has acknowledged — but it's all to his own hometown's local media, it all just namechecks his existence in coverage of other things rather than being substantively about him, and none of it adds up to anything that would pass WP:CREATIVE for the purposes of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the creator's username "Davidjosephanselmo" corresponds directly to the CEO of the same city's main film studio, which means there's a direct professional association between the subject and the creator. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which a cinematographer is entitled to have an article just because he can be verified as existing — a cinematographer gets an article when there's a substantive reason for one, such as winning an Oscar or a BAFTA or a Canadian Screen Award, or being influential enough in the field that sources are actually being written to analyze their cinematographic style, and not just for making a locally distributed short "civic pride in our city" video or speaking at the opening of a local high school's new film and video training program. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this is also a WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howell Aureada

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

Fails WP:GNG. I can't even find the Youtube series titled The Misplaced. The attached references seems to be not reliable. And he should have been famous already locally here in our hometown Lucena, Philippines but he is not. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 05:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6237280/?ref_=nm_knf_t1 i find "the Misplaced" cast include Howell aureada director /Toni aureada

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

of course he would never be Popular in your hometown Cause Howell aureada is a Voice Actor
Strong delete - Voice actor or not, I found exactly zero coverage about him (and his brother for that matter); in fact, the only online hits of him (apart from YouTube) are from IMDb. At best this is simply a case of WP:TOOSOON. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in WP:RS for child voice actor with one non-starring appearance. Concur with User:Narutolovehinata5's TOOSOON suggestion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My sweeps of Philippine news didn't find anything.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh - Hindi films actor

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

Non-notable Bollywood actor from the 50s. Fails WP:GNG. He has appeared in many films, but they don't appear to be independently notable either to meet WP:NACTOR. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 06:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Effendy

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

Non-notable director lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominated for an award, but never won. None of the listed productions are of significant notoriety. Per WP:GNG delete. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 03:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all movie producers are notable. Awards limited to a single nominations, all films he created are minor enough to still be red links, as written fails WP:CREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable director. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Lim

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

This is a not-yet notable child actor working for MediaCorp. I am unable to find any major roles by the subject which would satisfy WP:ACTOR and I don't see significant coverage either. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No IMDb entry? No proof those are non-minor roles, so fails WP:NACTOR as written -> WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actor in only minor roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Piotrus. ^Avic _ennasis @ 16:58, 18 Kislev 5777 / 16:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The significance of the roles is borderline. As far as the GNG is concerned, Aoziwe's SMH article has gone unanswered. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Witt

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

Fails to meet the guidelines for WP:ENTERTAINER as the reliable sources briefly mentions him. Marvellous Spider-Man 02:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. All I see are mentions in passing (through there are several), fails WP:GNG and as noted, nothing in the article supports him passing WP:ENTERTAINER. If anyone finds better sources, please ping me here so I can review them and reconsider. For now, I think he is on the wrong side of borderline - no awards, not a single article about him. WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant roles in multiple stage performances is met by Jack in Into the Woods for Victorian Opera and, although it's not mentioned in the article, Elder McKinley in the original Australian cast of The Book of Mormon which is just about to open. Also has minor roles in other major productions, but that's less notable. Lots of guff in the article as written, but that's separate issue.Boneymau (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is on aggregation I believe sufficient to demonstrate GNG, even if not in any one particular field of activity, but that is not required. Yes the article needs some rewrite, but that is not grounds for deletion alone. I also think it scrapes past TOOSOON too. There are brief mentions in at least German, Polish, Russian, Spanish, possibly not the most reliable but none the less they are there, and appear to be accurate. Possibly also needs a bit more balance, for example. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete. this article does not meet WP:GNG secondly i cant find any independent Reliable sources about him at this moment Samat lib (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not sufficiently notable; minor bit roles, with "Spoon boy" in The Matrix being the highlight. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Aureada

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

Notability of this article's subject is dubious; its page and pages related to it created by the same author have been repeatedly deleted in the past. smileguy91^{talk - contribs} 15:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. I haven't even heard her name here in Lucena, Philippines. --Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 10:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Toni aureada WP:GNG Toni aureada is a Blogger from lucena city she is now live in manila and she is the youngest Animator — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.95.1.8 (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero available sources except similar self-promotion on social media.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 06:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in search engines to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sweeps of Philippine news didn't find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 08:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn - AFD's becoming a waste of time so I shall withdraw and gut the entire article with everyones blessing. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Griffiths

AfDs for this article:

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

Prev AFD closed as "no consensus. - No prejudice against speedy renomination due to low participation" so am renominating again,
Non notable actress, found a few mentions but nothing substantial, Fails BASIC & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like easily passes WP:NACTOR. Was one of the principal cast members of Waterloo Road specifically as the role of Chlo Grainger. Also was in multiple episodes of Casualty and a supporting role in all three episodes of Hatfields & McCoys.--Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being in a few notable programmes is great however take away IMDB and you have 2 BBC sources which are only mentions, And with the greatest of respect she's been acting since 2008 so there should be something substantial, ofcourse if you can find anything substantial I'd be more than happy to withdraw. –Davey2010^Talk 22:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR since she had roles in "multiple notable TV shows". Both Casualty and Waterloo Road are notable shows. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything about NACTOR - As I said she still fails BASIC & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The WP:NACTOR guideline was developed to assist in determining whether an artist/actor is notable and merits an article. Although you may say that every article should pass WP:BASIC and WP:GNG, we'd only be trotting out debates that have been had numerous times in the past as to why actors are a little different and that "episodes" are effectively publications, etc, etc, and that is exactly why the WP:NACTOR guideline was developed. Rest assured I've no intention of rehashing the old arguments. Suffice to say, Ms. Griffiths in an actress and meets (and exceeds) the criteria set out in the WP:NACTOR guidelines and for me, I've no need to look beyond that in this case. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no idea about the past discussions and like yourself I'd rather not get in to a whole big debate over it but atleast IMHO all articles should pass BASIC atleast, I agree with you episodes are like publications however there should be substantial/in-depth sources aswell .... Take away IMDB at present we have 2 episode sources which isn't good enough, All articles are expected to have more than 2 episode sources especially when they've acting since 1999. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The nomination here seems to be caught up in the red tape of contradictory policies rather than the obvious reality that a main actor/actress in a series like Waterloo Road is inherently qualified. The fact that she hasn't had newspaper features about her or similar is irrelevant, unless you are arguing this is a WP:HOAX. If individuals meet clear criteria, we don't need to dig for links for them, and to start a precedent of this would be a time drain. AFD nominations should solely be for cases where notability is in question, and so this would be better solved via the article's talk page. KaisaL (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One doesn't become notable just for being in one film or programme, All BLPs on this project are expected to meet BASIC atleast which this unfortunately doesn't, We have statements in the article like "Katie Griffiths was born in St Albans, Hertfordshire and attended Garden Fields Primary School." and "born in 6 April 1989" - Not one source is available to back these up so therefore could well be untrue and so can any of the other info in the article, That's the entire point of this AFD - There is no notability, I've said this elsewhere but I don't expect millions upon millions of in-depth coverage however for someone who's been acting for the past 10 years there should be something better than just 2 small mentions. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, I'm afraid. Katie was in four series of Waterloo Road as a main cast member. This isn't a case of someone playing an extra in one episode, it's a full cast role in a prominent series (not one I care about, but it is). That alone means no other qualifiers are needed, else we're acting outside of the specific policies on figures in entertainment. If the other information is not referenced and you're unhappy about that, you're welcome to remove it. There's a big difference between non-notable and not being high-profile, her performances in that one series are more than enough. In short, you're holding her to higher standards than our policies require. KaisaL (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I disagree with you, I know she was and that's great but like with any other articles BLPs need adequate sourcing, The article has been here for the best part of 8 years and the sources have never improved since (because there's nothing on her) and lets be honest here the article won't be sourced from hereon in, I appreciate she may meet NACTOR in terms of what she's been in however BASIC still needs to be met (I usually go for GNG however I'm trying to be as lenient as I can here), If you believe she's notable for being in WR then why not Redirect to WR instead and that way the articles history can be preserved?, I've sourced many non-prolific BLPs and it's easy as pie when the sources are there (even if they're harder to find it's still more or less easy to do) and I appreciate not everyone gets something written about them but the issue is there's not even mentions let alone in-depth stuff, If there was mentions I would be happy with that and wrap this up but unfortunately there's absolutely nothing, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm old school and feel that AFD is for cases of notability, not an article with limited scope for depth and improvement. I'd rather a two sentence stub for a notable subject than discussing the possibility of deleting them entirely. It doesn't seem like you really dispute her notability, just a lack of references, which for me isn't an issue for this process. KaisaL (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would say they're still non notable tho, In a roundabout way there's no evidence of notability here other than her role in WR, Ah well, Thanks anyway, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 21:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable per WP:ENTERTAINER, has had significant roles in multiple notable films Accepted. - TheMagnificentist 15:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Vladimirovich Gorokhov

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

I originally tagged this with a CSD, but was declined by Adam9007 citing 'Worked with notable people.', but working with notable people is not a valid criteria under WP:ARTIST. Looking at WP:ARTIST, the closest criteria is 'has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition', but I would hardly classify exhibitions at a bar/nightclub as being 'significant'. I have also checked the references and the best of them are YouTube videos posted by the subject, blogs by the subject or other blogs. Many of the references have either been deleted, or are unreachable. Given this, it would appear that the article is either autobiographical, or by someone with a close association. Overall, I consider that this article should be deleted as it clearly fails WP:ARTIST. David.moreno72 07:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note What I can see by my search in Russian, there is no even any evidence to the claim, that he worked with anyone of those "notable" people. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Winning at the IPAs would be significant. I just can't seem to find any evidence that he actually was a Winner in the category of “Professional photographers IPA” (2013). The promotional tone doesn't inspire confidence. Mduvekot (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note He wasn't a winner for 2013 by this [13]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTISTS in all it's categories. There is no any single claim for significance. Working with notable people (which is also not supported by any source, but some dead link) does not make a photographer notable, unless those works are reviewed and presented by wither magazine, journal or public gallery/museum. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED; WP:TOOSOON at the very least. I don't know enough Russian to evaluate the sources, and the raft of social-media ELs makes me suspect that this may be an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Miniapolis 21:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for the above. Seems to be more vanity and self-promotion than anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up any evidence that this person passes notability guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One weakly notable film does not imply the film-maker is notable. The argument that he has worked with notable people is of course irrelevant. nj.org as the state government site is advocacy for the state, not reporting. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cerrito III

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC/WP:ENT with no in-depth secondary sources, just a lot of WP:NEWSPRIMARY local interviews, and blog reviews of his films. Looks a lot like the work of a single COI editor, with User:MikePlant1 spending two years doing nothing but studiously promoting Cerrito before trashing this article with four bizarrely abusive edits (perhaps the result of an account being hacked, or a paid editor not being paid?) and being indef blocked. McGeddon (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- after google search there is plenty of articles on this person. Also, NJ.com is not a local interview, it is New Jersey's website. He has done some notable work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The NJ.com "Woodstown High School graduate Mario Cerrito is realizing his dream as a writer/producer" seems an unremarkable local-boy-done-good WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. The other articles are similar in tone, and simply repeat interview quotes at face value. --McGeddon (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention page has had numerous edits by editors and already patrolled by Postcard Cathy almost two years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found a few. 1.)http://www.nj.com/indulge/index.ssf/2015/03/nj_filmmaker_to_release_thriller_deadly_gamble.html

2.) extremely popular poker website and magazine- http://www.allinmag.com/poker/inside-poker/the-personalities/april-2015-raskin-blog-mario-cerrito-deadly-gamble

4.) popular horror website "horrornews.net https://www.google.com/amp/horrornews.net/96767/film-review-deadly-gamble-2015/amp/?client=safari

