Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:28, 29 March 2016

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

{{{linktext}}}

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khris Kaneff

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

In terms of online sources, I found nothing for this actor/producer beyond his IMDb entry and two passing mentions in reviews of the 2012 film Foxfur (itself of questionable notability). Fundamentally, he falls short of the basic notability criterion and judging by the IMDb entry, he also falls short of the the actor-specific criteria. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 22:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for all applicable notability, simply nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing meaningful in the article, nothing that passes as a claim of notability and nothing that would support a claim found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and nothing in the search engines shows that he passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:22, 7 April 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. postdlf (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pink Panther cast members

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

Doesn't seem a typical article and is just an incomplete list of names Echetus Xe 08:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps Redirect to the series itself as this is unlikely solid as its own article. SwisterTwister talk 22:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of names. If final outcome is delete it will need to be removed from the PP navbox as well. MarnetteD|Talk 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is WP:IINFO list of names with no reason why it should be an article on it's own. Mwenzangu (talk) 00:22, 5 April 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 10:33, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of singing actors and actresses in Indian cinema

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

Article does not have ANY sources, tag placed in '07 TJH2018 talk 03:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:STANDALONE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This is a style of list we don't have anywhere else on Wikipedia. There is no "List of singing actors and actresses in American cinema", for example. Also, as stated above, WP:NOCITE applies. Amccann421 (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I see what criterion of WP:STANDALONE the article fails. Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason there's no similar list for American cinema is that the practice of playback singing isn't really there. This list groups actors according to a criterion that, in the context of Indian cinema, is significant and encyclopedic. This means that the only relevant points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (1 and 6) don't really apply here. The lack of sources is an issue but the information in the article is neither harmful nor particularly doubtful so WP:NOCITE ~~can't be a reason for deleting.~~ Where was I looking, it turns out it can, in principle. Uanfala (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enthusiastic keep! Need more Bollywood coverage. This rocks. Lack of something similar elsewhere is no reason for deletion. We need to respect differences in culture and interests globally.VanEman (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SSTflyer 01:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while one of the above arguments is valid for keeping List of Indian playback singers, that isn't what's being discussed here. Indeed, that argument would beg that such an uncited list as this be deleted immediately. Uncited material can be deleted, and this article is totally without references.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added references to an (almost random) selection of four list entries. Uanfala (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relative unusualness of actors who sing for themselves in Bollywood films is notable. Various sources can be identified that confirm this as a notable topic, and thus appropriate for a list article: [1][2][3][4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:23, 14 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Billings

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

Non-notable individual. Biggest claim to fame is winning Miss Nevada United States; however, this is not a terribly notable beauty pageant (not to be confused with the more well-known Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA). Playing very minor TV roles and being an outstanding graduate also don't constitute sufficient indicators of notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 03:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other pageant winners are considered notable, solely for their pageant wins: Julianna Erdesz, Georgina Vaughan, Randi Sundquist. The Miss United States Pageant is also notable enough for inclusion. Is a contest's subjective public visibility, relative to other contests, sufficient to determine notability of the winners? rghpkp 19:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have questions about whether those three people should have articles, and that's given that they won the more notable Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA pageants. In fact, Vaughan's article already has a notability tag on it, and if you look at the navboxes at the bottoms of those pages, you'll see that the vast majority of the state winners for Miss America and Miss USA are not listed and do not have articles. I think winning the much less notable Miss Nevada United States is a far cry from being a sufficient indicator of notability. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk note: rghpkp is a single-purpose account, having done nothing but edit Billings' article and comment on this AfD. -IagoQnsi (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rghpkp is not a single purpose account, but rather recently created, since my original account appears to be unrecoverable at this time. rghpkp 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rghpkp: Well, what's the username of your original account then? -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @IagoQnsi:PM me. rghpkp 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing solidly better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Also fails WP:ENTERTAINER as a minor pageant winner and local TV host. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure if we have agreed whether winners of Miss Nevada or Miss Nevada USA would be notable (I know this was being debated for such competitions, and I am not sure what we came up with), but Billings won in a pageant we do not even have an article on. Her other claims to fame are even further from notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 31 March 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---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Malcolm

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

Subject doesn't meet notability criteria outlined at WP:BIO. Most of the references are not independent of the subject. Those that are independent are either local news stories and/or they barely mention the subject. Nothing qualifies as "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". All the contributors to article content are SPAs, including one whose name suggests this is self-promotion. Edgeweyes (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the current article is not better convincing of any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as evidenced by information of above. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY. Amccann421 (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winning an International Jugglers' Assocation Numbers Competition is judged only on technical ability and not for showmanship, so his awards in the Individual Rings Numbers Competition Malcolm’s technical juggling ability (see Sport (competitive) juggling^[1]), which is noteworthy enough to have won medals two years in the numbers competition. As IJA is “dedicated to advance the art of juggling worldwide”^[2]; Malcolm’s raising the bar in the Individual Rings Numbers Juggling Competition is raising the bar for jugglers worldwide to beat. This makes him a noteworthy technical juggler. JillCDeBiase (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete': Doesn't meet GNG. Merely being a competent professional in your field is not the standard for having a Wikipedia article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Near

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

Delete: as non-notable in all respects. Quis separabit? 17:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not even close to WP:NACTOR. One notable film role, nothing else going for it crh23 (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails NACTOR as well as GNG, The BLP was featured on the Homepage but it's just a mention and as far as I'm aware articles don't get kept because they've been on homepage?, Anyway delete. –Davey2010^Talk 21:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:00, 30 March 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. Uncontested. A BLPPROD may have been preferred. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sobia Khan

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

Notability is contested. Actors usually pass notability guidelines, but I'll leave this particular article to debate. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability here at all, borderline WP:A7 candidate. -IagoQnsi (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP. sami ^talk 10:29, 30 March 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) –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Reji Koshy

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

The article fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hannah Reji Koshy only played a supporting role in her debut and its not even notable. As to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, the person should have significant roles in multiple notable films. JackTracker (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself PRODed it and planned to nominate for AfD since none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 17:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : the article is all about an Indian Beauty pageant contestant and an actress on Malayalam film industry. The actress were too seen in an interview about her film on the popular talk show Onnum Onnum Moonu on Mazhavil Manorama.--Helper V1 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Helper V1 : There's not any special weightage/more priority for beauty pageant contestant's (As on the world their are lot of beauty pageant contests carrying every year, if we considered all contestants to be encyclopedic it will not be practical). As on the case of Hannah Reji Koshy as Entertainer, the first clause of WP:ENTERTAINER is failing. JackTracker (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I think there is some notability here. Masterofroks (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established. AusLondonder (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article's references support WP:GNG. Article could use expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 19:10, 31 March 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 07:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippe Dajoux

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

No sourcing except to IMDb and no real claim to notability otherwise. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources to establish notability. French version of this article is not any further developed. ~Kvng (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well it wouldn't be, seeing as this page was created as a translation from the French. (I know - it was me.) Searching on google.fr returns numerous results, including IMDb, Allocine and a number of press articles. In addition, his films receive significant coverage and his work on the popular and long running French soap Plus belle la vie attest to notability. Give me time, I'll knock up some refs. Emeraude (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I have now done. Emeraude (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb, as with all other wikis, is not a usable source. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb can be useful for verification. The other added references ([5], [6], [7]) appear to be useful for establishing notability. I'm retracting my Delete position and may advance to Keep once I've learned some French :) ~Kvng (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the French press coverage presented above, I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as regardless of any coverage, this is still questionable for any applicable notability including for WP:ENTERTAINER. Simply nothing else solidly convincing, SwisterTwister talk 04:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think significant, indepth press coverage that qualifies as reliable sources should be disregarded just because it contradicts your argument that the subject is not notable. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability to a Francophone audience does not confer notability to an Anglophone audience. Dkendr (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon. Are we into lingofascism now? Emeraude (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Emeraude. That argument is nonsensical. Notability is notability, regardless of the language. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stand behind what I said. Just because an article subject is relevant to speakers of a given language, it's not necessary to have a deletion-candidate article in every language under the sun, particularly in the era of Google Translate. Would you be willing to contribute stubs for this subject in Urdu, Klingon and Faroese? Dkendr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We must fight lingofacism. ~Kvng (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If lingofascism is a phenomenon, why doesn't it have an article? Dkendr (talk) 20:18, 7 April 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miroslav Milanović

