Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

WP:DS/WOMEN

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

Women

Jana Jones

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

WP:notability, Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Fails notability criteria, WP:notability and Notability for academics criteria Wikipedia:Notability (academics) Anubus13 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is the evidence that she was not notable? static shakedown ʕ •ᴥ•ʔ 11:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Mullen

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

Lacks references other than external links to the subject's own sites/publications. Reads like a resume of her career, as in the list of grants, and an advert for her published works. No examination or analysis of her work and significance, if any, nor independent discussion of her relationship to the pantheon of modern poets/authors. A WP:BEFORE search turns up just her books and news reports of one incident in Fall, 2023, when she resigned in protest over the Israel-Hamas war. Fails WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. As far as third party, independent publications about the subject, they are mostly limited to the one event mentioned. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, California, and Iowa. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Stamper

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

She fails WP:BIO , WP:JOURNALIST and definitely WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Television, and England. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did not find enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet any specific guidelines. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Antònia Mínguez

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

Suggest redirect to List of FC Barcelona Femení players. None of the sources in the article focus on the subject specifically (fails WP:SIGCOV), just as one member of a team. The team was notable, and several individual members are independently notable – but Mínguez does not appear to be one of them. I feel like WP:SPORTBASIC applies without needing to consider the weight of a potential role in women's history, as the sources that do mention her as part of the team, don't suggest she had any greater role than simply being part of the team.

Furthermore, parts of the article that are about the team and their historic first match, appear to be copy-pasted from other articles about notable teammates (e.g. Lolita Ortiz), while the paragraph about the 50th anniversary of the match appears to be close paraphrasing – if not direct machine-translated copyvio – of the source (a primary source that is the main source used in the article, too). All in all, there is more focus on the match and the team and passing mentions that Mínguez was involved. Not sufficient for an article. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Spain. C F A 💬 03:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. @Kingsif: It is behind a paywall, but this 2021 article in El Periódico is focused on Maria Antònia Minguez and Sandra Paños gets it over the line for me. There are also other articles cited in Catalan Wikipedia worth checking out. Looks like not enough WP:BEFORE. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've read that source, Mínguez and Paños discuss how Mínguez joined the club (ad in newspaper) and then just about how the environment of women's football has changed. It's not about her or her career, it's just including her in a story of how Barça Femení grew from where it started to be in the Champions League. And probably only including her because the current player they got to take part was the goalkeeper. As for the Catalan WP article, it has fewer sources and they're just some of the same. Trust me, I've done BEFORE.
Like, this isn't to say Mínguez was not important for the team, but that she does not meet Wikipedia notability standards as she is only ever mentioned in sources in relation to "DYK Barça Femení was founded in 1970 and she was the goalie". Especially when that is all we can say of her notability, we should likewise keep our coverage in relation to the 1970 Barça Femení team. Other players from that team were much more actively involved in e.g. management and promotion, and are more worthy BIO/BLP candidates, but that does not mean every player warrants their own (largely copy-and-paste of the generic team details) bio. Kingsif (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, unless better sourcing can be found. Giant Snowman 14:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following additional sources, probably gets over the line now. Giant Snowman 16:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I probably would like to see more in-depth sourcing, but what's there is okay for me. I don't see anything wrong with the article. Govvy (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Expanded the article to include more about her early life and family and the influence of goalkeeper coach Antoni Ramallets. Added more coverage including a 2021 article featuring Mínguez on SER 100 following her SER Catalunya television interview, plus a 2022 article in El Diario featuring Mínguez and two other former players. Plus the 2021 article mentioned earlier in El Periodico. Surely this is enough to satisfy WP:BASIC, and arguably even WP:GNG. Pinging GiantSnowman. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanesa Velásquez

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Regarding GNG, there is nothing near even 1 GNG reference. Regarding SNG assessment, most know for placing in the Top 10 at Miss Colombia 2022 and appointed to represent Columbia at the 2024 Miss Charm competition. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Hadden