So I ask you, how is this filmmaker not deserving of a small article. It only can keep growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.210.235 (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is all extremely local, and there is no evidence that any of his works are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I was more or less canvassed to comment here, sought advice from helpdesk and they replied that I could comment here providing the circumstances were explained. and a diff given. Think I was asked due to deprodding one of the director's film articles, here is a diff of the message here. Regarding the article, agree that national references would be preferrred such as NewYork Post but local rs news coverage is allowed for GNG except for companies and inview of the horror news review which is a reliable source for the horror genre, the New Jersey.com articles, theme specific poker magazine and website articles think there is just enough for a borderline pass of GNG, and although secondary sources are preferable primary sources are allowed so am voting! Keep. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the local news interviews is more that they are interviews, than that they are local. We shouldn't write a biography based entirely on statements that the subject has made about himself and his work: "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." --McGeddon (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hell horror did an exclusive article on Mario Cerrito without interviewing him at all. hell horror is a big legitimate site and reliable source. Having over 165k fans on social media. http://hellhorror.com/movies/review/47713/Deadly-Gamble.html — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Definantly worth having a Wikipedia page. Enough sources found through google. Notable movie and has done work with notable people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC) — CaliforniaWave (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(Double !vote struck, CaliforniaWave appears to be the IP who has already !voted "KEEP" at the top of this AFD, according to this "Hello Jimmy!", "Thanks Jimmy!" conversation.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2016 (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/2016 December 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: It was correctly transcluded, User:CaliforniaWave removed the AfD from the log a few minutes after their vote above.--McGeddon (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP enough sources found during google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.25.190 (talk) 00:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP created page Deadly Gamble his film which went through AfD process and passed and deemed notable. His work has been signed by notable distributor Cinema Epoch has worked with Hollywood actor Renoly Santiago Brian O'Halloran and Jessica Cameron. Many secondary article can be found on him through internet searches.— MovieManNJ84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:19, 27 December 2016‎ (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input despite two relists Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Poduval

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

Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to SmartAsk. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Landry

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

There's no inherited notability from anything listed not should we consider mistaking it as such, it's a fact he is actually onpy known for 1 TV series, and that series itself only lasted about 2 years, with the other listed works only being trivial 1-time characters. Hence WP:NOT also applies since Wikipedia is not IMDb, something thid current article is only fitting for. SwisterTwister talk 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG as has reliable source newspaper coverage such as Toronto Star and Town Crier, being on a television series for two years is not trivial. Atlantic306 (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think there's enough to warrant keeping. Seems to have a number of roles and as noted above a two-year stint (if he was in it for all of that time) could in itself be considered 'notable' Eagleash (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Town Crier is a community weekly newspaper that is neither widely distributed beyond its own neighbourhood nor archived anywhere that we could retrieve the content again if the weblink ever died, so it does not count toward passage of WP:GNG. It would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts after GNG had already been satisfied by stronger sources, but it cannot count toward the initial question of whether GNG has been met in the first place. And the same issue pertains to Durhamregion.com. And I searched to find the Toronto Star article as well — it is not in fact about him, but merely namechecks his existence a single time in an article about something else, so it's not bringing any GNG either. And WP:NACTOR is not met just because roles are asserted, either: it's met when the roles are supported by sourcing that satisfies GNG — but none of the sourcing here satisfies GNG, so NACTOR is not passed. SNGs do not provide an exemption from having to source an article over GNG; they serve to clarify the types of things are accepted as notability claims if they're supported by GNG-passing sources, but the sourceability still has to pass GNG to actually get the article included, regardless of what it unsourcedly or bad-sourcedly claims. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can source it better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SmartAsk There is no question that the CBC television show was notable and while this individual does have some coverage, I don't believe it's enough to warrant a standalone article. I think a compromise of arguments here is to redirect to SmartAsk. Mkdw ^talk 02:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Mkdw. Right now, it is just too soon. He has a made-for-TV film coming out later this week. I cleaned up the outrageous puffery and crystal balling. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dionisio Pinilla

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO: I failed to find anything to support his role in any show as claimed in the article and his name was added in Tricky Business (UK TV series) and Packed to the Rafters by the creator of this article which is still unsourced. GSS (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references do not establish notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all criteria of WP:NACTOR. References fail to establish why he is notable. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find anything to really support notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Sharma (TV actress)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pooja Sharma (TV actress) (2nd nomination)

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

This article in not looking like a article in wikipedia it's looking like a article instead it's look like a praise letter. She had never done any successfull TV series as a protogonist. She has done only one popular serial that is Diya aur Baati hum but in this show her role as antagonist was only for few days. This atticle repeatedly violates WP:NPOV and does not meet even WP:BIO. So I think this article should be deleted. Ishi2345 (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with the nominator about violating Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Notability (people) . I read the whole article and its seriously looking like a compliment letter to boss but when I try to find out about the actress's life I don't find any notable work in internet. The article try to portray her as a epic heroine like Helen in Troy. But in reality she didn't done any single notable work. So I think this article should be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The actress is completely non-notable. She had done only one series as protogonist which was stoped because of law trp rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vividha23 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a main contributor of this article I am trying to address the issues relating to WP:NPOV and WP:BIO raised by above editors. To make the article more 'neutral' and fit for Wikipedia it is rectified and improved. Further the editors are requested to edit if necessary. Regarding 'notability' of the article subject, I want to inform the editors that she had done - Ruk Jaana Nahin - run successfully for about 1 year (19 December 2011 - 23 November 2012) and Tu Mera Hero - run successfully for about 1 year (22 December 2014 - 14 November 2015). Her performances as 'main female protagonist' in Ruk Jaana Nahin and as 'main female antagonist' in Tu Mera Hero were liked very much by the people. She also acted for the difficult role of a weird character in Diya Aur Baati Hum successfully although the role is short and of some days. Over and above these she had done 'lead role' in 12 episodics (Short film like TV show of about 45-50 minutes) for different TV channels. She is very versatile actress and has been entertaining TV audience since 2010 till date. Many reliable and independent Indian Newspapers like 'The Times of India', 'The Hindu', 'Indian Express', 'Tribune India', 'Zee News', 'ABP Live', etc. and TV Magazines like 'Tellychakkar', etc. made coverage of the events relating to her. The editors are requested to refer to the inline citations and references given for the article. Based on the above clarifications, I would like to request the editors to reconsider their decision and withdraw the nomination of the article for deletion.--Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Her serial Ruk Jaana Nahin was never successfull the serial was stopped because of law trp for more information check this link :-http://www.tellychakkar.com/tv/tv-news/ruk-jaana-nahin-go-air-khamoshiyaan-get-early-evening-slot. The serial never did well. Tu Mera Hero was also not a successfull serial at the first place it was doing good but after that it also failed to impress audiance. By the way we are not for to discuss which serial was hit or flop we are here discussing about the actress's notablity. Whatever Teampoojasharma (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC) gives as reference that all are gossip column nothing reliable source. Ishi2345 (talk)[reply]

@ Everything once started is to end but it matters how long it stays. TRP of the show mentioned in the above referred link is what happened after running about 1 year. 1 year is a long period. TRP of a show depends on many factors. Here we are discussing about the actor not the show. Basic Criteria of Notability (People) of Wikipedia says - 'People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.'. The coverage given on the actress by the reliable and independent sources as cited in the article itself (some of the sources are mentioned above in my previous comment) may be considered. I think reliable source means the Newspapers or Magazines, not the column and every content is a part of these sources. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:- Probably non notable because I don't find any information about her in google if I search about her name always showing up some other actress called Pooja Sharma not any information about this one. In this view I can take her as non-notable so delete it.Tupur16 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Even if we do not find a targeted person on internet in the first search giving name only, the person may be found when searching by adding more query items relevant to the person. (e.g. in this case Pooja Sharma with Ruk Jaana Nahin, Tu Mera Hero, etc.) The conclusion of only the person found on internet in the first search giving name only is notable, but the other persons of the same name are not notable may not be right. As mentioned in my previous comment, Wikipedia has its own Criteria of Notability (People). Wikipedia solves such conflict through Disambiguation Pages as different persons of same name may be notable to include in Wikipedia. --Teampoojasharma (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log page. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Ishi2345: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unsuccessful actor, and that's about it. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see the first few sources of the article addressed, as they are major newspapers and definite reliable source coverage (though the trash blog refs near the end should be removed)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 21:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:- completely unsuccessful actor without notability, people know her very rarely, don't deserve a article in wikipedia.ABCDE22 (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is purely promotional and subject is not notable; fails WP:NACTOR. Please note the article creator's name. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sources pointed out by Czar still have not been analyzed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sources listed in the article seem to suggest that the actress was likely to be the "next big thing" of Indian TV, but this does not seem to have come true. So WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with WP:NPOV raised by the editors above. The subjects also fails WP:GNG. No reliable coverage outside gossip columns about the subject itself that are not promotional in nature. Most are passing mentions. Another issue to be flagged is that there seems to be a direct WP:COI as the name of the account suggests. The author seems to be WP:SPA. All the edits are about Pooja Sharma and her one or two ongoing daily soaps. Most probably the account is held by a promotion company on hire. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the first few references, 3 are interviews and hence primary references. Others seem to be channel pushed coverage of its serials hence promotional in nature. Only reference that seems to be a neutral coverage is the demise of the father of the person in an accident. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. Rounding to redirect. Furthermore, the current text is a WP:COPYVIO of this (not to mention WP:G11). The only place it's recoverable to seems to be the same place that got it CSD'ed the first time around. slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E: Single event, low-profile individual, event has no lasting significance. GSS (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person is now being reported very often by the local media which makes him notable. --Saqib (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Saqib (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Saqib: Even if the subject is being reported by local media single event is still exists and per BLP1E "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." – GSS (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of only one event. The media coverage of this individual has grown larger so an article is justified. Many major newspapers gave a significant attention to this model. As per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers, if someone "has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." and also "has a large fan base." the subject ma y justify an article and in my opinion, this individual has. After making his runway debut, Arshad Khan has made his first appearance in a music video as well. --Saqib (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Well the subject has appeard only in one music video so far and its WP:TOOSOON for a stand alone article and the notability of the musician/artist of the music video is also in question. I don't see anything to support large fan base and we can not rely on social media fan following. GSS (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In worst case, I suggest to redirect this to Chaiwala#The_Chaiwala_from_Islamabad.2C_Pakistan. --Saqib (talk) 13:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chaiwala#The Chaiwala from Islamabad, Pakistan. sami ^talk 20:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - purely promotional as it stands. Deb (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GSS-1987: This guy keep making news. Recently, named amongst the sexiest asian mans of 2016 by Eastern Eye. --Saqib (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Do you think it's enough for a stand alone article and passes WP:ENTERTAINER. I still belive it's WP:TOOSOON for an article on Wikipedia. GSS (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this entry should be labeled as TOOSOON, but for sure, he'll managed to get get one soon. Dawn (newspaper) reported the model has started working on upcoming film Kabeer. --Saqib (talk) 07:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: Maybe in future when he play a significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions as per WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't think it currently meets WP:ENTERTAINER and I don't see any reliable sources that currently could get the article up to the required notability. I agree with GSS that it may also be too soon. Current coverage is because of a single instance of a photo going viral (though it is a verrrryy nice photo ) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The same person was the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlo Hrytsak closed on October 3, 2017. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Grytsak

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Unfortunately, I have trouble reading and understanding Ukrainian, but none of the sources cited seem to be in-depth and reliable - they seem like mentions in passing, or primary sources. The entire article is written like a promotional puff piece resume (the author is a clear WP:SPA), and having read it, I simply don't see why this person would be notable due to the virtue of his career, which is reasonably successful, but not encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the references in the article don't actually support the statements, they just link to the webpages of events Pavlo Grytsak is supposedly connected with. I'm not sure whether this counts as significant coverage, but in those sources that's as good as it gets. He gets more mention in a few other articles, but they are focused on the company he works for. Since I'm not good at searching for sources in Ukrainian, there could still be significant coverage of him somewhere, but until proven otherwise I'll assume that if that's true it would have already been added to the article. Daß Wölf 02:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (director)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable director. Quis separabit? 04:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a commercial director with two minor films BobLaRouche (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both of his films pass notability guidelines per NFILM, enough to where they each merit their own articles. That's ultimately enough to justify him passing criteria 3 of WP:NDIRECTOR and I've seen directors pass AfD on just the notability from two productions alone, as significant in the third criteria essentially just means that their work is notable enough to have received reviews and ideally, to each have independent articles. It's a loose criteria, admittedly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BobLaRouche. Not notable for individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough work to pass the notability guidelines for directors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved, expanded and sourced since nomination and the sources as well as the NACTOR side of things hasn't been refuted so I'm assuming the nom's happy with the article expansion/improvements, Anyway consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:17, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Fishwick

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

It's quite clear this is only planned to exist like an IMDb listing hence WP:NOT applies especially considering the fact this is simply a trivial and unconvincing, hence nothing for Actors Notability either. SwisterTwister talk 07:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR with only local productions to her credit. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How do you know what is planned? Not disuputing it could do with improvement. PatGallacher (talk) 12:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably her most well known role is the one in Our Ladies of Perpetual Succour, however I found enough reviews for her work in places like the Scotsman and Telegraph to justify her passing NACTOR as a whole. The article can still use expansion, but that's something that can be worked on over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple reviews for her performances, passes NACTOR. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Cherek

