Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

19 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< October 18	October 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Tarita Botsman

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2022. Article is largely cited to primary and non-independent sources. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SINGER. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Rousseau Grigg

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

May not meet WP:ENT or WP:SIGCOV. Minimal sourcing outside of her death. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Internet, and Texas. TJMSmith (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing what makes her notable. Her follower count isn't especially massive in comparison to the highest followed on the app, her business ventures aren't notable. Rusted AutoParts 03:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she passed away. This is pretty heartless to delete her autobiography. If you died you would want your legacy to live on. I know her husband would want this to stay up as well. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia don't delete you have many other non famous people on here that are minor influences. 174.27.213.42 (talk) 07:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what is said above. Don't delete this article CallieCrewmanAuthor (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an edge case but there is more than passing mention coverage of the subject before her death and certainly after. Nnev66 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for new sources that apparently exist. The keep !votes should provide the references they think that show notability, rather than simply putting out a carpet term that notability exists.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual majority criterion

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. After a deep search for the term on Google Scholar, I only managed to find two primary sources (both by the same author) that use this term; both also substantially postdate this article (2005 article, 2018 papers) which makes me concerned about possible WP:CITOGENESIS. The topic is effectively equivalent to the independence of clones criterion plus majority favorite criterion as well—the criterion just says that if a group of clones is a favorite of the majority of voters, one of them has to win. If we had an article for every pair of criteria like this, it would quickly end up unmanageable.

After an apparent WP:CANVAS incident here, I'm looking to establish a more firm consensus with regard to making this a redirect to proportionality for solid coalitions, which I believe adequately covers this topic. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glacier Bancorp

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most sources are routine. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, United States of America, Delaware, and Montana. Badbluebus (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources to clear WP:NCORP almost always exist for publicly traded companies. "Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports", and that is the case for this company. See the table below linking to recent (paywalled) independent analyst reports from MarketBeat for Glacier Bancorp (GBCI). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Upside/Downside on Report Date	Details
10/2/2024	Raymond James	Boost Target	Outperform ➝ Outperform	$45.00 ➝ $48.00	+7.55%	View Report Details
9/20/2024	Truist Securities	Boost Target	Hold ➝ Hold	$46.00 ➝ $50.00	+6.68%	View Report Details
8/27/2024	Piper Sandler	Reiterated Rating	Neutral ➝ Neutral	$38.00 ➝ $38.00	-17.84%	View Report Details
4/23/2024	Stephens	Lower Target	Equal Weight ➝ Equal Weight	$44.00 ➝ $40.00	+4.49%	View Report Details
4/22/2024	DA Davidson	Lower Target	Buy ➝ Buy	$48.00 ➝ $45.00	+25.28%	View Report Details

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate finance in the United States

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

AI-generated redundant fork of Climate change policy of the United States sourced entirely to primary sources. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and United States of America. Flounder fillet (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Climate policy of the United States~~ Climate change policy of the United States: As a WP:ATD. The article is too low-quality to merge anything. I note that there are several other articles titled "Climate finance in X", some of which might be suitable for merging into more general articles about climate change in their respective countries. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While trying to learn more about the WikiEdu program, I stumbled on the WikiEdu Climate Finance campaign which might be the origin of some of these articles. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 08:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ClaudineChionh I'm helping to run this initiative and would be happy to answer any questions you, or anyone else, might have about it. Thanks for all of the discussion. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm particularly concerned about Climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago, which was created by an admin who's affiliated with WikiEdu. Its sourcing consists of two primary sources and three other sources that barely even mention climate change and just regurgitate the words of various corporations. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Helpful Raccoon I am looking for more sources to appear on that article as well. I think those government sources are high quality and an appropriate start. Happy to discuss that more on that article's talk page if you like. Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the contributions to the article, I am adding wider references that offer an outside view and supporting evidence of outcomes and successes. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helpful Raccoon. I appreciate your concern. I created the climate finance in Trinidad and Tobago as a template for how to create articles like these - and to avoid largely redundant articles like this one. I do think this kind of information is important to surface particularly because it's buried in reports. That said, you're right, it's pretty bare bones, that that's on me for not continuing to expand it. Point taken. Guettarda (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! One of my concerns is that it's unclear whether these climate finance articles meet WP:GNG. On the other hand, much of this information could be contained in broader articles such as "Climate change in X" or "Climate change policy in X". These articles could be sourced more easily while giving a more comprehensive overview of each country's situation. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration that the article is relevant to the Climate Policy in the United States which I did feel was another faucet of the topic. I was focusing on presenting a view of climate finance in the U.S. from the Paris agreement commitments and the outcomes of the action which is relevant to policy but I feel a need to present a wider view. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Raccoon, Climate policy of the United States isn't an appropriate Redirect target article because it is a Redirect, not an article. It should appear as a green link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out, I meant Climate change policy of the United States. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article, the first version had bullet point and errors in format that I thought was referred to AI format. I have changed the format. Netforcarbon (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Netforcarbon To be clear, did you use AI to write this article? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raccoon not AI to write the article but I do have an AI review and format assistant. I also use an AI editor but the content is from my notes and reviews of other documents on the US commitments and outcomes pertaining to climate finance which is also within my profession. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I continued this discussion on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was alerted to this from the WikiProject Climate Change talk page. I haven't looked at the actual content yet but in general, I am against creating such sub-sub-articles, which usually end up lingering with very low pageviews. Why not rather include some of this content as an example in the article climate finance? Or else within a U.S. specific climate change article like suggested above. Like Climate change policy of the United States or Climate change in the United States.