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

A quick search shows her notability does not rise appear to meet GNG Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and California. Graywalls (talk) 18:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can barely find any indication that she existed, and I find nothing that indicates she would be notable. DaffodilOcean (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first three sources in the current version of the article are about her sister Mary Anne (or Anne) Hadden, a librarian, not about Ellen Hadden who is the subject of this article. Additionally, one of these sources an Arcadia Press "Images of America" book. Several discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard resulted in mixed opinions on the reliability of these picture books on local communities whose primary audience is likely either locals or tourists. Netherzone (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article so let me comment on this deletion action. There is indeed not much material about Ellen Hadden but there are not many portraits of women in WP:EN. Her work was presented during World' Fair and she was mentioned in Who's Who in American Art. She was a tapestry artist. As for the comments by Netherzone. The first 3 references are not employed to talk about Anne Hadden. Simply, the material about Ellen can be found in publications about Anne because they were sister, they had the same parents and came to States on the same ship (Inman Line in 1891). As for the Arcadia Press reference being of lesser quality because these are "picture books" for tourists. I know nothing about "mixed opinions" about these books. I searched now "google scholar" for "jeff norman" and he is referenced in other books on "Big Sur" as "local historian" with some reverence. Also, I agree that she is a local/regional artist but I do not agree that her WP entry should be deleted. Puncinus (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karelina Clarke

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

Does not match WP:ENT Bulklana (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Bulklana (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ascendant (2021 film) where she plays (a young version) of the main character's sister. Probably Too Soon. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa bint Abdulaziz Al Saud

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

Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability, and thus coverage of her, is due to her relation to notable members of the Saudi royal family or her family lineage. She's not notable as the daughter of a King of Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding anything suggesting that she's of note in her own right. The article itself practically asks us to reach this conclusion as, except for the very last sentence, it's no more than an enumeration of who she's related to. The only thing it says about her in her own right as that she donates to universities. Largoplazo (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Descendants_of_Ibn_Saud#Hussa Al Sudairi where she gets a mention and is in the only context for which she is notable. I would have said "Merge" if there had been anything useful, like her dates, to add to that list entry. PamD 08:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per non. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wadha bint Muhammad Al Orair

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

Redirect to Descendants of Ibn Saud where the article subject is already covered. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Non-notable member of the Saudi royal family and coverage is either WP:ROUTINE engagements or in relation to her family lineage, not WP:SIGCOV on her as a notable individual. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Saudi Arabia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vivienne Tang

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

Fails WPANYBIO and GNG; among sources are blogs, not reliable media and podcasts. BoraVoro (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources 3 and 4 are about her favorite restaurants and what clothes she wears, not really what's needed for notability. I don't find much else for RS coverage; [1] is about skin creams. I don't see coverage we can use to establish notability. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Bryson

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

Not sufficiently notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ARTIST for a separate article, with no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources outside of her involvement with her first band. Her recent work as an artist did get some secondary coverage in this Sunday Post article, but the rest that I could find in a WP:BEFORE search is either interviews or passing mentions in connection with the band. Created twice by single-purpose accounts, and redirected to the band article twice in 2014, it's essentially an autobiography [2], [3], full of unsourced claims and WP:OR. Rather than redirect it a third time, it seemed best to take it to an AFD discussion: see also at the talk page a discussion about this with the editor who last redirected it. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, Women, and Scotland. Wikishovel (talk) 09:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising your concerns about the notability of this article. However, I believe that the article meets the criteria for notability under WP:

Why I think this reason:

I have been speaking personally to Jill Bryson for help on the construction of this page. She has assisted a lot to the making of this, and has given me verifiable evidence about her date of birth.

If you do not believe this reason then you can see for yourself here:

https://www.facebook.com/jill.bryson.52

She is my friend, search my name on there at Tom Sullivan

Instead of deleting the article, it would be more constructive for us to improve it by helping to add reliable sources and removing any unsourced claims I chose. My approach is trying to align with Wikipedia’s goal of providing comprehensive and verifiable information. I do know that the article has been redirected in the past, but it’s important to recognize that notability can evolve over time. Her contributions to both music and art continue to be relevant, warranting a standalone article.