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

It's quite clear this was only started for PR advertising as that's what the information and sources both are and it's also clear the now added award is simply a state-level one, therefore everything here is literally so trivial and unconvincing, it should never have been accepted especially since WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable television figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like PR as the nom stated; fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Appears to be promotional in nature. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Laurita

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

Yet another article about a reality television star. Clearly not notable, only known for appearing on one reality show. All the sources about the person are either tabloids or articles about the series. Even though the show itself is very popular, the person has not been able to establish her notability outside the show. Mymis (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just did a rundown on what's available on her via Google. Seems pretty squarely covered by WP:REALITYTV. Largoplazo (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being in one reality television show does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an entirely trivial anf unconvincing career as an actor and it shows since this is quite close to an IMDb listing hence delete. SwisterTwister talk 16:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:15M and WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep duhan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: The actor has played supporting role in an Indian television show and I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 11:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Domdeparis (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Altieri

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Ajpolino (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with nom that subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable actor. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Snowden-Fine

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable actress, Cant find any evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgot this was nominated at AFD and completely forgot I was the nominator - Anyway can't be bothered to CSD that article and this AFD so will just let this run its course (and plus someone could find something I haven't), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As little content as there actually is here, there's (surprisingly) still enough that's different from the prior version to forestall speedy as a "recreation of deleted content" — but still none of it is substantive enough, or reliably sourced enough, to grant her an WP:NACTOR pass. Actors and actresses do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing; they must be reliably sourced to media coverage about them. But for "sourcing", what we have here is IMDb, another insignificant and non-notability-conferring database, and a history of Peppa Pig which just namechecks the existence of Peppa's voice actress while failing to be about Peppa's voice actress — and that is not the kind of sourcing that it takes to get an actress over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. -- Dane ^talk 00:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable actor --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gianfranco Phino

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

Non-notable actor Peter Rehse (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My first thought was that he could be notable, the article claims that he had several roles, and that could meet WP:NACTOR. But looking at IMDb it seems he had only minor roles, and that does not suffice for inclusion in encyclopedia, per cited policy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete lack of sources to establish major acting roles. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. There is no article to delete. Restoring redirect. Sam Walton (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mercer

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

The article contains no information and conflicts with a new article being created with the same title. Phobixscan (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The new article being your declined Draft:Matt_Mercer? This was a redirect to Matthew Mercer until you blanked it. Oppose. If it should have gone to Xfd in the first place, surely it would be WP:RFD. But since your draft has just been declined I don't see why this is even a housekeeping action. No action seems to be required, other than to close this and restore the redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Obi

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

The subject obviously fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable source discussing him. The article doesn't provide any tangible source either. Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there a couple of independent sources aside from the award link, then the subject does not pass notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mkdw ^talk 06:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Pendergrass

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

Not a particularly notable subject. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable.SeniorStar (talk) 13:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any truly reliable sources to show that Pendergrass has gained any note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 05:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Walker Studios

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

No evidence of passing WP:COMPANY, as there are lots of unreliable sources that do not establish notability, and no reliable sources can be found that could be added to the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Underneath the inflated claims and PR puffery, I'm not seeing any real sign of real-world notability. --Calton | Talk 23:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a promotional article by a single-purpose account. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a means of self-promotion. Citobun (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 1). MBisanz ^talk 13:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Retuya

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

Fails WP:NMODEL. Was a contestant on a reality television series (Asia's Next Top Model) but didn't win; sources are pretty much all routine coverage of Asia's Next Top Model. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:41, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 16:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few articles about her, but several are coverage of her appearance on Asia's Next Top Model: [14] from Philippine Entertainment Portal, [15] from GMA News and Public Affairs, and [16] and [17] from The Philippine Star. I'm not really familiar enough with models to say whether that's enough to establish notability, but it's starting to look to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As an alternative, we could redirect the article to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 1). Linguist ^Moi? Moi. 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - redirect sounds alright, I suppose. Or maybe a merge, if it's not undue. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asia's Next Top Model (cycle 1) per Linguist111; she lacks independent coverage and does not not appear to be notable outside of the show. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:ENT requires multiple significant roles, a criterion which does not appear to be met here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Boulton (actor)

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

British actor. This is a whole fan site disguised as an article, written in revoltingly sycophantic prose that goes to extreme lengths to highlight every detail of "Nicholas"'s career as a milestone in popular culture. Now, it is quite possible that this actor is notable, but I could not bring myself to read all of the 500(!) footnotes, almost all of which merely document an appearance in some work or other; and a Google News search does not immediately highlight the person as notable - just a lot of mentions of appearances in plays. In any case, if he is in fact notable, this needs WP:TNT and starting over by somebody who knows how to write a neutral encyclopedia article. Sandstein 10:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, Although I happen to be a "fan" of the actor (which i don't see why that should be a problem since most people who edit actors pages on Wikipedia are fans of the artists they work on), I am really perplexed by the "rude" tone you use to describe my work, especially as I have identified all infos I could find on the actor with reliable and certifiable sources. Would you please highlight me "very kindly and politely" as to how you think my prose is sycophantic, remark I find very offensive. And two, would you mind explain to me how somebody who should be on Wikipedia has to pass the Google News Search highlight to be notable. The man I follow is a well esteemed and respected actor who worked on several programs in the UK and being esteemed by his peers and professional critics, and game players. Reviews have been given about his work and he has had interviews also. Please inform to me as to how I can improve this page which I passed through the creation process and which all who watched it found acceptable and even approved it. Thank you for taking the time in reading my message. Waiting for your reply. Simon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Omnes (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Omnes, to begin with, articles are to be written from a neutral point of view and cover what reliable sources have written about a subject. What you wrote is a fan site. Just looking at the first paragraph, you write: " Apart from that first job opportunity, Nicholas's three years studies gave him acting skills, an agent, and the chance, as he says, "to safely explore the different directions one could take in what is a hazardous choice of career."" That is the sort of vapid blather found in press releases, not an encyclopedia entry, starting with referring to the subject by his first name, which suggests an undue sense of familiarity. If you cannot recognize the problem here even after reading examples of good actor biographies, you should not be writing for Wikipedia. What's more, there's so much crap in here, it's not clear whether your subject is even notable per WP:GNG. Sandstein 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While the article does require much clean up, the fan bias included is not as prevalent as Sandstein is making it out to be. On the contrary to what @Sandstein has suggested, I do not believe that the article requires WP:TNT. I wouldn't consider the article to be a "fansite", though some opinionated adjectives could be removed. In any sense, subject is clearly notable per media coverage and should be kept on Wikipedia. In the future, I suggest that rude words such as "crap" be discluded from deletion reviews, as well as demeaning comments regarding how a user is not skilled enough to be included in editing. On the contrary, more experienced users should assist new ones in becoming more skilled editors rather than brutally criticizing their work. Remember: uplifting critique is better than criticism that tears down. MonroeHarless (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MonroeHarless for your supporting words. As a new member of the Wikipedia editing community, I find positive comments much better than rude words and patronising attitudes. As to whether or not I might want to work on Future Wikipedia pages, that might be something else I'd want to reconsider considering Mr.Sandstein's unpleasantness. But still, for the sake of this page I have been work on for 4 months on my free time, I would like to patch it up as much as I can. Would you be kind, Mr. MonroeHarless or any editor on Wikipedia who might look at this discussion, tell me which part of the Wikipedia page could be improved (adjectives to be removed, phrases to be reformulated), even give me some of your suggestions. If you also want to add your corrections to the page, I would find the gesture very kind. After all, I've always felt Wikipedia exists so that we can create a "cooperative" and "respectful" Encyclopedia. --Simon Omnes (talk)22:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said, "In any sense, subject is clearly notable per media coverage" but I disagree wholeheartedly. I do not believe the subject is notable as he has not received significant coverage in independent sources. If you believe he has, I would ask that you share such sources as offer significant coverage of him. Simply having performing in an audiobook, or 10, does not make one notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ - Yes, it is a bit difficult to find actual information to show notability, but I think there have been sufficiently many significant roles for him to meet WP:ENT. I think it would be a good idea to cut it down to a stub or at least a much shorter version and starting again; essentially WP:TNT but without a complete deletion in between. @Simon Omnes: - unfortunately it is not a matter of removing some adjectives and phrases - the entire text is promotional and that requires a complete rewrite, removing large bits of the text as well as many of the footnotes. I have started doing so now. Writing a new article is the hardest thing to do on Wikipedia, and it is not exactly rude to suggest that a user does not yet have the experience required to do it well. Please note that Wikipedia is usually not interested in what a person says about themselves, and there is no reason to include more than maybe a very few very brief bits of information about what Boulton himself thinks about his work. The only relevant thing is what other people who are not connected to him have said - positive and negative. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my own !vote to delete. Having worked with the article, cutting away information that is not relevant to this article as well as info putting an undue focus on Boulton's own opinions about the various roles he has had and the people he's worked with, I am forced to change my mind about his notability. WP:ENT specifies that the person has had multiple notable roles, but multiple minor roles some of which are in notable productions are not the same thing - for example, an appearance in one episode of the undeniably notable series Game of Thrones does not confer notability on the actor, since notability is not inherited. --bonadea contributions talk 19:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. I looked through all the sources and none offer significant coverage of him. The best was one article that had 1-2 sentences about him when discussing one of the plays he did. Most of the sources are just citations that he did this or that audiobook, and the rest of the article is based on interviews he's done for YouTube gaming series, or one put out by the company he was working for at the time. Delete as not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I have added a new version of the tables (Theatre, Film, Video games) etc. and have kept in them what I consider important info regarding Nicholas. Please give me your advice as to what should be kept or deleted. As for my reasons as to why we should keep Nicholas Boulton's entry (though it seems I am in the minority in those discussions), here they are: 1) The artist has been praised for his work in the audiobook industry (Audiofile Magazine articles, reviews, and awards), YouTube channels and Game Websites have done interviews for his work (audiobooks and video games), and reviews have been written about his performances in theatre. 2) The man has been in talking roles for major productions like Shakespeare in Love and Tospy-Turvy, which are quite noted for their media presence in the English-American cinema. He has also been in important video games (Dragon Age) and TV shows (Life Begins, Jonathan Strange, HeartBeat, etc.). He is not an obscure actor. 3) Several video game booklets, even books on plays mention his name as an important cast member for various original productions(Dragon Age, XenoBlade Chronicles, Last Story, etc.) Does Wikipedia still consider book references as pertinent and valuable information for an artist's career recognition and notable importance? 4) The man is an important presence in the radio entertainment industry in the UK as he has done hundreds of BBC radio plays. And as for the references I've used for those radio plays, they are program schedules in the Radio Times (publication in the UK) that show which day the productions appeared and which roles he did. Shouldn't that be a valuable information? 5) Although he is not a presence in the popular press like the most popular actors, Nicholas has nevertheless a rich and important background in the UK Theatre, film, and television. Shouldn't his presence in those projects, along with his work pedigree, be a great asset for Wikipedia's art/theatre/television sections. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a page about culture and the artists that work in the entertainment industry? There are several artists that are not necessarily notable in terms of stardom culture and media presence, but who have developed themselves and their name through their career and awards instead of the usual press. What about those that do have some articles recognition and awards for their work like Nicholas? Shouldn't we be offering those artists a chance of presence on Wikipedia? Thank you for reading my post and new suggestions. Waiting for the rest of your posts and suggestions, corrections. Sincerely, --Simon Omnes (talk)01:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Shouldn't we be offering those artists a chance of presence on Wikipedia?" -- Simply, no. Wikipedia is not meant as a platform to boost the careers of less recognized actors. As you have argued, despite the fact he's held many jobs over the years, he's maintained a rather low profile and been flying under the radar. That is precisely why he is not eligible for an article. None of the sources offer significant coverage of him. Until people start writing about him, more than 1-2 sentences in a long article that focuses primarily on a different actor, I do not believe he is notable enough for an article. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "There are several artists that are not necessarily notable in terms of stardom culture and media presence, but who have developed themselves and their name through their career and awards instead of the usual press." - yes, and those artists can then potentially be notable per these criteria, but it is not automatically the case. Awards sometimes grant notability (according to Wikipedia's peculiar definition of the word "notability") but only if the awards themselves are notable, and generally not for nominations.

Reviews are useful to show notability, but again it depends on who wrote the review and where it was published. Negative reviews are of course just as relevant as positive ones in terms of showing notability.