Also if WikiEdu or someone is organising a drive to create lots of these "climate finance" type articles for specific countries then please alert others through the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change (early on, not just at the end). Thanks to User:FULBERT for the recent alert.

Also, using Chat-GPT (or similar) for language polishing or for ideas for structuring the article is perfectly fine. Using it for actually up to date content generation might be flawed. I am curious to learn how (if) you used AI for this exercise? If done correctly and carefully there is nothing wrong with that. But you'd have to be able to detect hallucinations and wrong information while working with it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile I did not use AI to write content but I do use AI for format and for the final review. I will go back to rewrite content. I appreciate the insight to the wikiworld and the community of editors! Excellence in information sharing and climate finance in the Unites States is relevant and needs its own place of explanations that ultimately lead to the transparency of climate actions pertaining to financing. Netforcarbon (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to Wikipedia, User:Netforcarbon. I hope you like it here. My point is that if you want your content to be seen and read, then you might be better off integrating it into an existing article rather than creating a new one from scratch. I don't know if you have discovered the page view graphs yet? You can access it from the top "view history" tab. In general, I recommend to new Wikipedia editors to rather improve and enrich existing articles with higher pageviews rather than focusing on low pageview articles or even completely new articles. You have more impact with the high pageview articles. Also, if climate finance already has quite low pageviews (see here) then what makes you think that "climate finance in country X" would get any more pageviews? EMsmile (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Netforcarbon and Will (Wiki Ed). If you are interested, I think a discussion about the campaign on the wp:WikiProject Climate Change talk page could be fruitful. This would be a less stressful and more collaborative environment than AfD. One of my concerns at the moment is this and possibly other articles serving as an uncritical, promotional listing of things that governments and corporations have called climate finance. Unfortunately quite a few things that are labelled climate finance are greenwashing, fossil fuel subsidies in disguise, or just ineffective. If we could start with a broader conversation about your goals and your skillsets, we could help you with things like figuring out what sources to use and choosing high-impact articles to create/improve. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot Thanks for that recommendation - I'll post something soon. I also appreciate the greenwashing concern. I think this is exactly why we should be focusing on this area. Separating substantive climate change mitigation action from greenwashing is important. The funding element is also challenging, but its as important as any other kind of legislation. Thanks again! Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the US has such enormous financial clout that the topic seems to me to be notable. US policy and finance are both so influential there should be enough info for two articles. Although they will overlap somewhat not all policy is finance (for example policy can make regulations or diplomacy) and not all finance is policy (for example Tesla was only partly government funded - a lot was private, and much else is private finance e.g. 3 Mile Island). Chidgk1 (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April Evans

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

Minor concert soprano who appears to mainly work as voice teacher. Her one big credit, the performance with the Opera Orchestra of New York, was as a last minute replacement for a sick singer. The review is not complimentary, stating she sang cleanly but without characterization. She appears to have had a very brief and unremarkable performance career in the 1980s. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Movsisyan

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article is cited to unreliable sources like YouTube, or to sources connected directly with the subject. I could not locate any independent source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmilla Azova

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Further the article contains false information. For example, the New York Philharmonic has a meticulous searchable archive (see https://archives.nyphil.org/index.php/search?search-type=singleFilter&search-text=Ludmilla+Azova&search-dates-from=&search-dates-to=) of every performance given by the orchestra during its entire history. Every soloist is easily searchable and will pop up in a search . She gets zero hits in the archive, and never sang with the orchestra. When I looked at the sources much of the content in the article could not be verified to the cited sources (I have a subscription to The New York Times). I placed tags on material not supported by sources. Very little is actually verifiable. I can find no evidence that she sang in operas other than The Consul in New York, and the part she sang was the tiny role of Anna Gomez who doesn't even get an aria. There are no sources in newspapers or books that I could find to verify the La boheme, Madama Butterfly, and Faust performances. I strongly suspect these are also performances that were made up and never happened. Other than her recital review, there isn't any significant coverage on this singer. Newspaper archives didn't have anything nor did google books. 4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umut Camkiran

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. According to the declining admin, the previous version of the article was more "expansive". Subject is clearly lacking notability, and no reliable sources have been provided. Fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Turkey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Though there is evidently consensus for trimming the list. asilvering (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That a class is well defined is not obviously sufficient. —Tamfang (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (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.