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

Delete: as non-notable Serbian actor. Article apparently created by subject (see [8]). Quis separabit? 23:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A detailed google-fu came up completely empty as to sources. IMDB is about the only source about the subject (and its contents, even if 100% true, don't show any notability). No such user (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently having as any signs of better applicable notability, simply not convincingly acceptable yet. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 29 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Cecil (actor)

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

No significance Music1201 (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Small career, small parts, fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no current signs of imaginably better notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - best source I could find was http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2016/02/17/a-list-of-the-best-shows-on-all-4/ where the subject is merely mentioned by name in the starring section of number 18. Thought this might be a duplicate of Jonathan Cecil for a moment, but that proved to be wrong.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:11, 1 April 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 21:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Mollenhauer

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

The woman is only notable for singing for Esmerlda and nothing else. She sang beautifully in the film, and I wish she garnered more major roles for her to satisfy WP:NACTOR. editorEهեইдအ😎 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 00:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, none of the applicable notability actually. SwisterTwister talk 22:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.. My Google searches return a couple of passing mentions and nothing else. Perhaps I'm missing something here? Chrisw80 (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Imdb isn't a reliable source and that's all there is. Nor is one voice part enough for WP:NACTOR. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - clearly doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, and not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 10 April 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Mitchell (musician)

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

The refs are primarily self-published or from IMDB which is not a RS. I expected Phantom Tollbooth to be promising, but it was simply a mention. I can find no other RSes and his common name doesn't make it easier. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as although there's a list of links, this is still questionable for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malena Morgan

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

Recreation of deleted page. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG as before. Only material change is that subject received award nominations in 2014, which is enough to defeat G4, but clearly is not enough to pass PORNBIO. Promotional text, no independent reliable sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for All-Girl Performer from AVN, nominated for XBIZ Award, role in the latest film by Zalman King, Penthouse Pet of the Month and Twistys Treat Of The Month - enough to leave.--Кориоланыч (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as fails everything. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG guidelines. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Penthouse Pets - Without having done a large amount of research on the subject under consideration here, there does not appear to be enough notability for a stand-alone article at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK--Кориоланыч (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable.VanEman (talk) 17:48, 3 April 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 14:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Kathpalia

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

~~Only one RS Source, which has a small mention. Second source is about a professor with the same name. Greek Legend (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~This actor should not be confused with an architect named "Rajeev Kathpalia". --Greek Legend (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)~~ confirmed blocked sockpuppetAtlantic306 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I myself patrolled this at NPP and found nothing from this current article satisfying the applicable notability, thus it's not convincing enough to keep. SwisterTwister talk 03:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you should have noticed the one reliable source in the article which counts towards notability. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @SwisterTwister: Please read WP:NEXIST, part of Wikipedia's Notability guideline page, where it clearly states, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Your !vote carries little weight, because it does not appear to be based upon any type of additional source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 13:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well known Indian television actor, the reliable source in the article from the telegraph (Indian version) represents significant coverage, at least one more RS needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Calcutta Telegraph publishes many paid articles about Indian entertainment. Only RS source is TimesofIndia. India has many English sources which can prove notability. He is an active actor. He is not an Indian actor from 1956 that we can't find more than one RS. Greek Legend (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info, how did you find that out about the Calcutta Telegraph? Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajiv Kathpalia is a well known actor on television and his debut film is releasing this year. Relevant reverences have been provided and more will be shared as we get them. Please keep this article. User:Shonell Thakker ~~: How was the result keep? Greek Legend (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)~~ The references are in place. I dont understand what is the debate about? When a page is being considered for deletion and a query is raised and the reply is given why keep the debate open? just a query User:Shonell Thakker[reply]

Keep Reasonable sourcing provided, likely to meet WP:NACTOR AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure what some folks are describing as reasonable sourcing? Facebook? Hotstar (an even less reliable version of YouTube, which isn't considered reliable)? A press release masquerading as a news story from the Telegraph (becoming more and more common in Indian press)? Perhaps it's the YouTube cite? Or, wow, could it be the citation (which doesn't actually lead to anything about this person) from that incredibly wonderfully reliable Mega Model Hunt? I don't have access to the Times piece, so AGF, it's a good cite. That leaves a single citation for an actor who meets non of the criteria of WP:ACTOR. Searches turned up a single trivial mention on News, zip on Newspapers, Books, Scholar, Highbeam, or JStor. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one significant coverage is hardly enough, assuming the piece on The Telegraph is reliable, which honestly does look like a press release. The piece on Times Of India is what I believe to be a photo of the subject as a model in an ad, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A note about the article creator User:Shonell Thakker. A simple google search shows he/she is employed by a entertainment-related PR agency in India. The agency is currently assigned to promote the film M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story, in which Rajiv plays a role. Other edits from the user shows all edits have been made with the sole intention of promoting the film and its actors, which is a violation of single purpose account. Additionally, the editor is in violation of paid editing and Conflict of Interest. The sources are poor in quality with the basic objective of somehow making the actor seem notable. 14.140.50.82 (talk) 10:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All those claiming issues with facts and citations seem to have their fact checks questionable too. Google search on article creator User:Shonell Thakker; thats me; shows career details. I have worked in the entertainment industry way early in my career. I am not employed by any PR agency neither am I promoting a film, neither am I hired by the film M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story to promote the film. Before accusing or assuming please check your facts. Also there is no proof of money exchange, which hasnt happened coz I AM NOT EMPLOYED BY EITHER RAJIV OR THE PRODUCTION HOUSE!!! As far as the telegraph article goes, its a recognised newspaper. There is also an article by Times of India Bombay times. Just to counter argue, TOI also charges for articles how come that passes as the 'Reliable Article' in most other articles? YouTube and Hotstar links are given to show the proof of the casting and direction. If the visual isnt a proof enough then what is? Every single statement has a proof link. As far as film M.S._Dhoni_:_The_Untold_Story goes its on its early stages of promotions so links will be added as needed. Still if anyone has a query discuss instead of throwing baseless accusations around — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18:09, 11 April 2016‎ (talk • contribs) Shonell Thakker

Delete I read through it and it reads like a self promotion piece for an upcoming movie, not seeing the notability factor to warrant a page. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not concerned about notability, but the article reads promotional to me. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 06:24, 14 April 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 merits of redirecting a BLP to an article about sexually transmitted diseases should be discussed separately and in more depth, I think. Sandstein 07:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Ashley

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

[9] BLP1E too Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per below - She's already mentioned there so may aswell redirect too. –Davey2010^Talk 02:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or very selectively merge to STDs in the porn industry#HIV cases, where the central incident is already discussed in a broader context. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best or only redirect later if needed as the article is basically still questionably better overall, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Wolfowitz. There is already information and even a picture of her at the target article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 3 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (actress)

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

[10] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's won two major awards, was a Vivid Girl, etc. Nightscream (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purportedly "major awards" cited by Nightscream are scene-related awards which WP:PORNBIO expressly provides do not contribute to/establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better satisfying applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as awards are not major and little coverage. Esquivalience ^t 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the mentioned "awards" do not fit our guidelines for pornographic actors, so we need to delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 01:40, 3 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lacey Duvalle

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

[11] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... Well I was gonna say "it should've deleted the first time round" ... but surprisingly it actually was deleted so.... Anyway fails PORNBIO & GNG.. –Davey2010^Talk 03:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the subject of a non-notable song on a non-notable, noncommercial mixtape is the closest thing to a claim of notability here, and that's nowhere near good enough. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better satisfying the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:09, 27 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Fires

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

[12] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as fails PORNBIO & GNG... but meets WP:HOTTIE which is a keep in my book :) ... –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a humorous Keep which cannot be taken seriously.

SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have more of such keeps :) @Davey2010:

Joking around like this about a pornstar is what gets Wiki noted for being a place that's unfriendly to women. We're supposed to approach AfD with a neutral point of view, not with adolescent humor about how someone looks. This isn't the worst I've seen on a porn AfD, but its tone still isn't welcome. We're better than this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And taking everything (like my comment above) so seriously is what makes this place so miserable.... Lighten up. –Davey2010^Talk 01:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The stats log doesn't differentiate sexist adolescent humor from actual votes, and counts you as a "keep." Perhaps some people need to light up. Perhaps some people need to grow up.VanEman (talk) 18:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect anyone (admin or editor) to count my keeps...., I like to have a bit of a laugh and I'll continue with my keep !votes, Perhaps some people need to get a sense of humour instead of turning this place into the miserable shithole it's becoming (I know AFDs closed but I had no idea someone replied and plus I moved a comment down anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 03:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails PORNBIO, as NN awards necessarily fail the higher PORNBIO standard of well-known and significant. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage by tabloids, several moderate award nominations, a dozen mentions (all three may indicate notability), but can't find anything more significant. Esquivalience ^t 00:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still not better convincing for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to pass WP:PORNBIO or WP:BLP. Mwenzangu (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and the refs aren't quite good enough for the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Megalibrarygirl . Lack of objectivity on a subject like this just reinforces the bad rep Wiki has for systemic bias. VanEman (talk) 17:56, 2 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Krysti Lynn

AfDs for this article:

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

[13] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not currently or ever any future signs, frankly of better applicable notability thus nothing convincing for keeping. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails PORNBIO and most coverage just deals with her premature death and being the girlfriend of John Stagliano, so she doesn't pass the GNG either in my opinion.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of significant coverage beyond routine coverage of her unfortunate death, which is not sufficient to support a freestanding article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:05, 2 April 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. Deor (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brigitte Maier

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

[14] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete is fine with me, but how about #3 in WP:PORNBIO "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" - see refs in the article and [15]. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus practice, Penthouse pictorials aren't considered "mainstream" under PORNBIO, nor are softcore men's magazines. The Playboy cite is just a picture/caption in its annual rather arbitrary compilation of "sex star" photos, with perfunctory accompanying text. "Mainstream" here is intended to exclude appearances in commercial erotica. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pronographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are no convincing signs of actually better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was pretty well known in Europe in her time but technically fails PORNBIO and seemingly doesn't have enough coverage to pass the GNG.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Sensations (film). I think it can be argued that she meets WP:PORNBIO #2 for Sensations, the first European porn film to be successful in the US. There were full-page ads for it in the New York Times apparently. Googling around a bit, I found the claim that she was interviewed by the Chicago Sun-Times in 1975, but haven't been able to track that down. Google Book searches for her name and "sensations" lead to a couple of snippets that indicate she was an important porn star of the 1970s. —Kusma (t·c) 19:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found her on Newspaper Archive in 1975. Those may be a similar interview, Kusma. The problem is that Newspaper Archive is going through a problem with their database and while hits pop up, I can't view them. Here's a link to the search: [16]. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom - definitely fails PORNBIO — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:31, 8 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Monet

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

[17] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This nomination is WP:WAX, but the subject is clearly not notable. Fails PORNBIO and GNG with no significant reliable source coverage and no awards. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently not better satisfying the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pornographic film actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She was pretty well known during her career but she fails PORNBIO as it is now and doesn't have enough coverage to pass the GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenon-notable. VanEman (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication os sufficient reliable sourcing to support a BLP article. The apparent lack of significant book coverage for a supposedly significant performer from this era is striking. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:34, 3 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Janey Robbins

AfDs for this article:

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

[18] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply nothing else for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means WP:BASIC is not passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy the notability requirements for pronographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim to satisfying PORNBIO, and no indication that whatever coverage there might be of a film she performed in would satisfy BLP/GNG requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:59, 2 April 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Daniels (actress)

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

[19] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being the "body double" for an animated character does not establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets neither PORNNIO or GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 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. MelanieN (talk) 02:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Luv

AfDs for this article:

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

[20] Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly bereft of reliable independent sourcing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lack of significant coverage in reliable sources so fails WP:BASIC also no qualifying awards, new genres or blockbusters or much mainstream coverage so PORNBIO is not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comes nowhere close to meeting PORNBIO or GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 18:20, 31 March 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Jollee

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Negligible independent reliable sourcing. "Superslut of the Year" is not a significant award, and if Wikipedia were a sensible place it would be seen as a BLP violation. Tendentiously deprodded by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails PORNBIO and GNG. –Davey2010^Talk

~~No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but~~ how does she fail PORNBIO? She has two non-scene/ensemble wins, which is more than enough to satisfy the guideline. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)\[reply]