Book references are just as valid as online references, see this information; game booklets and programmes produced for plays would probably not be reliable sources, however. --bonadea contributions talk 13:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the issue presented in the nomination seems to be notability, so we turn to WP:ENT, which details that actors have had significant roles in multiple notable films, plays, etc. Many of the roles Boulton has played have been significant, especially in plays with only a few characters, and seeing as those many of those plays do turn out to be notable and not some college or small-town production, I'd say he meets the notability guideline in WP:ENT. Icebob99 (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gardiner (actor)

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

Notability. Yes there are many appearances, but some of these actually demonstrate non-notabity. Series such as Z-Cars employ many actors in very short parts; the non-memorability of which is evidenced by the fact that the samer actor can reappear playing a another part in another episode. Their mother may recognize them, but nobody else will. TheLongTone (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A basic search provides no resources that would allude to a person's notability.MonroeHarless (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 02:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article points to several appearances as exemplary. In Love and Kisses, which lasted only 5 episodes, the subject appeared in the secondary role as the main character's son. In Z-Cars, Dr. Finlay's Casebook, Brookside, and Howards' Way, the subject appeared in two episodes. In The Avengers, No Hiding Place, and Compact, the subject appeared in only one episode. Nothing indicates that the subject had "significant roles in multiple notable *** productions. Nothing indicates that the subject has a large fan base or made unique, prolific or innovative contributions. The subject appears to have had a good career as bit actor, but nothing that indicates notability.--Rpclod (talk) 13:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems pretty clear that he was not a notable actor, just a prolific bit player. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V; the article lists no secondary reliable sources and none have been offered at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet neither WP:BASIC nor WP:NACTOR. — Sam Sailor 01:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Being a "famous actress" on its own is not enough to establish notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disha Dinakar

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

WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:GNG: The actress has only appeared in one film so far and the notability of the film is also questionable. I failed to find decent coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the role is huge, one film is just not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I know about her. She is a Famous actress. She acted in one film but she is the heroine. The film got good response and so many medias talked about Disha's performance (137.97.121.33 (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actress. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She is a notable actress (137.97.57.203 (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Agree, she fails WP:NACTOR and this is WP:TOOSOON. -- Dane ^talk 00:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yasemin Ergene

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

I still confirm my PROD here as any "existing news coverage" is not actually staying how and why it would amount to actual notability and whrther or not it's simply entertainment gossip news. SwisterTwister talk 17:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – GNews is providing a great deal of coverage about this subject: [18], [19], [20]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one film and several tv series. No references. Perhaps too soon, but notability not shown.--Rpclod (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple apparent Turkish-language sources but I can't evaluate WP:RS or independence of said sources. WikiProject Turkey seems basically dead, is there any other measure to reasonably attract Turkish-language experts to this discussion? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clemence Verniau

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actress, which makes no claim to passing WP:NACTOR and contains no reliable sourcing to support it -- in fact, the page fails to even have an actual article in it, consisting solely of an an infobox and a filmography list which is sourced solely to the films' IMDb profiles, all of which reveal that she's in the cast as an unnamed minor character at best (except for one claimed film whose IMDb profile actually fails to list her name in the cast at all.) As always, Wikipedia is not a free PR platform on which an actress becomes entitled to have an article the moment she can be nominally verified as existing; an article does not become earned until reliable source coverage about her, verifying something that would actually pass WP:NACTOR, is present to support one. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bearcat really said it all... Purely PR and WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources for this person. --Cerebellum (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Egbring-Kahn

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

Delete: as non-notable ACTOR Quis separabit? 18:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Berliner Morgenpost had a 7-paragraph story about her in 2011. [21] Perhaps more can be turned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Actress recently died, which explains the article creation now, but WP:BEFORE points to quite some material which needs to be evaluated. one example a key-role participation in de:Gregors größte Erfindung Agathoclea (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 15:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuel Bettencourt

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

Non-notable actor (minor roles only) or martial artist Peter Rehse (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete would need major roles to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as entirely trivial and unconvincing, and next, same is said as a martial artist, therefore no applicable notability has been established. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He isn't an actor at all, he's a stunt coordinator and a fight choreographer. Google turns up a fair amount on him in Turkish, which I can't read, but seems to relate to his work on Secret of the Sultan – apparently a notable film in Turkey. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 13:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is very close. But, found what appears to be ok coverage in Turkish (don't read it), he is in a martial arts Hall of Fame, found a 1984 reference in Black Belt magazine where he was included in a list of elite black belts, and he has appeared or done fight coordination in several notable German/Turkish films or TV shows. While I'm skeptical about whether the appearances or coordination work qualifies under WP:ENT, the whole package seems close enough to error on the side of keep. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martial art hall of fames have never been considered indication of notability and neither is a passing mention in a list defined by an adjective. They attended something and were called elite. Does not come close to meeting WP:MANOTE.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As I said above, I'm not sure any one feature qualifies under any individual criteria of notability, but in my opinion the whole package (including martial arts, with RS mentions, and profile in notable TV and movies) seems likely notable. I stand by that assessment. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will Beinbrink

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

Non-notable actor. Has been tagged for more references since 2010. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly no actual significance as an actor since they boldly and explicitly show background characters as "Cop", "Man", etc. That's clear enough, no need to overwork it. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Noting that there was a lot of refs added midway through this discussion that caused a number of opinions to sway from "delete" to "keep". Disregarding opinions calling for deletion because the subject is not "serious" or a "joke", there's still not enough to fish a clear consensus either way out of this rather complicated discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Alom

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

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

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

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

Doesn't meet instruction for Biography and also unreliable links Anhgamat (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've already had to revert the article twice since anons seem to like adding all kinds of nonsense to the page. Hopefully it won't get so bad as to require semi-protection. No opinion as to whether or not the article should be kept. Feinoha ^Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is becoming a nuisance with unreliable links and multiple instances of vandalism. ^Talk 20:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The article two links, both Prothom Alo and The Daily Star are reliable sources. What is an unreliable link?- Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note Article semi-protected for the next 12 hours. Clerks, please consider that IPs and newly registered users will not be able to improve the article during this time. Thank you. Samsara 06:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear in any national TV drama or any movie. non-notable according to, WP:ENT. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn in light of recent information. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep and improve~~ Strong keep The above deletion rationales are correct for the name spellings given in the article. But I'm seeing multiple significant coverage of him in WP:RS, when searching for "Hero Alom" in Bengali: হিরো আলম. I get the impression (via Google translate) that he's notable as a meme in Bangladesh, rather than as someone for whom we should be looking for straightforward notability as an actor. Wikishovel (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Semi-protected for two days this time. Samsara 16:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. No notable production. - Mar11 (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - ~~Not notable. Less references and only local ones. Considering a global view this article is not necessary.~~ Considering the fact that he is well recognised in his native place and according to the sources(more references added later) this article meets WP:BASIC. So I think it should be there in wikipedia.--Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 09:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnanaranjan sahu: when the notability guidelines talk about "local coverage", they mean small town newspapers. This article now has ~~four~~ six references from national dailies of his country. Wikishovel (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article is absolutely unnecessary, wikipedia should be a place for knowledge, not for nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:4084:CC59:C0A1:E355:213:AF8 (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC) — 2405:204:4084:CC59:C0A1:E355:213:AF8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The references have recently been improved to the point of this now passing WP:GNG, with substantial coverage shown on six references from national daily news sources. @Anhgamat, Johnpacklambert, Ibrahim Husain Meraj, Mar11, and Jnanaranjan sahu: may I ask you to reconsider? Wikishovel (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not chaning my view. Hope you have been through WP:ENT. There is a reference which links to his youtube channel. I believe It is too soon to add an article about him.~~ --Jnanaranjan Sahu (ଜ୍ଞାନ) ^talk 18:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said he was notable on the basis of WP:ENT. As I've noted above and per the article, he's not just an actor, he's also a bit of a social media phenomenon in Bangladesh, with ~~3.6~~ 4.2 million views on YouTube, and he does meet WP:BASIC. Wikishovel (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion discussion is poorly framed. With the exception of biographybd.com (which has been removed), the original sources were reliable, albeit not all that deep. To those original sources, Wikishovel has added four more solid Bengali-language sources. I don't like the topic, don't relish guarding it against vandals, and won't shed any tears if it's deleted, but I don't see how anyone can seriously argue that it still doesn't meet WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are solid, and the article is well sourced for stub. The Subject is a cringe pop star and source of Viral memes in Bangladesh. The fact that he received coverage from Independent National Newspapers support notability. The deletion discussion was framed poorly and some of the arguments for deletion are not policy based. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note Semi-protected for 4 days. I will not post further notices regarding protection - please just check the prot log, thank you. Samsara 13:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Non-notable per WP:ENT. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Moheen Reeyad: as noted by several other editors, WP:ENT is not the only basis on which to judge notability. Wouldn't you agree that he has enough significant coverage in WP:RS to meet WP:BASIC, as someone notable on social media? Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. The page is full of nonsense stuff.--Anup Sadi (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anup Sadi: Could you please explain what in the page is nonsense? And how he fails WP:BASIC? Thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep:- This article probably should not be deleted. The person is a social media sensation of Bangladesh and India and the source are completely reliable. Some says discussion that he did not appeared in National TV but seriously in nows day national tv is not needed for becoming a notable person. I understand that the article in poorly written but the article can be protected from vandalism but should not be deleted. Ominictionary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alom is not an actor; at best, you can call him a wanna-be amateur model. Lately he received considerable negative publicity, specially on facebook because of his ineptitude as an actor, his unsuitable physical demeanour as a model, and (maybe) skin colour as well. People are mostly mocking him on facebook; few are amused and sympathetic. The publicity he receives in Bangladesh is mostly negative. Hence, I will suggest to delete this article albeit he is a very interesting phenomenon, perhaps would be a great subject of interests to social science experts, sociologists, anthropologists who are interested to work in the field of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena, pop culture, pop psychology, and etc. - Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 02:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think he got enough RS to pass Notability and the article, as it is written now, is a nice representation of him describing why he is in Wikipedia. - Mar11 (talk) 05:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Alom has just become the joke of the country and hence received negative publicity, especially on facebook, and other social networking sites. How come that can be considered a criterion for an entry on wikipedia? And most of news sites (/links) covering him except Prothom Alo/Daily Star have little credibility. So, my afterthought recommends the deletion.- Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability isn't contingent upon the coverage being positive. And as you've said yourself: he's now known nationally. Wikipedia also has many articles on the most terrible criminals imaginable, not because they're worth immortalising, but because they're notable. And since he's received in-depth coverage for a significant time in national newspapers, he's notable. Wikishovel (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by in-depth coverage? Would you please mention one? The most credible or reliable newspaper in Bangladesh, The Daily Prothom Alo, published with a reference to a spam news from India that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan; it's an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . I have already said most of the links are not credible; they are mostly spam news. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that though I said the joke of the country, I didn't necessarily mean he's known nationally. He is known by some facebook users, and other social networking sites users; he's become a social media phenomenon when facebook users began mocking and lampooning him online, and then, some online news portals (mostly spam news sites) covered him following the trick of clickbait journalism. And in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By in-depth coverage, I mean whole articles about him in multiple WP:RS, not just passing mentions. "Significant coverage" isn't precisely defined in WP:BIO, of course. The Prothom Alo reference that's actually used in the article is an opinion piece about him, but it's quite a long article, and describes him as an example of what can be achieved in Bangladesh today. Thanks, 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a populist piece, and it barely mentions Hero Alom. Hero Alom is just a passing reference in that piece. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article obviously passes the WP:BASIC. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 12:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC says "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable". Hero Alom has not received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, and most of sources are not reliable. Even The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. Please check https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/BD or https://www.google.com/trends/yis/2016/IN . Therefore, the article completely fails to meet the WP:BASIC. I think it is better to keep wikipedia spam-free. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That might indeed be a falsehood, but that reference isn't used in the article. Wikishovel (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per as I'm concerned Prothom Alo and The Daily Star is considered two of the most reliable newspapers! The article has references from those papers with one link from Kaler Kantho and Jugantor each! Coming from that, Zee News and NDTV are two of the most reliable medias in India. They too published news about Hero Alom. (Sources: Zee News & NDTV) Though they are not used in the article. But I think this is enough to prove that this guy has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable , here,

Multiple = Prothom Alo, The Daily Star, Jugantor, NDTV, Zee News etc.
reliable secondary source = I don't need to proof that I think!
Significant = A "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own.

So under the current circumstances I don't need to be an judge to say that this article does meet the WP:BASIC.