T/R\S T/R\S (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. It's possible that someone (herself and/or friend) thinks she merits a separate article because her former bandmate Rose McDowall has one, but McDowall received some notice for her solo works. This article on Bryson simply copies a personal biography of interest only to friends and associates (having agoraphobia and hanging out in the local punk scene do not make someone notable) and it appears to be an attempted resume for her current art career. Her activities outside of her former band do not have the coverage necessary for an individual article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Strawberry Switchblade. This is almost entirely unsourced claims, not based on WP:SIGCOV significant coverage published in reliable secondary sources. Elspea756 (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [4][5][6][7] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Moncaster

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

I am unable to find enough significant coverage from third-party sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Biographies of living persons require independent sourcing. An WP:ATD is to draftify the article while more sources come up. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and England. JTtheOG (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I don't see this page as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Shall meet notability one day. Support draftification for now. Azuredivay (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A footballer with over 100 appearances for a professional football club should meet notability requirements, if not, most footballer pages should be deleted. StBloodaxe (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the 100+ appearances for Forest seem to all be in the third-tier league. JTtheOG (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is correct. It´s just that in my opinion the third-tier is not as unnoteworthy as people seem to be making it out to be. It is a national league not a regional or local league and Forest is a club with a high reputation. If 100+ appearances at a high-reputation third-tier club is not notable enough, where is the baseline? Having been at a second-tier club?
  
  As a note, I have no inherent interest in keeping this page, I am just trying to understand the norm. StBloodaxe (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The clearest guideline to follow would be the general notability guidelines, which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." You can follow the link to read more about what each phrase means exactly, but we are basically looking for a reliable source (but preferably more than one) that cover the subject directly and in-depth. This excludes so-called "trivial mentions" such as quick name drops in squad listings or match reports, as well as any non-independent source put out by the player's club, league, FA, etc. Prior to a 2022 decision, any player that appeared in a "fully-pro league" was automatically considered notable, but athletes are now expected to meet the same notability guidelines as any other biography on Wikipedia. Well, almost any other (see WP:NPROF or WP:NPOL). I hope my ramblings can clear it up a bit. JTtheOG (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for the information. I am familiar with WP:GNG but I was not familiar with how it should be applied specifically to sportspeople specifically. The 2022 decision was insightful. In that case I do believe that Draftify would be appropriate considering the amount of appearances already made and the age of the person. StBloodaxe (talk) 22:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. I could only find mentions in match reports. The likelihood of a regional 3rd tier women's footballer getting SIGCOV is low so draftify shouldn't be the outcome.Dougal18 (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Playing for a lower tier team doesn't equate to inherent notability. Let'srun (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anjalika Wijesinghe

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Both cited sources are predominately based on primary sources, which lack any independent editorial oversight. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is based on two sources: an article in a newspaper: Daily Mirror (Sri Lanka) and an article on a magazine called Lanka Woman, which is published by Wijeya Newspapers Ltd. No evidence has been produced for the claim that the newspaper and magazine "lack any independent editorial oversight". Presumably more sources could be found in native-language publications in Ceylon.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article in Lanka Woman, is entirely based on an interview with Wijesinghe (which is a primary source). There is no indication that the interviewer or the publisher has undertaken any fact checking to ascertain whether Wijesinghe's statements are correct. Dan arndt (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of GNG. Sources are not adequate. BLP reads like LinkedIn blather ("force to be reckoned with"). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Once the blather is removed, there's nothing left. Fails WP:GNG and is nowhere on the same planet as WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability in the article. The two sources smell more like paid publicity / churnalism than reliable journalism. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randi Cogan-Shinder

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

Article previously deleted as "(Expired PROD, concern was: Almost every single claim is not supported by the source. Many sources are unreliable, or make only trivial mention, or a primary like interviews and press releases.)" Nothing seems to have changed since. Refbombing seems to be mainly low-quality sources, largely involving regurgitation of press releases. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBUSINESSPERSON. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verónica Rodríguez

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

Subject is a fairly unremarkable pornographic actress, cited almost exclusively to industry press and the IMDb-equivalent database for that industry. She has music ventures outside of that field, but none rising, as yet, to an encyclopedic level of notability. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Venezuela. BD2412 T 19:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG and has either won or been nominated to several awards in the industry. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @NoonIcarus: Can you specify what in the article you think constitutes reporting in reliable sources "enough coverage to meet WP:GNG"? As far as I am aware, we do not count nominations towards industry awards towards notability, and the single "win" indicated in the article is not for any of the major industry awards. BD2412 T 00:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[8][9], to give some examples. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link #1 is promotional. Link #2 is a standard pornstar interview in AVN. A non-independent churnalism source. Neither contribute to GNG notability. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage by independent reliable sources found in the article nor in independent searching. The references are low-quality even by porn bio standards. The article even debunks the AVN source mentioned above as industry-generated kayfabe. No reliably-sourced claim for passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resmi R Nair