I never said anyone was did I ?, Because they're not notable awards and winning an award for "Superslut of the year" is as cheap as it gets, She has a lovely profile over at Pornhub (which I just found out can't be linked thanks to the blacklist!) so it's not as if we're disadvantaging anyone by deleting this poorly referenced article. –Davey2010^Talk 02:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "cheap". The porn industry's most prestigious award is AVN's Female Performer of the Year and there is a very strong correlation between that award and XRCO's Superslut. 10 out of 11 Superslut winners have been nominated for/won Female Performer of the Year. Jollee was nominated for AVN's Female Performer of the Year award in 2005 and 2006, the same years in which she won XRCO's Superslut. AVN nominates 15 people every year for Female Performer of the Year while XRCO narrows AVN's list down to the strongest contenders for their own Female Performer of the Year award. Jollee was such a strong contender for Female Performer of the Year in 2005, that she made it onto XRCO's elite Female Performer of the Year nominees list of only 5 people. Now, I personally think that an AVN Female Performer of the Year nomination should be enough to pass PORNBIO. It is quite a reasonable request. I can assure you all I'd never ask for any other nomination into PORNBIO, not even Female Performer of the Year from XBIZ/XRCO/etc. or Best New Starlet, but the fact there's over 30 AVN Female Performer of the Year nominees without WP articles is preposterous. Despite being a reasonable addition to PORNBIO, it would probably not happen, but at the very least can we keep the current PORNBIO guideline? PORNBIO notability is already far enough from real-world notability, stop trying to take it even further from that by expanding its exclusions. PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.") is clearly met by XRCO's Superslut award. No good argument has been given against it so far in this AfD besides "I don't like the category because it has a funny name". You're all reacting to the Superslut category as if it were an award for "Best Amputee Porn Star", "Best Midget Porn Star", or some other obscure genre where it's nearly impossible for performers in it to become notable because of its unpopularity. Evil Angel produces pornography so extreme, that it has led to obscenity charges, and it is among the porn industry's top companies, which demonstrates that extreme sex acts are part of mainstream pornography. Some porn stars who perform extreme sex acts become notable for doing so, so it makes sense for porn award shows to recognize them. Out of the 13 years the award has been give out, only two recipients of it have won it twice, and Jollee is one of them. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Little reliable sourcing or coverage; significant coverage is only by one source. Esquivalience ^t 21:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~No one's arguing that she passes GNG, but~~ she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does it pass a) significant and b) well-known? Sure, the article on the award itself prominently says in passive voice (quite against UNDUE) that it has been deemed the Academy Award for X-rated media, but the organization that issues the awards is not the AMPAS or SAG-AFTRA for pornography, and I only find moderate coverage of the award itself (past the level of notability, but not "significant or well-known"). Esquivalience ^t 02:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, XRCO is a well-known/significant award. WP:PORNBIO itself explicitly states that an XRCO Hall of Fame induction is enough to keep an article. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories. Superslut is not scene-related/ensemble. You can mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO. Porn performers are known for many different things. The willingness of some to perform extreme sex acts is one of them. Performing extreme sex acts in PORN films is a perfectly legitimate reason to give someone a PORN award. That's the whole purpose of porn award shows, to reward outstanding porn performances. And how is this a "BLP violation". If Jollee had any qualms about being called a "superslut" she wouldn't have performed extreme sex acts on film for all to see, won XRCO's Superslut award TWICE, and proudly pose for photos with her trophy. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca, please stop misrepresenting the terms of PORNBIO. PORNBIO does not say that only scene-related awards are deemed to fail PORNBIO, and that all other awards qualify. Other awards (relating to niche categories, body parts, for example) have been found by consensus to fail the well-known/significant standard. You may not like the consensus, but denying it exists is tendentious and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not misrepresenting PORNBIO. Consensus in AfDs has repeatedly shown that all non-scene/ensemble categories from well-known/significant ceremonies meet PORNBIO. You've keep claiming that niche and body part categories have consensus to exclude from PORNBIO, but have never provided evidence of it. In fact if it were true, it would say so in PORNBIO. It's preposterous that you would even suggest we exclude niche and body part categories. There is no logical reason to do so. The niche awards go hand-in-hand with PORNBIO#2 ("Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre") and since one of the things porn stars are best known for is their body parts, it makes sense to have body part awards. Don't get me wrong, I do think Best Actress awards are evidence of notability and think they should continue to be accepted by PORNBIO, but I consider body part awards to be even bigger evidence of notability than Best Actress. There are simply more people viewing pornography for the boobs and butts than they are for the acting/plots. Porn stars known for having large breasts or a big butt are better known for having that than the ones known for their acting skills are known for their acting skills. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For all your huffing and puffing about The Big Bad Wolfowitz, you keep evading the point that PORNBIO quite plainly does not say that only scene-related award categories fail the well-known and significant standard. As Morbidthoughts told you on the PORNBIO talkpage, "The debates or contention in AFDs/DRVs like Deauxma and Elexis Monroe have been whether their nominations are significant enough to satisfy PORNBIO simply because they are performer awards. No, they are not and consensus had made clear when we last edited PORNBIO that the category is important in determining significance.[7] The AFDs and DRVs have made clear that the MILF of the Year nominations are not significant enough not that PORNBIO is flawed. Given that in this very AFD you are also arguing that "she does pass PORNBIO, which is enough, by consensus, for articles to be kept" -- which contradicts the express language in WP:Notability (people), of which PORNBIO is a component that "meeting one or more [of the components] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", it's clear that the position you argue regarding notability is contradicted by longstanding consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That quote is from a discussion on what to exclude from PORNBIO and the consensus of it was to only exclude nominations, not any type of award category. Consensus is the outcome of a discussion, not a user's opinion in it. Not only that, you're also providing a quote on a completely different award that is irrelevant in this AfD. The quote also happens to be from a user who has voted to keep this article below, so you are totally misinterpreting it to refer to Jollee's awards when it clearly doesn't. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the requirement of WP:GNG of having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not having substantial coverage in mainstream media, the award is not in a major category but one of the endless spurious categories that seem to exist only for publicity purposes and inventing some sort of fake notability for projects such as wikipedia. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XRCO's Superslut category does not "exist only for publicity purposes". If that were the case, its recipients would only be performers with publicists. It is very unlikely for Jollee to have had a publicist during her career, otherwise an AVN search for "Ariana Jollee" under "Company News" (aka "Press Release") would yield results for PR about her. There is only one result for Jollee in the search, and it's by a company promoting a film she happens to be in the cast of, not by a publicist promoting her. That PR was also released many years after she won the awards, so her wins were in no way influenced by any publicity at all. The entire XRCO Awards aren't influenced by publicity. If they were, performers like Aurora Snow, who has stated on numerous occasions (interviews, Daily Beast articles, college speeches, etc.) that she initially entered the adult film industry only to pay for school and planned to have a short-term/low-profile career she would forget about after quitting, wouldn't have won so many XRCO Awards early in her career. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOREASON, vote null. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 22:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De;ete Superslut? Really? Fials PORNBIO and GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Superslut? Really?" is a perfect example of what I was referring to when I said "mock the category's name all you want, but that isn't a reasonable argument to exclude it from PORNBIO" above. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe she passes PORNBIO not just because of her awards but because of criteria 2 for having made unique contributions to a genre. Her 65 guy creampie scene is notorious, having been written about by Robert Jensen. He devotes 12 pages to analyzing her and this scene.[21] Another author devotes 4 pages to this.[22][23]. Along with the AVN citations in the article, she passes the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails the guidelines for notability of pornographic actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline for pornographic actors is "Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration." XRCO is a well-known and significant industry award and Superslut is not a scene-related or ensemble category. PORNBIO only requires one win and Jollee has two. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While one might find the name of the awards she won distasteful (and I somewhat agree), it is an individual body of work award and has been given out for long enough to be considered well-known. She has received a fair amount of coverage in and out of porn that she would pass the GNG as well in my opinion. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article's history shows there are at least two other users on WP who believe Jollee passes our notability guidelines based on her awards (Cavarrone & Subtropical-man). Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boy, that sure looks like an attempt to commit a WP:CANVASS violation, since editors "must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". And there are quite a few editors who have no sympathy for your position, but I don't go around trying to call their attention to deletion discussions or cast pseudo!votes in their name. Even for porn promoters, this is a new level of shenanigans. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1 editor who I admit raises concerns, the other being nonsensical and invalid ..... Nice try tho!. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Canvassing means NOTIFYING users of a discussion, which I did not do. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meet of WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 09:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG which states that for an article to exist, the subject must've had coverage from independant reliable sources. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 05:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the discussion? Because then you should precisely explain why there are absolutely NO independant sources in your opinion although two books dealing with a rather "exceptional" not common scene were stated above. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I previously closed this as "delete", but after discussion on my talk page I have come to the view that if one counts only the "delete" and "keep" opinions that actually discuss the sources rather than merely assert notability or non-notability, we have near parity. Previous contributors are invited to discuss why precisely the notability guidelines are or aren't met. Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet notability requirements. VanEman (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having performed in an extraordinary Film with 65 partners – which is even for the unholy porn industry not everyday-stuff – sounds like a clear unique feature/unique selling point (or how one would call that in English) which has been covered and examined in two serious books. I can't imagine and don't want to watch such a film but calling that a unique contribution would in my opinion be the only possibility. Also her serious, personal XRCO Awards are of course no fun-awards just because of their namings. Neither are they promotional as they are giving out the only independent porn critics' awards in the US. XRCO is using some figurative, let's call it, "poetic" namings for their categories like "Unsung Swordsman", "New Stud", "Orgasmic Oralist" or "Superslut". And when reading a bit into the above book sources (that moreover state her to be one of the first well known gonzo performers) one will understand why she has been awarded as Superslut: because it's perfectely hitting the truth. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PORNBIO. Her two Superslut of the Year awards—while apparently drawing the ire of some—meet PORNBIO point 1. 65 Guy Creampie was an "iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster" film and, in my opinion, foreshadowed works like American Gokkun 8 (JM Productions 2008); her performance in Cremapie likely meets PORNBIO point 2. As WP:BIO instructs: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any" (emphasis added) of the specific guideline points. Rebb ing 01:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:PORNBIO through awards notable and significant to and through coverage by her industry, even if in non-genre media. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has devolved into a bad joke. It's bizarre that proponents of keeping the article have cited as sufficient coverage an academic source (Jensen) which actually concludes "What conclusions should we draw about Ariana Jollee? From this limited information, it would be folly to claim to know anything" and goes on to state "If someone were to ask me 'Who is Ariana Jollie?' I would be hard pressed to offer much of an answer". In other words, the most substantive, reliable source to be found declares that reliably sourced information about this person cannot be found. That should be taken as a strong, and unrefuted, case that the subject fails the GNG. The only efforts the keep !voters make (with one exception) is simply handwaving and pointing to cites which, on examination, don't offer significant coverage. What theae sources boil down to is little more than the unuseful assertion that Ariana Jollee, like most of the women presented in "gang bang" pornography, is reduced to a cipher, and the statement that Jollee is a cipher is not a sufficient basis for an article. Similarly, the keep proponents assert, without anything resembling reliable sourcing, that all ofthe industry marketing claims about Jollee's single performance of supposed importance is factually accurate. This defies the simple and well-established fact that porn marketing is dominated by what the wrestling industry refers to as "Kayfabe", in-universe fiction that is presented as fact. Such kayfabe surrounding "gang bang" pornography is notoriously fictive; for example, one Jasmin St. Claire, formerly promoted as a "gang bang" record holder, now admits that her "extraordinary" performance was "among the biggest cons ever pulled off in the porn business". And there is exactly zero evidence that the "Superslut" meets the well-known/significant standard of PORNBIO (indeed, unusually for porn awards, it has virtually no GBooks hits (aside from compilations of Wikipedia articles, which don't count toward notability or significance); instead, the keep proponents generally make insinuations about the motives of delete !voters rather than address genuine policy- or guideline- based claims. Not even the award-giving organization provides and explanation of the eligibility requirements for or the criteria by which the "award" recipient is selected, a strong, strong signal of its insignificance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this discussion has devolved into a bad joke because these page is trolling by total delectionist user. WP:GNG is not a requirement and compulsory, this is one of the notability guidelines. Articles in Wikipedia not must meet of the GNG, however, if article meet this is automatical argument for keep. WP:GNG say: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Simply. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 19:49, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the proper word is not bizarre, HW, but ironic. You're distorting the words of an anti-pornography critic to make the argument that Jollee is not notable despite the fact that he devotes 12 pages to her. He's asking what could a viewer really know about Jollee the person rather than the performer which fits into the popular feminist argument that pornography objectifies and debases women. His actual rhetorical conclusion that you omitted, was "So, maybe the important question isn’t “Who is Ariana Jollee?” Maybe the right question is “Who is Laura David?".[24] However, let me quote some other words from him about the performer.
"By this logic, the women in pornography—especially the really nasty ones—are the ultimate women. By that standard, Ariana Jollee may well be the perfect woman in a world defined by pornography, someone whose public persona and work on the screen embody the concept of nasty."