PS: I think you need to search the trend under different idea. The news says Hero > Salman, it doesn't say Hero is trending in top 10. Mind that. But I won't say anything, since I didn't do any personal research on this! Oh yes, the reference isn't used in the article. Mentioned the correct thing @Wikishovel:--PGhosh ^(Hello!) 17:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

I have already said that The Daily Prothom Alo's claim that Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google.com than Salman Khan is an utter falsehood. I compared them on google.com/trends/. Hero Alom is nowhere near Salman Khan. Who says Prothom Alo reliable? How can you still claim "a "reputed" and reliable media won't publish anything at their Page 3 without any research of their own"?
Indian news portals like Zee News, NDTV, etc published things just following the trick of clickbait journalism without minimum research. Just sheer clickbait yellow journalism. I'm from Bangladesh, and I'm sure about what I'm saying. Did some research.
If the issue of coverage and significance is taken into consideration, Hero Alom received really very little print media coverage. There are thousands more things getting covered in daily national newspapers, and they don't get into wikipedia. Just few weeks back an elephant from India crossed the border; he got live coverage in tv, dailys, even named Bangabahadur nationally. But he's not in wikipedia though more widely covered than Alom.
First, I thought Hero Alom would be an interesting study of racism, classism, patriarchy, social media phenomena. So I didn't recommend deletion. But then it occurred to me Hero Alom is yet to be covered in an academic research paper.
Also keep in consideration that in their print versions, many newspapers avoid publishing many things which they publish online as clickbaits.
Hero Alom simply does not meet the WP:BASIC. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of these rationales reflect Wikipedia policy on notability. Which policy says subjects of bios have to be the subject of a research paper? Wikishovel (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What about multiple reliable secondary sources? Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have already responded that the article does have multiple reliable secondary sources. You don't agree. That's fine. Wikishovel (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a ballot going on here, I admit defeat. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here's the Hero Alom article. Just tell me on which line the "utter falsehood" reference is used. If it is not used then there's no value in the concern of the article. Now what you are talking about clickbait seems unreal to me as the false news was published on December 17-18 while heas featured in Zee News at 15th of December. Moreover the trust level of these media are compared to Al Jajeera of Middle East. So, they obviously does there research before publishing any news and you may find out These news says about him and his "works" not some "utter falsehood" news. But this info is also unimportant as these sources are not used in the article. Now the last thing you told they surely can do that. But that doesn't mean the news becomes unreliable. Cause the online version of a print media is also reliable. See WP:RS for details.

Coming to Bangabahadur. Bangabahadur is a pure and classic case of WP:1E. In fact we didn't know who Bangabahadur was (probably elephants don't use nicknames/names) and after his death we almost forgot who Bangabahadur is. That elephant was stuck in Bangladesh which ended in the tragic death of him. So Bangabahadur is only known for 1 event. So in this case you may start an article about that event! While Hero Alom is a guy who has always been in the news, sometimes being a Youtube celebrity, sometimes his videos, sometimes his interviews etc etc. So this guy is not a 1 event person. And now-a-days he has gained a huge amount of fanbase at Youtube, so this guy is notable. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 18:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Alom obviously passes WP:BASIC. Prattya has explained it quite clearly, so I think I don't need to repeat those words. — ANKAN GHOSH DASTIDER (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't know that any media can lie, make mistakes, even take side, be biased in their judgement, propagate specific propaganda, and spread hatred, violence whether that is Al Jazeera or Bal Jazeera, Time (magazine), The Washington Post, The New York Times, The New Yorker, The Huffington Post or Zee News and so on. So you don't know what they can do or how they can use clickbaits to attract click-throughs. So now I admit the words of Zee News is the words right out of the Vedas; they are truisms, and from India, they did so much research on us that they know much more about us than we ourselves know about ourselves. Please study a little on media studies, then talk like that. Thanks. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 10:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With due respects to you, I don't need to know media's policy, I don't need to know that they lie and I also don't need to know how they make news; in this article's concern. I just want to know whether it fulfills the WP:RS or not. If it fulfills it then I don't need to know any more. I would count them as reliable and OK.

Moreover I would dearly request you to go through WP:RS once then please post comments. Cause, you just give one example from Prothom Alo (that news may be non-true; which is yet to be proved) saying "utter falsehood", which were reported with the reference of Yahoo India and you are starting to believe every media produces false news. Now let me also tell you, it's not a proven fact that was a false news, So innocent until proven guilty. That's why that too will be counted as a reliable news until proven wrong.

Finally If the one's you mentioned above is not reliable then probably no media in the world is reliable, cause everybody thinks about business and sometimes make mistakes in producing news. Just one bad buzz (needs to be verified!) from Prothom Alo doesn't make it unreliable. By the was it's not a good practice to remove a comment fully and make a new comment at that place in discussions. Do use the <s>Strike Through </s> option instead! --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Prothom Alo has already been proven guilty. It made two terrible mistakes; it made the first mistake when they said Hero Alom is more sought-after person on google than Salman Khan; then it made the most terrible and unforgivable second mistake by attributing the false info to Yahoo India. Yahoo India never said that. Even if Yahoo India published it, why don't you compare Hero Alom and Salman Khan on google trends. Go and check yourself https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Salman%20Khan,Hero%20Alom .
Zee News's website should not be considered a good source becuase the website is not particularly a regular news portal. Zee News is a tv channel which is notorious for controversies; check its wikipedia entry. Hence its website is untrustworthier. I'm sure the links referenced in the article are going to be dead soon.
In Bengali Wikipedia, similar discussion is going on, the majority (6 out of 8 users) there recommend the deletion of the Bengali article because Bangladeshi and Bengali people are aware of the real scenario.
Finally it seems you're consciously exploiting the system loopholes and augmenting the systematic bias by being unabashedly and unduly recentist. Smmmaniruzzaman (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! But I haven't heard anything from either PA or any other source that it's false! Though I myself can search I too know that, but still I don't think that proves it wrong. Cause unless it's been granted, mine or yours opinion don't count. Anyways let's agree that news is wrong, but what is next? That specific link is NOT used in the article. So I don't know why this dead rubber is being discussed now and then!
The next point you said is why Zee News should not be considered a good source! Well would you be kind enough to propose this at WT:RS or WP:VPP. Cause until now the rule says the different thing. The official website is a part of the Zee News channel, so that's surely trustworthy! Moreover the news we are discussing about was published by the Zee Media Bureau, so henceforth the news too is OK. Now I request you, please understand one or two bad buzz doesn't make a media non-reliable. Every Media has history like this. You see there's a long list at BBC controversies, but that doesn't make either BBC Channel or bbc.com non-reliable. So that's the same for Zee News. And if still you tell Zee News not trustworthy, then probably, no media in the world is trustworthy.
Your third point was about Bengali Wikipedia's AFD. Dude, frankly what Bengali Wikipedia people thinks, can't be counted at English Wiki. Cause this discussion is going on at English Wiki, so what people at that place think has no value. Moreover I, myself is also a native Bangladeshi and Bengali speaking person, then I think different! Still I'm enlightening some parts of that Bengali Wiki Debate;
You added {{Not a ballot}} at the top of this page. Oh! one thing, you may counted wrong. Actually, 10 people commented there, with 6 saying delete and 4 saying not delete (one of them is me). So what I was telling, since this is not a ballot, so the logic of 4 others should be counted and those 4 are also Bengali speaking person. So the situation you are saying is not like that and I too am aware of the situation. --PGhosh ^(Hello!) 14:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You people whatever have said , all are half truth. Hero Alom is man of inspiration of thousands around the globe , so it should be remained in Wikipedia. Despite being left by his parents, poor health , poor financial condition of Hero Alom , he has erected to entertainment industry as a Hero.Kalamya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I know that Hero Alam has recieved a lots of negative publicity, he is not one whom can I admire at all. But the matter is here that he is notable so we should not delete it and please guys prothom alo is a reliable source it is one of the leading newspaper of Bangladesh just one false news can't made a reliable news paper to unreliable.Ominictionary (talk)

Keep. Similar to Worldbruce above... I think the topic is cringeworthy and vandal-bait, and the article is currently of bad quality. But the guy has received enough media attention to be notable, so the article should stay. 1292simon (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may very well remain a magnet for spamming and other trolling-type behaviors for a while, and it certainly needs some work as of right now, but that doesn't change the fact that as an individual Alom is broadly notable. He's not just covered by the likes of mere random blogs. We're talking about well-known, widely looked at publications such as The Daily Star. The article should be kept. It needs work, but it shouldn't be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tadashi Miyazawa

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

Solomon Muto is the subject's sole notable role. Subject has yet to garner enough notable roles for a standalone article at this time. Delete or redirect to Solomon Muto. Sk8erPrince (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I took a look at ja: wiki for this one, and saw a bunch of noteworthy roles that includes dubbing that have not been added to the English language article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese dubbing roles have been proven to be non-notable in these AFDs. As there has yet to be proof on how Japanese dubbing is important to the industry, I will continue to believe that it is non-notable. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing Starscream in three Transformers movies certainly quailifies as notable roles. Also KK is right about the other available sources.--Adam in MO Talk 01:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are said sources, and have you verified whether or not they help assert notability? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Besides Sengoku Basara where he's in a bunch of articles, he's got a main character role in Sinbad film trilogy. Sinbad: Sora Tobu Hime to Himitsu no Shima: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] and Yi Ren Zhi Xia (Hitori no Shita: The Outcast) [28], Main character list in Pupipo! [29] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cerebellum (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takkō Ishimori

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

Only notable role as far as the eye can see is Sengoku from One Piece. Nothing else strikes as notable. Delete or redirect to Sengoku. Sk8erPrince (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussionw please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk 04:07, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a more detailed biography of this person on ja:wiki. I also see some major dubbing roles that would make this person pass WP:ENT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese dubbing roles of Western live action movies are not notable. An unsourced or poorly written bio means failure of WP:BIO, even in JP wiki. Now, assuming that the subject's bio in JP wiki is actually ok, if the subject is deemed to only be notable as the role of Sengoku, then regardless of how sizable the bio is, it still won't save the article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The assertion that "Japanese dubbing roles of Western live action movies are not notable" is simply that - an assertion. Live-action dubbing is an important part of film industries in many non-English-speaking countries. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just an assertion. It has been used as an argument to delete two articles off of the encyclopedia. See AFD 1 and AFD 2. Your claim on dubbing being an important part of film industries in non-English speaking countries is again, completely baseless, as pointed out in AFD 1. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just one article, but there are plenty more. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. It doesn't say anything about Japanese dubbing of foreign films, which is the main concern here. Also irrelevant in the sense that you have not provided more sources that proves your point. This is a classic argument of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I was going to pick ups on this point but between the difficulty in finding coverage one way or another, the literal handful of people who have western notability for their dubbing of live action (I can only name two) and the credit roles here it doesn't seem necessary to go over. I fully agree about the concept, but keeping the article over it with those credits doesn't make much sense. SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Andreas is right here. Assuming that voice overs of western films aren't notable reeks of regional bias.--Adam in MO Talk 02:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have proof that it is, and you're ignoring the fact that it has been used as an effective argument in two AFDs, which are listed above. Read again. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is this afd. WP doesn't operate by stare decisis. By the way, it'd be great if you dropped the condescention.--Adam in MO Talk 03:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to reference previous AFDs on what is constituted as an effective argument. If it has been proven to be an effective argument, it could easily be applied on all similar articles. But because you haven't, your counterargument means nothing and it is weightless. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we will see how that works out here. Regardless you can drop the condescension.--Adam in MO Talk 03:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using other deleted articles as a justification for deleting a different article is not a particularly good reasoning. Every article is different and should be viewed as an individual. Stating that your argument has already lead to a deletion is a clear implication of bias.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sengoku (One Piece). Dub roles are fine, that he is mentioned as the Sorting Hat for the Harry Potter film dubs is sourced. [30] Buzzer Beater role as Yoshimune is main cast. But other than that, his main role is from One Piece, which he is strongly associated with, and that isn't much to write an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The dubbing of western works are not immediately notable enough. The truth is if there is any coverage it is almost certainly buried in Japanese media coverage which is likely to be unavailable. If someone comes across something that shows they are notable then it can be restored and added. Sengoku is his main notable role so this is the likely outcome. This should never have been an afd as it would have been safely covered by WP:BRD.SephyTheThird (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per well laid-out and defended rationales of Adamfinmo--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, except his points aren't valid. He has yet to prove his points, and I've already dismissed them due to lack of proof. Don't vote to keep an article if you can't be bothered to be objective about the subject himself. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Do not redirect to an article on a single role. That is not going to serve a reader looking for information on this voice actor. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not IMDB. We don't aim to archive every actor on the planet. If a subject is deemed to be non-notable, then they will not have a page here. If a reader wants to look up info for this particular voice actor, they may do so outside of this website. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales by Adamfinmo. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Brishty