Econofoods

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources on the page and in a WP:BEFORE do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. With only two locations I am unsure if press outside the local area could be found. CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, North Dakota, and South Dakota. CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep as a notable-enough regional Iowa supermarket. Some book sources coming up and listings in Plunkett's food industry and retail almanacs, and the Hoover's Handbook of American Business, Handbook of NASDAQ stocks,. Combined with a few of the local news stories about store closings and acquisitions I think this does pass WP:GNG.[1][2] Andre🚐 01:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan:, sorry, just seeing your comment now or would have pinged you earlier. The two you cited from The Register Mail are both about two local stores closing. In fact, they are basically the same (one from the employee perspective and one from the customer perspective). Neither meet WP:CORPDEPTH for the chain itself. The other two are business listings. Are there any references out there you found that meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree those sources might not meet a stricter standard, I think it meets GNG, along with the other local news already in the article, and I'm not sure that merging with Nash Finch or SpartanNash is necessary, but I can't see a full-scale delete beyond that merger, and I think other times when companies have been merged it's muddled up the history in a confusing way that could be resolved by treating as separate articles. A regional grocery chain with not a lot of stores can be notable with sourcing that describes it with a bit of narrative as these local stories do, through a local lens, but aren't ROUTINE or press releases. They describe the acquisition of the chain by Nash Finch. “When Nash-Finch came in, I was working in Monmouth. It was my day off and I got the call at home,” Cecil said. He said he started to suffer from burnout as Nash-Finch “dictated” ways of doing business that he didn’t agree with, such as selling select, rather than choice beef. “I was told they were doing less than half the business we were doing in ’98,” Cecil said of Econofoods when it closed. “It didn’t have to happen.” An unlikely place for business analysis perhaps, but there you go. The other one talks about consolidation in the market. This is corroborated by the business almanacs and Moody's listings and other stuff that come up on a Google Books search. As I said, I think it meets GNG, and I think more data could be found in Newspapers.com which has over 20,000 results in Iowa, but I'm at a keep because I believe GNG-level sourcing exists and more could be found for an article here. Andre🚐 06:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. However, as a company, it must meet the standards for companies and do not feel that these references do. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a stricter WP:SNG standard for what is presumed notable, but any article is notable if it meets WP:GNG. Unless that has changed, the stricter standard is supplemental. Besides which, the purpose is to keep out promotional articles, not the history of regional supermarkets. Notability as a guideline has interpretation, but it's not WP:IAR to use GNG instead of CORP, because it's a supplemental presumption guideline that doesn't obviate GNG. You are free to still opine delete here of course. WP:N: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) Emphasis mine.Andre🚐 05:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Unless that has changed" - That has not changed so you are quoting the SNG and GNG guidelines correctly. It is interesting as I argued this same contention (the one you present here) years ago but the company deletion discussions have, at least for the last four or five years, applied NCORP over GNG which is the reason for my contention to delete this page. Would be interesting to get a consensus otherwise as it would allow for keeping some pages that would be borderline under NCORP but likely meet GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Andre said. ^Wiinter_U 04:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lalbijo

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria #3 Creative professionals. All he did was create a short film about a man getting water (no dialogue) and all the sources are about the short film [3]. The feature film he directed did not release yet. A simple Google search yields nothing. WP:TOO EARLY. Redirect to The Big Bang (2019 film)?

I thought this source was about him [4] but it only mentions his name (ലാൽ ബിജോ) four times. DareshMohan (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Advertising, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishikant Dixit

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

No reliable sources in English or Hindi (निशिकांत दीक्षित). All sources are unconfirmed YouTube interviews [5], IWM Buzz [6], India Forums [7], and Telly Chakkar [8], which are all listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force#Guidelines on sources. This doesn't add anytihng [9]. Might meet WP:NACTOR (30+ small roles) but no reliable sources. DareshMohan (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Maria

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

Article contains zero independent sources with significant coverage. The sources used are all self published or from primary materials closely connected to the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]