"This nastiest of the filthy women in pornography, this woman about to turn 22 years old, turns to a man who makes his living in the pornography industry and asks for his approval, asking if her sex with 65 men was a “good gangbang.”

Hey look at that. Acknowledgment that she is notable in her field. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What bullshit. Note that the section you quote begins with "By this logic", and the "logic" referred to is the standard porn marketing trope that women really want to be whores. That's not a perspective Wikipedia articles are written from, even if the Howard Stern show is. Jensen devotes 12 pages not to Jollee herself, but to how the woman featured in a piece of gang bang pornography that is fairly typical (despite its elaborate apparatus) is rendered a cipher by the industry's standard practices. The factual content regarding Jollee herself in that piece is limited to the writer's lack of information about her. Claiming that that's sufficient to support a BLP makes about as much sense as writing a BLP of John Malkovich based entirely on reviews of Being John Malkovich. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really, that's what comes down to it. Is this article really about the performer/character or the person that is behind that. That the character may be fictional does not make her less notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent sources.--TM 22:08, 17 April 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 00:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Vandella

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. Negligible, mostly trivial biographical content. Negligible independent sourcing. Original PROD disruptively removed without explanation or article improvement by the usual suspect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sure, why not, this is an article that actually does fail WP:PORNBIO. There are still many articles on here that fail PORNBIO. Now stop taking winners of non-scene/ensemble awards to AfD/PROD. It's as disruptive as Redban was. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rebecca1990. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of reliable sources coverage that is independent, a lack of mainstream coverage, no awards claimed, no blockbusters or new genres so WP:PORNBIO and WP:BASIC are not passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fails PORNBIO ... but meets HOTTIE –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original prod rationale. Cavarrone 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is still questionable for the applicable pornography notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both PORNBIO and GNG. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 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 03:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Olivera

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

~~Non-notable photographer. Greek Legend (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)~~ confirmed blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as distinguished record on documentaries including winning a government award, although RS are needed. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the google search, I see clear pass of WP:CREATIVE. Just need to add references (which I am trying to do) and improve the CV like style, but definitely worth keeping. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches found nothing particularly better and, although the article has several exhibitions listed, this is still questionable. Draft instead for now unless better improvements can be made soon, SwisterTwister talk 05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Should stay since they have contributed to many images accross the board. KingOfKingsTheAssassin (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking meatpuppet !vote JMHamo (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 10 April 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Croc Rose (Hari Niraula)

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

May lack notability as an actor. Greek Legend (talk) 08:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 April 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. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Singh Film Actress

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

Lead actress of an unreleased film. Greek Legend (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better at all for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 18:55, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person needs two significant roles in notable films to pass notability guidelines. The film could either become a cult classic, or just gain enough general coverage to establish notability, or we could get enough sources to pass the GNG. However until any of those happen we do not have enough to establish Singh as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 31 March 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. Drmies (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa J Pellegrene

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

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER NottNott talk|contrib 10:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It almost seems like its promoting business for that person. Music1201 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comments made when the page was created clearly show it's a promotional autobio, and other pages from the account all are tied to Pelegrene and her PR clients, it's clearly a coordinated publicity effort. JamesG5 (talk) 08:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Product of a spam-only account. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have followed this closely including of which I was an AfC reviewer and this is simply entirely questionable for any acceptability yet. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 29 March 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. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Armbruster

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable singer. The provided references do not support notability and the Google links don't offer anything better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Music1201 (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing imaginably better including for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable for any of the things he has done as an entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 31 March 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. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Applegate

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~Delete ~~It has many examples of the actor's filmography which are of significant notability~~ Lack of sources. Music1201 (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. I can find a single useful reliable source about this guy. His suicide would suggest he may've garnered some sort of significant attention, but all of my searches proved this guy is non-notable. In addition, he needs to have multiple SIGNIFICANT, MAJOR roles, not just several minor parts. editorEهեইдအ😎 04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. There were a few blog and forum posts that pointed out he and his character in Heathers both died by suicide, but you can't make an article out of IMDb trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is another biography questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Total lack of anything approaching a reliable secondary source. The article says his biggest role was as Peter Dawson, without giving any source for this view. If it is true, it probably shows he is just not notable. That was a role that gets him listed 11 in a listing of the cast. So it was a marginally notable role in a not particularly well known film. Nothing here comes close to establishing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 1 April 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. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asako Fujii

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

Non-notable voice actor. ANN profile shows minor and guest roles. GPH only shows 6 roles [25], all of which look like minor ones. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:49, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The roles are indeed very unnotable, with none of the listed work articles even mentioning Fujii. Also, the roles tend to be that of extremely sideline characters. Add on top of that the lacking coverage. --Mr. Magoo (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT when it comes to notability as the roles are all minor with no notable reception. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not satisfying the applicable actors notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 29 March 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. Search for reliable sources was obviously unsuccessful. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry G. Angelo

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

Non-notable actor/producer. Has been tagged for notability since 2014. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had the lead role in 3 independent films, solid supporting actor in mainstream films, directing and producing of lesser note at present.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. Music1201 (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Atlantic306's comment is still not actually improving the article itself thus the article is simply still questionable and the entire article itself is questionable for any better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my point was that he has a claim of passing WP:NACTOR although RS are vital and am looking for them.Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 30 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Brady

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

Lack of reliable sources. All references but one are to youtube or a site controlled by the subject gadfium 19:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one independent source is to a local newspaper in 2010 which pictures the subject on the front page performing a farewell ceremony at school. This is not sufficient to show notability. The link to his upcoming performance in a school play is not viewable by the public, but such a performance does not show notability.

An earlier version of this article was speedy deleted at Sir brady. The current article is significantly better developed than that was.-gadfium 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable "Youtube star" lacking coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 03:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly a self promotion. Everything I am sure is uploaded by the YouTube artist himself [26]. He even tweeted that he now has a Wikipedia page now. [27] --TheDomain (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also based on his sites number of views, he is not notable in terms of You Tube at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 21:04, 30 March 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 07:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Longo

Article should definitely stay she is working alongside major Hollywood actors and actresses.

Article should stay. Relevence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darlene Jenkins (talk • contribs) 03:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO; little depth of coverage except for a few articles in a local paper the Peterborough Examiner, and an interview by a local website here. Fails WP:ANYBIO; appears to have made no widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record. Fails WP:ENT. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

^^ This is actually wrong and the subject has been covered by international news sources. As you can see she has worked with several well known members of wikipedia and therefore is hugely relevant to entertainment. This article should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy Platter (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 March 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 15:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There must not be much happening in Peterborough, or the Examiner has a fixation on her, but that apparently isn't shared by the rest of the media. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all of this is still questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER noting else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 00:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks significant coverage across multiple reliable sources. Ajraddatz (talk) 02:40, 1 April 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 03:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Hart

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

Lacks notability, plain and simple. Page covers activities and accomplishments that are non-notable. References are very weak. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable award winner 2013 WP:FILMMAKER, on air presenter for radio station in the key Drive slot. Gnan garra 09:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability is clear across a range of areas, theatre and film. JarrahTree 13:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDoing a few Youtube clips and managing a dance troupe typically does not make for notability.HappyValleyEditor (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage about he in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for writing and starring in stage productions shown at a state level, for directing an award winning short film,for directing television documentaries and hosting primetime city radio programme. The existing references are quite good, WP:BASIC is passed IMO Atlantic306 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is still questionable for weight with the article still needing improvements of which I'm not seeing any better signs soon. Draft if needed. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete I would hardly consider the West Australian Screen Awards a major award. It gets only 1 gnews hit. So to hinge this person's notability on an award of dubious notability is rather weak. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in several areas.Bruriyah (talk) 20:49, 31 March 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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keegan de Lancie