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

Does not meet WP:BIO all the sources bar one that is blocked by my anti virus come from one web site. MTNews24. IMDb notes one film for her. Domdeparis (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, may be become notable in future. But not the current state she does not pass WP:GNG. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 08:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR...Rameshnta909 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom didn't examine the cited sources very closely. None is actually from MTNews24. Instead they are major Bangladeshi newspapers (e.g. Jaijaidin, Manob Kantha, Bhorer Kagoj, and Daily Inqilab). A cursory Google search found an additional eleven articles in English-language press. Searching by her Bengali-script name found even more. She has not been shown to meet WP:BIO or WP:NACTOR (possibly because Wikipedia has scant coverage of Bengali-language TV), but failure to meet additional criteria such as those doesn't prevent her from meeting WP:GNG. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sources found by Worldbruce.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to WorldBruce for finding sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Draft instead as based from her current career, this is still only local entertainment news, not something we consider actual substance, and since her largest number of works are "Unreleased", that alone says enough and the works she has released are still too trivial. Draft is suggested so improvements can be made. SwisterTwister talk 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kani Kusruti

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

Promotional prod removed by editor hence starting the AFD discussion. Page is overtly promotional and is written like an advert. Moreover the person lacks notability. Recommend DELETE Film = Revolution (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree that inpart the article is too promotional but don't think it is bad enough for TNT, the promo parts can be edited out. There is reliable coverage such as the Hindu here, Manorama here, a short piece in Times of India here, and controversy reported in the Asianet News here, there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is a notable person. There are many reliable coverage like Times of India here,The Hindu here, Asianet News here, Deccanchronicle here,Manoramaonline here are these. Page is well written too. there seems to be enough for WP:BASIC Ayyappan CS 15:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayyappancs (talk • contribs)
Keep Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the listed characters are noticeably "woman, "singer", "guest", "wife" and "housekeeper" and those are the ones aside from the unnamed characters; that itself is not what establishes notability and the listed links are still nothing but announcements, mentions and other entertainment casualties, nothing we accept for substance. As it is, Ayyappancs links are shown to be nothing but these same exact sources: Interviews, announcements and mentions, none of that is what satisfies our set established policies. What's worse is the sheer fact we've establishes these such publications are largely paid for publishing such materials by the subjects themselves, hence also unacceptable. We make no compromises because of "She's from another country" or "She's a woman", and we never have established that in policy, and we won't now. I'll allow Drafting if needed, SwisterTwister talk 02:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio de Santos

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

Directed a bunch on non-notable movies. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Marvellous Spider-Man 13:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being "under" at present and worthy of an article in the mainstream (Wikipedia) seems a bit contradictory. Dentren | ^Talk 15:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are either created by the subject or not reliable sources like IMDb. We lack the 3rd party reliable sources that are required to create an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sahil Uppal

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

Fails WP:GNG no indepth coverage, very minor parts in TV shows. Too soon. Theroadislong (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete collection of minor roles does not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niti Taylor

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns are there.Not much reliable,Independent ,Verifiable sources are there for this article and the article is almost fully relied on one source for its content.I think that it contravenes the Wikipedia policy regarding BLP. Param Mudgal ^talk? 06:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This aricle should not be deleted. She is a famous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.186.124.127 (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG; the sole keep vote doesn't cite any policy Spiderone 11:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sem van der Vegte

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

Voicing a minor role that is not attested by sources in a film once does not satisfy WP:NACTOR even if that film was a Star Wars film. The article doesn't say what creature, or even if the creature had words spoken. No reliable sources to be found on him either. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article on a 14-year-old. Even if the claims were true they would not amount to notability, but we lack verification.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR - Same subject was speedy deleted in 2014 under the name Sem Weelz. Insufficient neutral secundary sources to meet WP:GNG. A google search found no news items. A single voice actor role does not meet any of the WP:NACTOR criteria. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, fails WP:NACTOR and the WP:GNG. No references or significant roles. Tiller54 (talk) 17:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fabbri (novelist)

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

I had (obviously incorrectly) speedied this a year and a half ago when it was a new article, the speedy was declined and it stayed there, until recent edits popped it in my watchlist again.

The obvious concern is notability, in particular WP:AUTHOR. the only book review I found was [31], which I think falls under "passing mention". Maybe writing for children/young adults explains the lack of "real" review in the press, but well, we need some source. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - many young adult fiction books get reviewed, so if this hasn't been then it's possibly because this is not a notable author. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite being described as a "best-selling" author, no established notability through WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it's clear none of this amounts to substance and he's not notable as an author with followed significance. SwisterTwister talk 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marios apostolakoulis

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

Apparently non-notable musician, sources offered are all blogs, PR sites, and profile pages (fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG) and an admittedly cursory search on Google does not seem to produce anything to support notability in either English or Greek Waggie (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally trivial with not only any sheer efforts to format said links, but then nothing to actually emphasize the confirmed notability and, actually examining them, shows these to be trivial thus delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good place for WP:TNT. The plethora of sources do not appear to qualify as WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel White (Actress)

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

WP:TOOSOON: The actor has played supporting role in Bengali film Har Har Byomkesh and Hindi film Ungli. There are only 3 independent sources about the actor in Times of India but all three sources are published by the same author (Ruman Ganguly) which looks like paid publicity. GSS (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TOOSOON, two supporting roles (one with a character that is not even named) fail WP:NACTOR. No objection to userfying, since if she keeps it up she may become notable in few years. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just too soon for her! Mhhossein ^talk 18:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McGuinn

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Not one secondary source is used in this article (as is required for Wikipedia biographies). The sources are a mixture of blog interviews, one-word mentions, and dead links. A few sources are not linked. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:FILMMAKER. This is the second (or third?) AfD for this biography. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed, I am not finding anything to establish notability for this Patrick McGuinn.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to point out that secondary sources are used: Variety, South Florida Gay News, which is Florida's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender newspaper, and Sean Abley's book "Out in the Dark: Interviews with Gay Horror Filmmakers, Actors and Authors". Also, his films are permanently housed in notable archives (UCLA Film Archives, and the Frameline collection), which meets notability standards. It looks like these authoritative and important references for this particular subject were overlooked.Pclibuser (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list some of the secondary sources here, with links? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Let's start with the book, linked to snippets in Google Books. One of the films at the UCLA Archive. They have a total of 6 of his films currently in the film archive. Interview from The Wild. The Wild is an arts-focused magazine published bi-annually. South Florida Gay News review — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pclibuser (talk • contribs) 23:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 12:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thought I have is to remove the dead links from the references, as the secondary sources are present and notability is met with the archival holdings. These were the concerns brought forward, and I believe the article answers those concerns.Pclibuser (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing indicating that the subject meets the GNG or any pertinent notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. Looking at GNG, and the secondary resources listed in the article -- suitable coverage is supplied, over a range of time, as well. Once again, the original claim for this AfD was the lack of credible resources, and I believe we have to review the references listed and used for this subject -- as they are all credible secondary sources, which meets GNG. Furthermore, the subject's work is also housed in institutional archives, which meets WP:AUTHOR criteria. As noted in GNG: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate." -- And since we have coverage in independent sources for this subject, I feel that this discussion is being misled. Pclibuser (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. GauchoDude (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do appreciate how thorough this discussion is being with this article. But I think we need to review the facts, as the same arguments are being mentioned:

1. Secondary sources are supplied for the subject from a range of time (1998 - 2015). This fulfills WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTTEMPORARY

2. Secondary sources include a book with a devoted chapter to the subject, and specialized websites deemed as authoritative and credible in relationship to the scope of this subject. As a reminder,WP:GNG notes that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." This article has 14 references.

3. Per WP:FILMMAKER, although not a requirement for notability, permanent holdings in a galleries/museums is an indicator of notability. UCLA, Frameline, and One Archives all hold this subject's works.

4. If there is still concern about the notability of this subject, per WP:FAILN, deletion is a last resort. Maybe there are other paths that should be taken instead of deletion.

I hope this helps to clarify and resolve the concerns about this particular article. Pclibuser (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To my understanding the LA Film Archive is not selective, and that a film is in its collection is no more significant than that it is in the Library of Congress. As far as I can tell from the website, they will accept any donation. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Iron

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A WP:PORNBIO pass is questionable, as the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" is a lower tier award, given that the "swordsman" is unsung.

The AfD in June ~~2015~~ 2016 closed as "keep" (which was a bit surprising to me) on the strength of the argument for the two Swordsman awards. The consensus at adult entertainment AfDs seems to have shifted since then, and much more scrutiny is given to sources (or lack thereof) vs a technical SNG pass. The AfD was not well attended, so perhaps a new discussion is warranted. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP as an article about a living person with no reliable sources from publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage in reliable sources means GNG is not passed. WP:GNG overrides the SNG which is also questionable in this case. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just looked at the first AfD (via the above link) and that AfD appears to have been just a few months ago (in 2016), NOT 2015 as the nominator stated; so I don’t know what “consensus at adult entertainment AfD could have shifted” in a few months. The first AfD was opened on 7 June 2016, closed on 15 June 2016 with all 3 new editors voting (in a 7 day period) "Keep." All 3 editors gave very good reasons for their "Keep" vote. These reasons still seem valid to me. There were no “Delete" votes for the first AfD (other than the nominator, Atlantic306). One of the editors of this second AfD (Atlantic306) voting for a “Delete" is the nominator in the first AfD. The other editor (86.17.222.157) voting for a Delete in this second AfD added some negative comments in the first AfD, but did not vote. The nominator of this second AfD states that "the first AfD was not well attended so perhaps a new discussion is warranted," but I would think that 3 editors voting (within a 7 day period; and all voting "Keep") would be considered "well attended." The 3 editors that voted "Keep" in the first AfD were as follows: User:Rebecca1990, User:Wikiuser20102011 and User:Guy1890. User: Zootsuit1941 Zootsuit1941 (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I mistyped. I nominated this article with the knowledge that the prior AfD was 6 moths ago. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NOTE: I've again recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject of this article has "won a well-known and significant industry award", namely the XRCO Award for "Unsung Swordsman" twice.

Sending an article to AfD less than 6 months after it's been Kept at a very recent AfD is at least mildly disruptive and likely indicative that the subject here just isn't liked by the nominator of this AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly normal, and not at all disruptive, for the suitability of a topic for Wikipedia to be reassessed after such a time, especially when the previous discussion was far from unanimous, and the nominator gave policy-based reasons for deletion without giving any indication of any like or dislike. You may disagree with those reasons, but you shouldn't try to read the nominator's mind and characterise them as "just isn't liked". And surely the word "unsung" in the name of this award equates pretty well to "unnotable" in Wikipedia-speak, because both indicate a lack of coverage in reliable sources. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn is one of those subject areas where we have a tremendous problem with the active editors trying to create their own special exemptions from having to actually get the topics over WP:GNG — such as an excessive reliance on XBIZ (a user-generated industry PR trade blog) in lieu of actual reliable sourcing, or the notion that even though any other award in any other field of endeavour has to be sourced to media coverage about that award before winning or being nominated for it counts as a notability claim, porn should somehow get a special dispensation to use the award's own self-published website about itself as the source. (Never mind that the existence of reliable media coverage about an award is how we determine whether that award is notable enough to count as a notability claim — in the isolated standalone case of porn, we're supposed to accept that something is a notable award just because somebody asserts that it is, regardless of its sourceability or lack thereof.) I want to stress that I'm no prude — I'm as much an aficionado of porn as the next horny single guy — but at the Wikipedia level, porn does not get to make up its own special subject-specific exemptions from having to follow the same content rules as any other subject area. SNGs do not create exemptions from having to pass GNG on the sourcing, but serve merely to clarify the types of things that are accepted as notability claims — but the claim does still have to be sourceable to a GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage before the SNG is actually passed, and SNGs do not confer exemptions from RSability just because passage of an SNG has been claimed. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - XBIZ is not "a user-generated industry PR trade blog"...it is merely an adult film industry trade magazine that is certainly not "user-generated" by any means. The idea that any awarding organization cannot be used as a reliable source for who won (or was nominated for) one of its awards is an argument that has been dismissed out of hand here at AfD for many years now. The specific award ceremony in question here (the XRCO Awards) and its winners have been covered in the past by the likes of the LA Times and several books. Guy1890 (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever said that an award's own self-published website about itself is untrustworthy for verification of who won its own awards. But what an award's own self-published website about itself cannot do is constitute evidence in and of itself that the award is notable enough to make the fact of winning it a valid notability claim in an article about a person. The latter most certainly does depend on the extent to which reliable sources which are independent of the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself do or don't treat the winning of that award as news — the extent to which an award makes its winners wikinotable because they won it is a factor of the extent to which the media do or don't devote their time and resources to creating news content about "so-and-so wins XBIZ award".