AfDs for this article:

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

I am curious about how this person meets WP:GNG criteria. This article does not appear to satisfy the necessary guidelines for notability.The only reliable citation in this article pertains to the news of this person arrest in a sex racket.But this incident alone does not contribute to her notability or prominence.This article was previously deleted thrugh AFD Disscusion. Padavalam🌂 ► 14:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Kerala. Padavalam🌂 ► 14:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E. The sources that come close to being significant only cover their arrest related to the online racket. I can’t find any other independent sources with significant coverage of the subject, so it fails to meet WP:GNG. I would like to hear the author’s comments on this article; perhaps they can provide significant coverage of the subject beyond the racket case. If they succeed, the subject might pass GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had created this for her career as a model, she was also instrumental in establishing the Kiss of Love protest. The arrest was secondary. I assumed the Kiss of Love protest was what made her notable for wikipedia here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the Kiss of Love protest was significant, and she played a central role in it. However, does that make her inherently notable? I am unable to find significant coverage of her in articles related to the protest. GrabUp - Talk 14:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other notable achievements or news articles about her apart from those related to the Kiss of Love and controversy? If not, delete. CheramanMale (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Charliehdb (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carboni

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Her main claim to notability appears to be her collaboration with Mick Simpson, whose own notability remains unclear, but in any case on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only coverage I could find of her in a WP:BEFORE search is in music blogs, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. Salvacarb (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Salvacarb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please, explain the reasons.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:C50B:417B:1664:DB7C (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salvacarb (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laureen Oliver

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

Oliver seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN. Most of the coverage on her consists of brief mentions, mostly in local outlets. Mooonswimmer 23:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Shellwood (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and keep improving. Easily meets WP:BASIC. Coverage includes academic books about the role of third parties in American politics (like this 2012 volume published by University of South Carolina Press). Over her 30+ year career in politics, she has been referenced a lot in national newspapers, not just local. Given the volume of coverage involving Oliver, this will take some time to sort through but definitely worth keeping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not seeing how that really counts as significant coverage. Mooonswimmer 22:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am reminded of the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Redpath and Redpath was a national figure of the third largest party in the United States versus one of three founders of a state-level, third-party with regular ballot access. The mention above I think fails WP:BASIC as WP:BASIC explicitly precludes trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources. The mention in Challengers of Duopoly is exactly that.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the well detailed analysis of Cielquiparle. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she was a major figure in New York politics, and later nationally. I disagree with her politics, but she’s clearly notable. She was in the news constantly during the 1990s. The founded what quickly became the third largest party in New York. Sources should be easy to find. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Arben

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

Lacks independent, sig/in-depth coverage in RS and does not meet NMODEL. Earlier PROD'd by @Voorts: Flagged as UPE. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per my PROD and nom. The sources that were added since my PROD are either unreliable or borderline and don't contain significant coverage. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe this meets WP:NMODEL. According to WP:NMODEL: This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if: (1) The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

In this case of this young model, Natasha Arben as I read from the page, she "has appeared in the Frontis Piece of Country Life Magazine,^[1] and has appeared on the front covers of L'Officiel Monaco,^[2], L’Officiel Cyprus^[3] and L’Officiel Ibiza.^[4]"

For me, these features can be classified as significant roles according to WP:NMODEL. She didn't pay the magazines to feature her on their covers. She earned these organically and meritoriously as a professional model. This is the major reason I de-prodded the page. Let other editors weigh in on this. Maltuguom (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltuguom, I don't believe the coverage meets the GNG. The coverage stem from interviews, which is not independent of the subject. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.
^ "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: She might meet notability with the covers above, but you still need sourcing that talks about her. I don't find sources that talk about her, outside of photospreads or celebrity gossip articles. Nothing found for extensive coverage of her in RS Oaktree b (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Margarete of Thurn and Taxis