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

Delete: non-notable yet; does not derive notability from father and/or grandfather, both of whom are unquestionably notable and have their own standalone articles. Just too soon, IMO. I am sure he will be notable in the future. Quis separabit? 21:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the 'Q (Junior)' role was fairly significant, and they had other roles in notable shows also. Star Trek fandom also qualifies as a large fan base or significant "cult" following. (WP:ENT) –xeno^talk 21:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; if his only role was the ST episode, that might be qualified under BLP1E, but as he has had multiple roles, there's a reasonable fair presumption for notability now. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of this better satisfies WP:ENTERTAINER, only a few works listed at IMDb with also trivial background characters listed. Simply nothing else convincing and could be redirected to his family if needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:24, 26 March 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 07:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Iso Anderson

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

Sadly, no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. This is another young Nigerian local actor and politician struggling to gain international recognition through Wikipedia. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 09:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Gbawden (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as still questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence he has been in any notable movies, let alone that any of his roles were significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 31 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Cott

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

WP:BLP of an actor whose only discernible claim of notability per WP:NACTOR is that he's freshly cast as a supporting character in a forthcoming television series that only just finished production of its pilot, and has not yet been officially upfronted by a television network. The sourcing here, further, isn't substantively about him -- of the three sources here, two are about the development process of the series before he was cast in it, and thus fail to mention his name at all, and the one that does mention his name is just a blurb which fails to do more than mention his name -- which means that WP:GNG has not been passed either. As always, an actor is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; RS coverage verifying an NACTOR pass has to be present before an actor becomes eligible for an article, but neither part of that equation has been met here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the fall if the series gets picked up and coverage of the cast members takes off accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:Too soon and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 07:11, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not yet meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 28 March 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. Consensus appears to be that this is a legitimate spinout article. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Vanessa L. Williams

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

Delete - Unneeded extra page - can just use main page Vanessa Williams Programming G E E K (mah page! // use words to communicate page) 22:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether such a section has a large enough WP:SIZE to merit a WP:SPLIT is a matter for ordinary editing and discussion, not deletion. Here I see further that the split-off list has been expanded with more content since the split, so at best this would be a merge and redirect, something that should have been done in the first place rather than starting a completely unnecessary AFD. No one even tried to discuss whether the split was necessary before it was nominated for deletion, not even three hours after it was created. That's not how we should be doing things here. postdlf (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's brand new (obviously a work still in progress), appears to have enough sourceable content to meet GNG on its own, and the size/split issue raised by Postdlf seems to argue in favor of a summary style article. Note that the nom has not even linked to the right parent article, since Vanessa Williams is a disambiguation page. I daresay this probably has the potential to be a FL if fleshed out appropriately, and there's no good reason to be discussing deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Just duplicated from her main page, where it probably should belong anyways. Though it is long, I'm not sure it warrants its own page. --Wirbelwind(ヴィルヴェルヴィント) 05:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vanessa L. Williams as this is best and entirely best connected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 04:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Wikipedia isn't a repository of all knowledge. There really isn't enough notable content here to warrant a separate article. Chrisw80 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclements. A legitimate spinout article because of its length, a standard for multiple-nominated/winner artists, it passes GNG on its own, and it even has the potential for being a featured article. I fail to see a valid argument for deletion in the comments above. Cavarrone 11:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could go either way on this topic. I just wanted to point out that currently her awards are split between two articles - the main page and the discography article:
- Vanessa L. Williams discography

I disagree that the topic is not notable - it falls in line with an article such as this one:

- List of awards and nominations received by Whitney Houston

I do think that as it stands the Vanessa L. Williams article has too many charts and tables - one reason I moved the grammy awards to the discography. That being said, I will go with whatever decision helps to make the main article a good one.-Classicfilms (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I went ahead and did a very minor clean up of this page. I added the awards tables from the discography article. One advantage to this set up lies in the acting section - the editor broke down the table from the main page in a very useful manner. If we decide to keep this article, I will remove the duplicate tables on the main Vanessa L. Williams page and the discography page. I will also develop this list a little bit, add photos etc. _Classicfilms (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment' - If we decide to keep the article, I would like to recommend that the title be changed to: List of awards and nominations received by Vanessa Williams. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Jclemens and Cavarrone that this is a legitimate spinout article because of the page's lengthy size. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's only natural for large articles to have spinouts that can help summarize the main article for readability and size purposes.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 05:32, 2 April 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) –Davey2010^Talk 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Madden

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

Non-notable, fails WP:CREATIVE JMHamo (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all of this is questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did anyone bother to at least Google it? He and his films received plenty of coverage, and his death led to several obits in major sources. Coverage found from just a cursory search includes [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the many RS sources, such as those identified above. The Reuters source and the Variety source are very good as well as the numerous book sources, passes WP:BASIC. Atlantic306 (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --do ncr am 03:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig. Nom is spitefully responding to having one of their speedy noms declined with retaliatory, unresearched deletion proposals. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reasonably notable b-movie director. However, the article's final sentence about his influence is unsourced. I'll leave it up for now to allow someone time to provide the reference. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:25, 28 March 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 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Faye

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The subject of the article does not have significant roles in multiple films/series. In addition, there is hardly any independent media coverage (most references are primary/self published sources and even those are quite few). The article is also written in a promotional tone (although I tried to fix that). Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add several additional independent sources from the media, including a recent feature article by an award-winning website in the UK. Somehow, User:Lemongirl942 deletes several of these independent media references and then cites 'lack of independent media references' as a reason to flag the article. I apologize if the article had a promotional tone when I edited it. A lot of the phrasing simply came from the independent sources I was quoting, and I was not aware that the tone would read in such a way at all. If the phrasing can be improved upon, I welcome it. However, I disagree that the article should be deleted. Natalie Faye is an actress with a strong body of work that I, and many others, have been following since the early 00s when she appeared in many Mediacorp television series and theatre productions. I remember reading about her back in those days in publications like 8 Days, Cleo, Her World, New Man, The Straits Times, The New Paper and such, which cited her work in significant plays and tv series such as First Touch, Phua Chu Kang, Heartlanders, Achar, True Files, The Legendary Swordsman, Millenium Bug, We Do, Colours, and The White Road. As those were physical publications, I've had difficulties finding corresponding reviews and articles online but I have managed to find some independent media articles and have referenced them. Honestly, I am baffled that this article is being cited for having not enough independent references when the Wikipedia articles of other notable actors who were known in Singapore during the same era as Natalie Faye, such as Steph Song, Cheryl Chin, Janice Koh, and Celest Chong have just as many independent references, if not fewer. Also, it would help if the legitimate independent media references I add to the article would stop being removed. Kelly A. Cheng 09:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly A. Cheng: If they appeared in Singaporean (physical) newspapers/magazines (prior to 2009) you can search them online in the archive here. I did search for "Natalie Faye" and it returned 0 results while a search for "Diana Natalie" returns 4 results. I am unable to find evidence that she satisfies WP:GNG. The sources I removed were independent sources but self published sources WP:SPS. The other sources you used for citations were all linked to the article subject. The one link to Asiaone was good, but it was only one. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemongirl942: You probably only found 4 because the site you provided only has an archive for a few newspapers, and not the vast majority of Singaporean magazines and media outlets. I have tried to find archives of those but can't. Anyway, this is my first Wikipedia article contribution and I decided to write this after reading a recent article about Faye. I felt that with her contributions to the theatre, film, and television industry since the early 00s and her appearances in so many notable Singaporean TV shows and plays of that time period, she deserved a Wikipedia page. But it seems that everyone is having trouble finding media articles that meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I understand the article being flagged for having insufficient sources. I have no objections to that - particularly since I currently don't have time to go dig up those old magazine and newspaper articles I mentioned but may do so at a later time. However, I am not sure this article should actually be flagged for deletion when it has more sources than dozens of other Wikipedia articles about Singaporean actors. When I made the article, I (mistakenly) felt that there were enough independent media references based on the pages of many other Singaporean actors - some of which only have two or three independent sources linked, and some, not at all. So I encourage Wikipedia editors to also examine these other articles as they are misleading in terms of how many sources are needed. I acknowledge that perhaps I did not provide enough for Natalie Faye, now that I know more about how many should be referenced. But other Wikipedia articles for Singaporean actors like Hayley Woo only have one reference, and yet that article is not being flagged for deletion. Even worse, Eileen Yeow has no sources/citations/references whatsoever, and the article hasn't been flagged for deletion either. Other Singaporean actor articles that have not been flagged for deletion despite insufficient sources include: Race Wong, Cheryl Chin, Mariam Baharum, Jeszlene Zhou, Michelle Goh, Melvinder Kanth, S. Shamsuddin, Elvin Ng, Baskar Subramanian, Anwar Hadi, Nathan Hartono (faulty links in references, and some are blogs). I can't remember all the Singaporean actor articles I looked at before I created my article, but these are some - there are countless others. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most articles about Singaporean actors on Wikipedia suffer from insufficient citations or proof of notability. A few are flagged in terms of needing more citations, but none are being flagged for deletion, while mine was flagged for deletion only two days after I made it, without time being given to improve it (while most of the above articles I cited have been around for years without being deleted despite insufficient citations). I just wanted to point out the inconsistency of Wikipedia editing standards when it comes to articles about Singaporean entertainers. Either all those articles should also be deleted, or my article should simply be flagged for needing additional citations, but not for deletion. Considering how new it is compared to the other articles with insufficient citations, it should be given more time to be improved.