By comparison, winning an Academy Award constitutes notability for a film industry worker because the media covers the Academy Awards as news, and winning a Giller Prize constitutes notability for a writer because the media covers the Gillers as news — yet lots of other film or literary awards (e.g. "Star Wars Fan Film Awards") also exist which don't get media coverage, and thus don't count as notability claims for their winners just because the award organization issued a press release or named the winners on its own website. If "the award is verifiable on the granting organization's own website" were all it took to hand an award "makes its winners encyclopedic" status, we would have to start keeping articles about winners of local "battle of the bands" competitions and high school poetry contests — the extent to which media treat the winning of that award as news is what defines the difference between an award that is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it and an award that is not.

What the award's own website about itself is good for is verifying things in case of conflict — for example, if two different sources are in conflict about which year a person won their award, then the award's own website is the ideal place to look for verification of which source was right and which source was wrong. But the award cannot self-publish itself into being notable enough to make its winners eligible for articles on the basis of having won it, if the winners can't actually be RSed over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the citations for one of the relevant award wins in this case here is cited from XBIZ (not from the awarding organization itself - XRCO), which is a reliable source that is both independent of the awarding organization and of the subject of this Wikipedia article here. The notability standard primarily in question here is PORNBIO ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award."), which has been intentionally modeled off of the ANYBIO standard ("has received a well-known and significant award or honor"). The standard here is basically whether or not the awarding organization itself is "well-known" within the adult film industry (XRCO certainly is) and whether or not the specific award category is "significant" (or basically a major award, which is also true in this case). The "Star Wars Fan Film Awards", local "battle of the bands" competitions, and high school poetry contests are obviously not well-known and significant awards. Also, arguments that basically boil down to that something just isn't encyclopedic, which is unfortunately what many anti-porn arguments basically boil down to in the end, aren't to be given any weight here at AfD. Guy1890 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for whether an award win passes WP:ANYBIO is whether the person got over WP:GNG by garnering media coverage for the award win or not — "won an award" does not create or confer an exemption from having to source the winner over GNG. Like any other SNG, ANYBIO cannot be passed just by asserting that it's passed — it is passed only when reliable source coverage can be shown to properly support its passage. And while you're right that the Star Wards Fan Film Awards, local battle of the bands competitions and high school poetry contests are not well-known or significant awards, the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant. We don't apply personal opinions to determine what's a significant award and what isn't — we measure the media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award and its winners. If the award gets a GNG-passing volume of media coverage, then it's a significant and notability-conferring award regardless of whether any individual editor personally cares about it or not — and if it doesn't get a GNG-passing volume of coverage, then it's not a significant or notability-conferring award no matter how desperate an editor may be to create new GNG-dodging inclusion criteria in his pet subject area. Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — the depth of media coverage that does or doesn't exist about the award is how we determine whether that assertion is right or wrong. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the lack of a GNG-passing volume of media coverage for those awards is what makes them not well-known or significant"...no, that's what makes those awards non-notable. There's been a longstanding difference at AfD between a notable award (or award ceremony - one that simply might have a Wikipedia article written about it) and whether or not those awards are "well-known and significant", which is a higher standard than just being notable. I'm sorry, but these are longstanding guidelines that shouldn't have to be explained to anyone whose spent any significant amount of time at AfD in this (or really any other) subject area. "Anybody can come along and assert that any award, even the battle of the bands competition or the Star Wars Fan Film, is 'significant' enough to merit an ANYBIO pass"...no, they really can't. AfDs like this run on consensus, and one is never going to get consensus for those kind of claims. Guy1890 (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, anybody most certainly can come along and simply assert that any award in existence is "significant" enough to merit an ANYBIO pass — for someone who staked so much of this comment on what should or shouldn't have to be "explained to anyone who's spent any significant amount of time at AFD", you sure don't seem all that aware that AFD routinely sees "votes" on the order of "Keep because he won the [Star Wars Fan Film Award/North Palookaville Battle of the Bands/Jackson Collegiate High School Poetry Contest/Employee of the Month at Arby's] and therefore passes ANYBIO". It is an argument that can be attempted for any award that exists at all, and actually has been tried for many more awards than we actually accept as "notability because award" passes — whether we take the claim seriously or not is determined by whether or not reliable sources can be shown which prove that the award is really as significant and noteworthy as the claimant asserts that it is. And, conversely, it is entirely possible for someone else to argue that even a highly notable award like the Giller Prize or the Prix Goncourt is not a well-known or significant award because they've never personally heard of it before — yes, it's a stupid and ethnocentric argument, but it's one that can be, and actually has been, seen in real AFD discussions too. So in both cases, the determining factor is not the mere assertion of whether an award is "well-known and significant" or not — it's "can the depth of reliable source coverage be located to demonstrate how well-known and significant the award really is or isn't?" Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Subject fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Whether an award is sufficiently well-known and significant to indicate presumptive notability depends both on the awarding organization and the award category. The standard is a proxy for whether award recipients are likely to have generated enough independent reliable coverage to satisfy GNG requirements. An award as an "unsung" performer is premised on the idea that the subject has been inadequately covered, a point reinforced in the case by the absence of reliable sourcing. A Gbooks search turns up only one passing mention; a GNews search turns up only an isolated quote (aside from a castlist or three). Even if the award were enough to technically pass the SNG, that would be overridden by the lack of the independent reliable sourcing needed to sustain a BLP. And most XBIZ coverage, whatever the subject, is client-generated, not independent; XBIZ is a component of a PR business, AdNet Media, and extensively publishes/republishes its client's press releases/PR copy, sometimes with minor touchups. There is some independent journalism in its magazine, but not much, and it is difficult to identify that relatively small share of its output. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Starr

AfDs for this article:

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

A BLP lacking in reliable secondary sources that that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Article sourced to non-independent industry materials or tabloids. Recently added Polska Times content appears to be citing to tabloid-like content as well. The best I could find was TMZ and Wikipedia does not generally cite to tabloids. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO as only two nominations are listed.

The notability tag has been contested and it may be best to resolve the issue via AfD. The first AfD in 2015 closed as no consensus, so this would be a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Should not be considered as a 'porn-only' notoriety in my humble opinion. Decent international notoriety as porn actress albeit without awards won; notable for having been a Penthouse Pet in diptych with her sister as well as for her being a Polish celebrity. Creating a page or redirect for her sister could therefore be useful. Nota: the 'listed nominations' mentioned above were oddly removed from the page before the debate was launched (see the article talk page).--DPD (t) 01:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As sources show she's recognized in Poland as a rare Polish star in America. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above - She's gained international notability and at present I see no valid reason for deleting, Meets PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Starr has won no awards from what I can see. How does she meet PORNBIO? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Weak). Weak because of the dearth of independent sources. But she has twice been nominated for the "Best New Starlet," a criteria for notability (WP:ANYBIO). Less important, IMDb has a page on her. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Caballero1967: Two XBIZ nominations is nowhere near meeting WP:PORNBIO. Award nominations have been dropped from this SNG a long time ago. Besides, XBIZ is not the Nobel Prize :-). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: Could you explain the SNG drop and why you think the award is not worth considering? We should discard all awards if the standard is the Nobel Prize. I am all ears. :) Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 22:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest reviewing Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2014#RfC:_As_regards_WP:PORNBIO.2C_should_the_criteria_for_awards_nominations_be_removed_from_the_guideline.3F and the discussion immediately beneath that RFC. One important reason was the increasingly outlandish proliferation of award categories and nominations within most categories. One incarnation of AVN's fan awards had categories with up to 100 nominees, and most categories from the more prominent awardgivers have more than a dozen nominees. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Thanks. That link is all that I needed. My caveat was the "nominations" and according to the discussion in your link, the consensus is to remove this rung from WP:PORNBIO. It is an informative RfC discussion. I think that until the reform of the guidelines occurs, a link to it should appear in all of the AfD PORNBIO cases. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reading the RfC linked and explained above. Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 10:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Uh, Polish celebrity - hardly. In addition to the English language article in a minor Polish-American newspaper, I checked Polish language coverage. All I see is an article in regional (provincial) newspaper (Kurier Lubelski (pl:Kurier Lubelski) [32]), a single paragraph at a news section of a bigger portal onet.pl, and a bunch of articles in tabloid Super Express. Borderline at best, and frankly, given that majority of coverage comes from tabloids, trade journals and a single local newspaper, well, I think we usually lean towards delete with no other arguments, and as the remaining question should be whether she fails PORNBIO - and nobody disputed the nominator's claim she is not.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No genuine international notoriety or celebrity. Such claims are based on unreliable tabloidery, including one source whose extensively referenced native-language Wikipedia article [33] points out its reputation for "misconduct and disregard for the rules of journalistic ethics" and "the administration of untruth and creat[ion of] fictional material". What's happened here is fairly straightforward: a flurry of posts on social media claimed (without any credible evidence) that the winner of a quite minor beauty pageant ("Miss Polonia Manhattan") had become a porn performer. ([34] seems to be the starting point, apparently based only on visual resemblances in a few photos. Sources which base their reporting on social media aren't reliable, and can't support a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic performer. Our guidelines clearly say we should not create articles built on tabloid coverage, which this article would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete we rightly expect better coverage from blps. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. The claim of celebrity in their native Poland is very questionable as is the source that makes that claim. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets as {{R to list entry}}. SST flyer 14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Google News results show multiple articles about her in two popular newspapers in Poland, Super Express (se.pl) and Fakt (fakt.pl). This satisfies the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fakt most certainly is not a reliable source; most of the Polish wiki article on it is devoted to detailing its journalistic failings. The Super Express page is more tabloidery, apparently based on social media postings and riddled with dubious claims -- "the first Polish woman in the porn business" -- not even remotely plausible. Sourcing like this can't sustain a BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on an outside wiki article to determine reputation as there is potential for coatracking, and I can't track the underlying sourcing (if there is any and whether it's from competition or an actual academic journal). Even the best of newspapers, most notably the New York Times, have had journalistic failings. I see these populist foreign papers that are in tabloid formats to be the equivalent of something like the New York Post which has never been outright rejected as a source for wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The arguments for deletion are too weak and based on subjective opinion rather than fact. Holanthony (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aurel Hermansyah

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

unremarkable muscian Domdeparis (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable musician. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 17:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 09:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's been zero explanation by the nom nor the other delete !voter as to how this person don't pass our notability guidelines like WP:GNG when there are multiple sources about this person like those from Liputan 6, Bintang (Emtek media), Tempo and others. [35][36][37][38][39][40][41] All we've seen is personal "unremarkable musician" opinions which looks very WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Oakshade (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi @Oakshade: it's got nothing to do with liking or not, I have no personal opinion about the singer but from the page's information and from what i could find on the web she does not fulfill the necessary criteria in WP:NMUSIC. I must admit that I may have been a little lazy in not citing the notability criteria, I took it for granted that people would understand what I meant. mea culpa. Domdeparis (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but sources show that she passes GNG. If anyone is fluent in Indonesian(?) that would be very helpful to improving the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very much thank User:Oakshade for that identification of those sources. They clearly demonstrate a pass at the WP:NMUSIC, specifically the point (1). No policy based reason to delete this. TheMagikCow (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AfD with multiple relists and no objections is treated as an uncontested PROD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanna Walls

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

Fails WP:NACTOR: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage. —swpb^T 16:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 16:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable actress, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music1201 had closed this a minute before I !voted[42] so I've reverted the close and have !voted, Thanks. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 12:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yukimasa Obi

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

ANN role analysis:

1) Zero Enma (Candidate for Goddess - main)

2) Tatsuki Kuroi (Super Gals - main)