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

No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject and each other. The only notable source currently is a notice of her wedding in the New York Times, so her article can be redirected to her husband's which already covers that event. All the other mentions are trivial or directory entries. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Belgium. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alessandro, 1st Duke of Castel Duino (although I doubt the Duke's notability as well). I have been unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Duke is barely notable so why redirect it to him? He is probably less notable than Margarete because all that's really stated on his page is his marriages and issue. Azarctic (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep she is notable for her wedding (WP:1E) where she obviously played a significant part in. the event was notable because most ruling princely families in Europe were represented at the wedding. And some sources are secondary but reliable (WP:BASIC). Azarctic (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1E says we likely shouldn't create an article for a person who is only notable for one event. It doesn't establish a person's notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that but that isn’t the only thing she’s notable for and WP:1E is if the person plays a significant role in an event and if the individual is notable then it should be put into their article. Also that’s just one of the reasons why we should keep the article because it goes into depth about the event as well as her biography which has reliable citations. Azarctic (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think the wedding is notable in itself (if it was there would be more than just a notice in the NYT) but what is this other thing they are notable for that you are alluding to but not actually stating? I can't seem to see it in the article. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it isn’t notable which it is, why should her page be deleted it still has enough coverage, her husband and father are probably less notable as her husband has only one reference so if anything he should be redirected/deleted, not Margarete’s page which should not be redirected or deleted. Azarctic (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Article only contains information about relationships to family members and her wedding, nothing to indicate independent notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what most articles on Wikipedia are like though. Especially royalty ones because marriage is a big event in royalty. And not once has the article mentioned anything about relationships to family members except for her birth and marriage which is usual for a Wikipedia biography. Azarctic (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an argument to avoid. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 13:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No less notable than her husband or father, both of whom have extensive articles. Plenty of RS coverage to substantiate notability. Gamaliel (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The keep arguments are variants of 'she was present at one notable event' or 'we have articles on other non-notable people that she's related to'. These are arguments for deletion not retention. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven’t even made a proper reason to delete the article. Azarctic (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, being present at one notable event does not make that attendee notable, nor does having non-notable relatives. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your saying your vote to deleting it is because she was not notable at one notable event… I don’t think that’s a proper reason still… Azarctic (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I would have advocated for a redirect to the articles on his father or husband but they don't appear to be more notable than her. In any case, I don't think the article should be entirely deleted because there is some coverage in outside sources. Keivan.f^Talk 14:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Keep the page as she was not known only after her marriage to Prince Gaetano of Bourbon-Parma. I have some information about her that is present in some books on the house of Bourbon-Parma (the one by Juan Balanso in French and another in Italian). If I have time I will try to add information. I thank the creator of the page. I was just thinking of creating the page on Princess Margarete myself.
MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above. IMO, she is enough to be notable per GNG. 81.231.253.231 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — 81.231.253.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep satisfied with MariaAmaliaduchessadiParma's work and i can see she was public figure in her time. I also found this [[10]]. Thanks 223.204.71.128 (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources of her times proves that she was a public figure, no less than Paris Hilton or Pippa Middleton today. Bearian (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets basic notibility requirements with substantial coverage in reliable sources.--Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mbugua

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

No satisfactory sources in the article, and a quick search didn't find any. Note: this was prompted by a request at the help desk on behalf of the subject. ColinFine (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, and Kenya. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this in the help desk, for me personally, I suggest keeping the article, my reason is because she co-founded (is that correct?) the biggest law firm in Kenya, and is one of the top 40 most popular women from Kenya.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheNuggeteer, more important than your opinion on this subject is how you would counter the reasons offered in the deletion rationale. What sources support your claim of notability? Please be specific. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, sources 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are the sources which prompt me to give the "keep" reply. She does not seem notable outside the business, I'll give you that, but being one of the top 40 women from a country is enough for me.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer, please read what Wikipedia means by notable. 2 and 6 do not mention her. 3 and 7 (which are the same source) has a potted biography, but is mostly quoting her. 5 gives me a 404, but judging by its title, I would be amazed if it had significant coverage of her. 8 and 9 give potted biographies, but are almost certainly not independent.

Sources used to establish notability need to meet all three criteria in WP:42. ColinFine (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments only: Firstly, several of the sources are actually the same. Secondly, appearing in a list of “40 under 40” is not the same thing as “one of the 40 most popular women.” Finally, we need to decide whether being a partner in Dentons, by far the largest law firm in the World, creates a legal notability by itself. This discussion might have to go more than a few days. In the meantime, please ping me if you find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 08:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more opinions here on closure options.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darby Lloyd Rains

AfDs for this article:

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

16 years ago when this was first nominated it was allowed on a technical sng pass and someone noted it needed sourcing. Well 16 years later it's entirely bereft of a reliable source and pornbio has been consigned to the ranks of deprecated guidelines. Fails gng and ent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Sexuality and gender, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least three significant roles in notable films. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:14, 31 July 2024 (UTC) (Added a few sources, more sources exist).[reply]
Can you list the films and roles please

And the sources added? Ta Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the page, check page history and the link "edits since nomination" on this page. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 09:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except the nom's concerns have been addressed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He obviously disagrees with your assertion. You stated she had 3 significant roles in notable films. What were they? The Wp:onus is on you to show what they are here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
’Obviously’? So the page still has no source? OK. I will assume good faith then. As for the rest of your comment, unless you are joking (it’s rather funny), I will assume good faith too: again, just read the page. You need to click on the title of the article on top of this page. I’m not going to copy paste the whole page here. And, by the way, what did you find during your BEFORE? Also, during the 1st AfD, the page was not ’allowed on technical sng pass’ but with a reference to (ANY)BIO (no technical mention of PORNBIO) and with a mention of ’definitely some claims to notability’. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Lloyd Rains also clearly meets the requirements for the notability of actors for another reason: her prolific and noted contributions to the field; and probably passes the threshold for general notability requirements given the amount of ’’multiple independent sources" mentioning her importance in the said field, her roles and performances..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we need to hear from more editors. An aside though: Are we really going to talk about "noted contributions to the field" for porn as if it were the sciences, the arts or diplomacy?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to relist aside: Yes, we certainly are. Especially in the Golden Age of Porn and with directors and artists that had such a strong and honest conviction they were playing an important part in the underground culture of their time and in the history of film. Various films with Lloyd Rains are genre films (horror, thriller, etc) that go far beyond what could be described as "porn" in a derogative way. And various sources, some used as references in the article (you will note that I used no sources from inside the "adult industry" and they include extremely notable and reliable film magazines and scholarship) about her films and performance do indeed mention that point, some in awe at the quality of the productions and at Lloyd Rains's abilities as an actress (one review finds her acting "insufferable", though; and that's not my opinion, which does not count and has nothing to do with my !vote and reply). Now, one might disagree and consider the result has no value, is immoral, tasteless, shocking, silly and trash, and not like it. But it's definitely a "field" in my opinion and her contributions to it were clearly prolific, and noted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: I was not even thinking about "porn" when I wrote my additional comment (but about film in general). But, yes, I do think "pornography" is a field. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll close this discussion according to policy and consensus despite my own view of this "profession". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted you would. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that none of what you said relates to any policy and your assertion of special treatment of porn is belied by the depreciation of pornbio Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you even talking about? I don’t understand it but I do feel the tone and implication of your comment are rather not nice. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. I have spent too much of my volunteer time checking much of the article's supposed references, and they are just a WP:REFBOMB of trivial mentions and unreliable sources that do not meet WP:GNG. Elspea756 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Curious to know which sources precisely can be deemed "unreliable", except IAFD, which I didn't add myself ~~and that can be removed (feel free);~~ and the source for her role in "This film is all about..." (which I (had) tagged myself as poor, in the hope that an expert or any other user could add a better one, the film being by Damiano) (NB- I just removed both references). "supposed references" is also an interesting choice of words (are they not real? are they fake? Did I make anything up? are there not there?); and how much is "much" of 41 footnotes? 12, 38? As for WP:REFBOMB, well, I did my best to source every statement and role in the partial filmography (more exists) and I don't think (such was not my intent, at least) that any of the references is used in any of the 4 ways mentioned in that essay. WP:NACTOR, on the other hand, is a guideline, and would seem the applicable guideline, and it states, "This guideline applies to actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, pornographic actors, models, and celebrities. Such a person may be considered notable if:The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." (the field of entertainment being cinema/acting) Is it not the case and are the coverage and mention/appraisal of her roles in the reviews of her most notable films, for example, not sufficient to prove it? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhavadhaarini

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Deletion review

[1] "Miss Natasha Eloise Arben". everand.com. 23 June 2021. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[LOL-2] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielmonaco.com. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[3] "Interview With Digital Cover Star Olivia Arben and Natasha Arben". lofficiel.cy. 24 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[4] "Elegance Incarnate: Natasha Arben's Digital Cover Story". lofficielibiza.com. 25 August 2023. Retrieved 25 April 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]