Only two main roles, on top of no secondary news sources to assert notability. Article is a credits dump with no room for improvement at all. Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)_{Note to reader:This user is now tbanned from these discussions please don't respond to them directly as they can not reply and it could possibly be triggering for them. --Adam in MO Talk --Adam in MO Talk 04:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)04:05, 16 December 2016 (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/2016 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In addition to Pilot Candidate / The Candidate for Goddess and Super GALS!, he voices main characters Cisca Kanzaki in Starship Operators and Firion in Final Fantasy II and Origins [43] I'm not sure if there are sufficient biographical sources though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no room for improvement to write a sufficient bio. Even if we kept the article, it would still fail WP:BIO and WP:WHYN. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firion is an incredibly minor role in this case. Gameplay is unvoiced, just like the Wonderswan version the game is ported from. Voice acting is only in FMV and there aren't exactly many of them - 1 as far as I can tell (its been a long time since I played it).SephyTheThird (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Kind of like that girl who voices Zelda or the guy that voices Donkey Kong. They speak?! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely why I've nommed the article for deletion. No reason to keep an article for a voice actor that's only literally known for two or three series that aren't very well known. Besides, as I've mentioned before, it will fail WP:BIO either way. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There are sources in Japanese that may, shed some more light on his bio. Just because there aren't sources in English doesn't mean there aren't sources. --Adam in MO Talk 03:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barely any, unfortunately. Also, what you just said is WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES right there. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no Japanese sources which can be used to establish notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I trust Nihonjoe on this one as it looks like he looked for sources but came up empty. I have no objections to someone placing this article into a draft user-page though for possible future improvements. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Article completely fails to establish any notability, and no significant, independent coverage is evident in the sources. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Doumit

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

Non-notable actor, Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the actress fails GNG, but I'm not sure she fails NACTOR. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the guidelines for actors, there are too few roles and not enough are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a cast member on a current NBC television series, Timeless. See [44] and [45] for recent interviews with her. Her current IMDb StarMeter ranking is within the top 5,000 of all of the 7 million+ people listed in the database. I would give the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as an acceptable compromise considering her career is not yet substantiated, only having the 1 major work, so this will suffice, considering IMDb is enough to gauge her works, but there's currently nothing for actual substantial notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90, or at least redirect to Timeless (TV series) to keep a link. SST flyer 14:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The amount of sourcing in existence that mentions the subject's name in relation to their part in a show is irrelevant, the requirement (as noted at WP:GNG) is whether or not those sources cover the subject "directly and in detail". As no sign of this being the case has been presented by the editor requesting the article's retention, it is found that this article's subject lacks the requisite notability for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynsay King

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

Non notable actress, Found a few mentions about her role in Corrie but can't find anything substantial, As she played Sarah-Louise Platt for the past 12 years it should probably be redirected to there however I'll let the community decide, Fails NACTOR & GNG, –Davey2010^Talk 19:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. Played the role of Sarah-Louise Platt for 12 years on Coronation Street. Odd that is being considered as a reason to AfD. There is a lot of where-are-they-now coverage on her, both is television documentaries like The Kids From Coronation Street and in print.[46][47][48][49] While each article might not be extremely in-depth, a combination of all pushes way past the threshold of GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a lot of where-are-they-now coverage on her" - I wouldn't call one result from The Irish Mirror alot, Having looked through the searches again only result is actually about Lynsay with the rest of the sources being about Tina O Brien so she fails GNG (I forgot to add above but there may well be sources offline however that's a wild guess but If I were to put money on it I would say there wasn't anything much better offline either)

NACTOR states the following: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Well A) She's not been in multiple programmes (She's been in various Corrie spinoffs but you may aswell say that's all one programme), B) She doesn't have a fan base, and C) Not entirely sure how you'd prove C ... So she actually fails NACTOR & GNG

Ofcourse If you or anyone can find anything I'd be more than happy to withdraw but as it stands now she unfortunately fails both NACTOR and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG dos't make the requirement that a single source have extremely in-depth coverage, just that there is enough in-depth coverage available even if it's from a combination of multiple sources. That's why this topic passes GNG. Sometimes a person can just be notable for playing just one part, especially if the rold is very significant and spanning over a decade like in this case. Hanging on the one word "multiple" of a sub-guidline and sub-clause like WP:NACTOR is just a classic case of WP:GAMETYPE. --Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the point there is no in-depth coverage .... they're all just trivial mentions (One source in the article is great however the article cannot solely rely on one source), I'm not trying to Game the system here I'm simply going by what NACTOR explicitly says, Various actresses have been deleted due to the lack of coverage and the one role and being quite honest I'm not seeing anything different here, Ofcourse I have no objections to this being redirected but as it stands they're not notable (and it's highly unlikely they ever will be). –Davey2010^Talk 09:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The combination of the multitude of sources makes it in-depth. And sorry, but going by what NACTOR explicitly says is just ignoring common sense and sticking to the letter of a cherry-picked buried sub-clause whilst ignoring the principle of the guidelines as a whole which is the definition of WP:GAMETYPE.--Oakshade (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except there isn't a multitude of sources ... there's barely sod all, Nope I'm going by a notability guideline which is followed by everyone on every single BLP AFD, She fails NACTOR as well as GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are a multitude of sources.[50][51][52][53] which in combination equate to significant per WP:GNG. Just repeating "fails GNG" and willingly participating in WP:GAMETYPE isn't going to change that.--Oakshade (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is those can't be used as they're all tabloid newspapers (It does state here you can use them with caution however I've been told more than once that that shouldn't be used full stop (I believe I asked at the help desk however that could've been this year, last year) , I personally still believe she does fail NACTOR & GNG but we obviously disagree so perhaps it's best we just move on otherwise we're going to be here forever debating this :), BTW I apologise for hatting this it's just usually long dicussions do get hatted, Anyway thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. Has played one character on television. Searches for "fans" turns up nothing to indicate a fan base. All searches for "Lynsay King" reference that she played the one character or "where is she now" type of articles mostly in tabloids. A search of the character she played "Sarah-Louise Platt " actually mentions another actor, Tina O'Brien, more frequently than the subject. Also appears to fail WP:GNG as well. Limited coverage from reliable sources, none of which address the subject in much detail. CBS527^Talk 15:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The main role she played was a newborn, and her main qualification for that role was that she had a twin sister, so they could alternate playing the role. But, more to the point viz-a-viz WP:N, the sources just aren't there. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Brookside cast members. The community finds, that there is not currently enough evidence of this subject's notability to warrant a stand-alone article. (WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, WP:BLP) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Chapman

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

Non notable actress, Can't find any evidence of notability, I only found this but other than that there's nothing source-wise, Her most notable role was in Brookside so it should probably be redirected there however I'll leave that up to the community, Anyway fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I concur she is a non-notable actress. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 23:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ actually, Redirect to List of Brookside cast members. This actress just barely missed WP:NACTOR criterion 1. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't realize how big this show was (this was a British show that went from 1982 to 2003, and I am an American who is too young to be even a Millennial). I guess people could identify her from this series.--Mr. Guye (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guye - I've heard of Brookside but have never seen it, From what I can gather it was a big thing (like EastEnders & Corrie), Anyway I have no objections to redirecting, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:NACTOR. Not only was she a 10 year principal cast member of Brookside, but had multiple episode guest starring roles on Hollyoaks and Emmerdale. Redirecting to Brookside a performer who had notable roles in other shows would be nonsensical. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being on Brookside is great however there's nothing at all on this BLP so with the greatest of respect keeping this would be nonsensical unless ofcourse anything substantial can be found. –Davey2010^Talk 15:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A HighBeam Research search for <"Tiffany Chapman" Brookside> yields 82 hits. (See focused "find sources" links above.) Many of these are the expected namedrops, but more substantive content includes several substantive profiles from the Liverpool Echo [54] [55] as well as an article noting that as of 2015 she'd had the 5th-longest run of any actor on Brookside [56]. For the record I'll also note, with the requisite caution, a couple of pieces from the Mirror [57][58]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Brookside cast members At the moment, I don't see enough coverage to warrant a standalone article. Redirecting to the subject's best known role seems to be sensible solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Remsen

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

As the article itself says (!) she only held minor roles in films; not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources in any depth. In short, fails Wikipedia:Notability. GRuban (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "know only as a bit part actress" means "no significant roles" which means does not meet the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She had appeared as Pamela in 65 episodes of Tribes. A major role as one of the leading actors in Appointment with Fear. A significant part as Taffi Fisher in Dreams of Gold: The Mel Fisher Story, one of the leading actors in Smart Alec as Samantha. She was one of the main actors in Ghoulies II, playing the part of Nicole. She had a decent part in Two Moon Junction as Carolee. She was also a significant cast member in Pumpkinhead playing the part of Maggie. She also had some good roles in various television series like Family Ties and Doogie Howser, M.D., etc. No problem giving a Keep vote here but I have to say that it doesn't come as any surprise that this attracted an AFD nomination. The article is a shabby mess! Karl Twist (talk) 08:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I would like more than to save this article, but can you find anything more in Wikipedia:Reliable sources than a list of roles? A news article about her? Even some interviews? Honestly, I looked, and all I could find was a podcast interview on some guy's blog, hardly the most reliable or notable of sources. --GRuban (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable minor roles that go no further than 1995. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter when her roles finished or she stopped working. She worked for 14 years from 1981 to 1995. She had more than a good handful of significant roles. The article page has had no thought or organization in it's creation that's all. Karl Twist (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's still a work in progress. From this here to this. I'm far from finished. Karl Twist (talk) 09:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. I would request the closing admin let you finish... however, for now, it looks like you're just adding lists of roles, either very minor roles, or moderate roles in very minor films (most of the "one of the group of teenagers killed by the slasher" type). --GRuban (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GRuban, while some of the roles I have added are minor or moderate, some of the others are major roles and she has been female lead at least two films as well as major supporting actress in three others. Three of the horror films have significant cult following and value. Already as a recognized actress in the 80's horror genre (Pale in comparison to 60's and 70's horror IMO, but each to their own), her characters are recognized and remembered. This is why she is included on the bonus-features for the "Ghoulies / Ghoulies II" Blu-ray Review. When this article was nominated for deletion, it consisted of nothing more than a C&P of IMDB listing and just 2 lines of intro about he. All of that was written in a messy misleading way. It resembled something the dog or cat had thrown up on the kitchen floor. Karl Twist (talk) 08:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination, or, if I can't do that since others have opined to delete, then Keep. Karl Twist's work needs to be rewarded; this is now a very thorough article. --GRuban (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Consensus cannot be determined after three relists (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reynaldo Dante

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

No claims of notability by WP:NACTOR: lots of films, but not notable ones (spot-checking, I can't find bluelinks for the filmography entries). Editors can't even agree on his birth/death dates, which suggests there are not in-depth independent-and-reliable sources about this person. DMacks (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is also how I had PRODed it; it was deprodded by a long-term disruptive sockdrawer. I've revived the PROD tag as standard for evasion. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NACTOR. I removed PROD tag, as PROD is inapplicable once an article goes to AfD. Safiel (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note According to article history, article was PRODed and declined back in 2006, so article was ineligible for PROD anyhow. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into the article history. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything more than incident mentions of him anywhere. He could have been a very active minor character actor.Rogermx (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar problem with so many "oldie" Filipino actors. Sources are few and far in between as Philippine publications from that period are not digitized by Google. Regardless if they're only "incidental" mentions he satisfies WP:NACTOR. He is mentioned prominently as one of the first "greats" in Philippine cinema. The list of films he was in are all notable. He is in the starring/top-billing roles in almost all of them (usually paired with fellow-award winning actor Anita Linda). See surviving posters at [59], [60], [61], [62], [63] (the websites are blogs, but the posters/pages they publish are not). Lastly and most importantly, he won the Best Actor award from the Maria Clara Awards in 1951 for Kamay ni Satanas. Maria Clara is the first national award-giving body for Cinema in the Philippines. Here's a quote from an article in PEP:

The award-giving body's Best Actor was Reynaldo Dante for the movie Kamay ni Satanas (1950). Reynaldo was among the less known matinee idols of the 1930s before maturing as a dramatic actor in the 1940s. As part of the Philippine movies' early batch of matinee idols Reynaldo starred with 1930s hunk Leopoldo "The Great Profile" Salcedo, Domingo Principe, Teddy Belarmino, Ben Perez, Mat Ranillo and Jose Padilla Jr. in Magna East Productions' Hindi Kami Laos (1962).

-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 12 December 2016 (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.

Proposed deletions

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

2007-2008
Atsuko Kawada (via WP:PROD on 4 July 2008) Cherylee Houston (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Robert Phillips (Actor) (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Lloyd Sherr (via WP:PROD on 21 December 2007) Michael Goz (via WP:PROD on 15 December 2007) Deleted Amy O'Malley (via WP:PROD on 2 December 2007) Deleted Clément Laloy (via WP:PROD on 3 May 2009)