@Kelly A. Cheng: I understand this is your first article and I appreciate your help. The Singapore newspaper archive contains most of the mainstream newspaper which are considered as reliable sources WP:RS. If the person wasn't featured in the mainstream newspapers, it is hard to conclude that the person is notable (see WP:NACTOR). Thank you for bringing the other articles to our notice. The way to go about is to first search if independent sources are available about the articles subject. If not available, then it is OK to flag it for deletion. I'll continue the conversation on your talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for all applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about her. It's difficult to find Singaporean articles about her, though, and there hasn't been anything that I can see in the US. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 March 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 consensus after two relistings. No strong arguments either way. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charu Asopa

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

Relevance unclear. Laber□^T 22:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks like it was transwiki'd from somewhere; I'll do some digging and see if the source Wiki has any RS that might go to prove notability here. Failing that or other forthcoming sourcing, this seems an inevitable delete. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep film and television actress with easily verifiable press coverage. Biwom (talk) 04:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biwom, I think you are probably right, but could you please provide those sources if you are certain of their existence. I looked through several Indian-language wikis and could not find an article on miss Asopa, nor significant leads on sources, though I continue to feel as if this article was transwiki'd from somewhere. On the other hand, in the Indian English press I did find a handful of articles mentioning her, but they were usually incidental mentions in articles more concerned about the shows she has worked on at large, and thus not going to establish her notability through in-depth coverage. Still, I tend to think it highly likely that sources do exist out there in other languages (and maybe some in English which I have not turned up) which would establish her notability. Can you point us towards some? Snow ^{let's rap} 21:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable enough for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the actress has received coverage in reliable sources such as The Times of India [36] and [37] and passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 9 April 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, no prejudice against recreation after reliable sources have been found--Ymblanter (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Siham Jalal

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

Article does not meet general notability guideline. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the original Arabic Wiki page (which this article is translated from) would fall short of establishing sufficient notability. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing convincingly better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 24 March 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 clear consensus after two redirects. Nominator changed his position from "delete" to "keep" but does not appear to be a reliable commenter either way. MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Venugopal Madathil

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

~~There is one article about him in Indian Express, but fails WP:GNG. And the page creator could be related to the subject. Greek Legend (talk) 04:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)~~ blocked sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 18:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a prolific contributor to the film industry in the field of cinematography , the Indian Express article about him is significant coverage from a reliable source, at least one more RS needed.Atlantic306 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are still no obvious signs of better improvements, delete considering WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:22, 9 April 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Achu Vijayan

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

Autobiography of non-notable subject. References establish that subject is an editor, but do not establish notability. Does not meet general notability guidelines. ubiquity (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as considerably questionable for any applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not testify to the subject's long-term and inherent notability, as per WP:NBIO. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:36, 24 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Wynne

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

Very limited to no notability. This is an autobiography by the artist themselves, and is purely promotional. Editor has created several different draft versions, which they attempted to put through AfC, but gave up after a single denial each time. I would normally say that if notability could be established, than this might be worth saving, but if you read the comment left on this article's talk page, and take it in light of the message left on my talk page (Request on 09:00:14, 21 March 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Gwenwynne), it appears this person is more interested in using Wikipedia as a WP:SOAPBOX, and for self-promotion. She currently has two drafts pending in AfC. If she is truly willing to work on the article, delete this one, and let one of the drafts go through the AfC process. Although, my searches turned up virtually nothing about them (one brief mention in a Huffpo blog). Without being able to verify the veracity of the citations in the article, and the promotional nature of it, I think that this article should be at least merged with either of the two drafts, and let an uninvolved editor take it over. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I have offered to help this editor get an article ready, through the draft process, if they are willing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: the backstory and presence of drafts is not relevant to this deletion discussion; in the future I suggest trying to be more terse and framing the nomination in the context of deletion policy. That said, the concern I raised when I proposed this article for deletion remains; the subject does not appear to meet the criteria listed at WP:BASIC. The sources so far presented mention the theatre troupe she co-founded and was the artistic director of, awards that actors in the films and plays won, etc but they have very little to say about the actual subject of the article. I have not been able to find anything better. So, delete. VQuakr (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically self-promotional, and fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. If she is notable then someone else can create an article about her, or take it over as has been suggested. This is Paul (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Modest credits on imdb, no other serious coverage. Since the references are all off-line, I'm not in a position to see if they really back up her claim to notability, but what I could find on-line does not. ubiquity (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as certainly questionable for any applicable notability, nothing else better convincing. SwisterTwister talk 06:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I only found one Huffington Post link which mentions her name in passing. Considering the lack of sources, I am not convinced that the article subject is notable enough. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:45, 24 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. B. Gaynor

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

Unsourced since creation in 2009 (and created by a now banned sockpuppet). Forget about WP:NACTOR (subject is a child actor that had at most a few recurring roles) – there's no way this will pass WP:GNG (I found one passing (speculative!) reference in Entertainment Weekly from 2014 and that was about it...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Almost no coverage outside of imdb, so he doesn't really meet WP:GNG. WP:BIO requires 'significant roles in multiple notable films [or] television shows... a large fan base or a significant "cult" following' or 'unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment', so I don't think he passes that either. Press releases from Young Artists Awards document that he was nominated, and sometimes won, but the award was for "Guest Starring Young Actor" (i.e., not lead or supporting), and I would be hard-pressed to identify any of his competition for this award, leading me to believe that the award is not notable, as required by WP:NAWARD. So unless someone can dig up decent sources, I'm inclined to kill it. ubiquity (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I've started questioning the salvageability of these articles even with Young Artist Award because aside from that, they're still questionably better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 26 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Copping

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

Poorly sourced (relying entirely on IMDb and a blog) WP:BLP of an actress whose only discernible claims of notability are having won a regional film award and voicing a minor character in an animated television series. Neither of these are enough to pass WP:NACTOR, and the sourcing is not sufficient to get her over WP:GNG instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 05:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I reviewed this at NPP and this seems questionable for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No where near passing any notability criteria for a person involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 1 April 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. Consensus is that the subject fails PORNSTAR/GNG. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Fitch

AfDs for this article:

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

Not my field of interest but this seems questionable for WP:PORNSTAR with none of this seeming convincing enough for the applicable notability, with only one apparent award, and it only being a nomination. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC) SwisterTwister talk 05:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as agree that WP:PORNSTAR is not passed, as no awards, no groundbreaking movies or genres,,no significant mainstream coverage either so WP:BASIC is not reached . The music career is not notable yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Believe he at least passes WP:GNG and even WP:ENT, since he's one of the subjects profiled in a book called "Gay Porn Heroes" by J.C. Adams, about the most influential performers in the field. A quick Google search came up with this article in a notable publication (The Advocate), and mentions his inclusion in the book. Subject has also apparently won or been nominated for some awards,(and here); just don't know how significant they are. But "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" is all ENT requires, while GNG only needs "significant coverage in reliable sources;" and again, per Google, he clearly has both. Especially when you consider his first AfD was 10 years ago and he's apparently still around and relevant (here) and (here). That's a pretty notable shelf-life for any porn performer. X4n6 (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC
Comment its the briefest of passing mentions in The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel is another passing mention, the reference to his fanbase in the Gay U.K ref is based on 215,000 likes on his facebook which is not a remarkable number at all and is not reliable because likes can be bought in bulk. The book "Gay Porn Heroes" is about 100 gay porn actors so it is not very exclusive and at 252 pages in total for 100 actors its not very detailed. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC) 17:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It's really not surprising since you tried to refute every single point I made - that there wasn't a single argument you made that I agree with. The mention in the Advocate highlighted his presence in a book entitled "Gay Porn Heroes." By the title alone, there is already the inference that the list is inherently notable in that genre. But for the Advocate, which I believe, is pretty much the gay publication of record, to mention him among all the others in the book - only further illustrates his notability. Otherwise, why mention him at all? Also, the author of the book is himself notable in that field, based on his prolific contributions. He could very likely be considered an authoritative source on the subject of notability. But your notion that 100 gay actors is not exclusive, is nonsense when you consider the thousands, if not 10s of thousands (or more) of gay porn performers the writer had to choose from. Again, just more evidence of GNG. And 215,000 Facebook likes is textbook ENT. Whether the numbers are exact or not is irrelevant. Because the threshold is simply a "cult following." So in a niche market like porn, gay porn specifically, a six figure following is easily a "cult following." Hell, a 10th of that would qualify. And The Advocate and the Orlando Sentinel are both reliable sources. Nor did you even attempt to refute my response that his last AfD was a decade ago - and yet his fans are still talking about him for whatever reasons. Again: cult following. Bottom line: we're only here to judge notability, nothing more. Every argument you made only confirms that he passes notability according to every threshold I've referenced. I'm really not invested enough to do more research - but I suspect that if I did, I would end up changing my !vote from Keep to Strong Keep, or even Speedy Keep. Because your arguments alone, while clearly not your intention, have only made a stronger case for keeping it. X4n6 (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis. Passing mentions in articles which contain no content regarding the subject himself except his name fail GNG requirements by a country light-year. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Being a gay porn hero sounds like a plaintive request to turn off the GNG and PORNBIO for this person. No ta. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 27 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satish K. Samudre

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

Does not meet notability guideline for creative professionals. A lot of the articles linked to do not show Samudre in a leading role in their creation (refer WP:DIRECTOR point 3). sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 08:46, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment. HarryKernow (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Vipinhari || talk 11:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not better for both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If he's truly notable someone else will write an article on him. This editor's attempts at self-promotion are more evident in his three-times speedy-deleted article Passion Movies Pvt. Ltd. —SMALL JIM 10:42, 1 April 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 California Dreams. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cade

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

Almost completely analogous to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William James Jones (which was recently closed as "redirect") – subject is not independently notable under WP:GNG, and likely fails WP:NACTOR as well with only one "significant" role (in California Dreams). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Dreams also as this is simply not yet solidly convincing for the actors notability, none of this suggests a better separate article. SwisterTwister talk 06:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is a UK Daily Mirror article highlighted in highbeam, still looking for it, also found a Brazilian article but the website needs checking out Atlantic306 (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you seem not to understand the meaning of "significant" coverage required by WP:GNG. William James Jones had an entire Chicago Tribune article devoted to him, but that alone wasn't enough to establish notability. Also, if you found a cite as you claim, why have you not added it to that article? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The evidence of the Daily Mirror article is in the highbeam results which mention it, when I can find it I'll add it. After investigating the Brazil website I think its a content farm so that excludes it. Regarding sig coverage the AFC advice for reviewers is that significant coverage from one source is at least one substantial paragraph, see here its in the box of section two [38] which is a lot less than a whole article, personally I had thought it had to be a bit more than a paragraph. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - One "substantial" article is not enough – WP:GNG demands more. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to California Dreams, subject is not independently notable. Bishonen | talk 15:07, 7 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the California Dreams article. Not enough in-depth coverage to warrant a stand-alone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:22, 10 April 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 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Ruckdashel

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

No evidence this actor meets WP:GNG. References are poorly sourced. Self-promotional and not Neutral POV. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zigmundbratwurst (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet convincing for both WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 21 references, great! But the one to the NYT is a dead link, and none of the other 20 are to reliable third-party sources. Some of them mention Ruckdashel in passing, but many of them don't mention him at all, it's ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 15:22, 7 April 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. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Epperson

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actress; not because it's too soon, either. Quis separabit? 13:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If I have time, I'll look into this one. My guess is that she may have gotten significant coverage in the U.S. soap opera press. (However, I bet that it was long enough ago that it's not available online...) In any case, if none of us find anything in terms of sourcing, I agree that it should be deleted as a completely unsourced BLP. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches simply found nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER and there's nothing solidly convincing aside from the Ashley Abbott character. SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not really finding anything. As I said before, I suspect it may actually be out there, but it would be in old print editions of things like Soap Opera Digest which almost nobody has access to. So, based on the sourcing that's out there and readily available today, there's not much at all... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added multiple sources confirming her roles in various movies/tv shows, and I found 121 hits on Newspaper Archive. Currently, Newspaper Archive is undergoing maintenance and I can't view all of the hits. She passes WP:NACTOR and is light for GNG, but she has had coverage in People and a Christian news source. I'm going to ping IJBall since you seemed interested in this. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On my end, I'm looking for stronger sourcing related to her acting career on Y&R. While the article is now sourced, alot of the additions look like passing mentions. Heh – I do remember Bug Buster though... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's plenty of sourcing in ProQuest. Examples:

Nancy Reichardt (1989), "Look-alike newcomer thanks fate for plum role" The Gazette (Montreal), 646 words entirely about her[39]

Lilana Novakovich (1993), "Brenda Epperson heads for Metro," Toronto Star, 381 words about her[40]

Lilana Novakovich (1995), "Brenda Epperson has much to be happy about," The Record (Kitchener, Ontario), 470 words about her[41]

The previous article notes that her wedding was covered in People magazine. That citation is: "One night to cherish," People Weekly 42.4 (Jul 25, 1994), pg. 95, but the actual article isn't in my Proquest subscription.

--Jahaza (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does the People cite really help – do wedding annoucements help to establish notability?! But these new sources look promising – I'll try to look at these later... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant indepth reliable sources coverage has been found. I don't have access to Proquest but exercising wikipedia good faith I trust Jahaza's judgement that there are significant articles about the subject in Canadian RS such as The Gazette (Montreal), The Toronto Star, and The Record and thats not including the wedding info.I think WP:BASIC is passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 27 March 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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Arons

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

Delete as thoroughly non-notable entertainer. Vanity/promo fan article. Quis separabit? 21:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as searches unfortunately found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 01:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. We don't have an article about every session musician who played on an album that won a Grammy in a relatively esoteric category, notable stage presence or not, without a good bit more. Julietdeltalima (talk) 21:18, 9 April 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Arras

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

Delete: utterly non-notable character actor. Quis separabit? 21:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not convincing for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 06:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 00:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 31 March 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Phoenix

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

No references (a couple links only) and I don't think he passes WP:ACTOR Legacypac (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not at all better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Hardly any references and article is written in a promotional tone. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having extremely small parts in notable films does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 28 March 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 03:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Dave

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

No significant coverage of the actor, with no reliable sources even. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 05:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 09:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he only has background characters such as playing so and so's son, and there's nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: ALL actors, even some of today's most notable, begin with minor roles... and reliable sources confirming his career are available, though sadly not used... so to disagree with the above, through an incomplete IMDB and searches through WP:INDAFD giving us ("Parth Dave" "Master Parth Dave", it appears that he has had enough significant roles since 2003 to meet WP:NACTOR. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry MichaelQSchmidt this is not about the roles he played, this is about whether the subject meets the Notability criteria. Secondly, please do not say again about its roles he played without independent sources. Does it has any kind of coverages in media? If yes then say. Third point we are not promotional agency so do not implement it even mate. Thanks. SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 06:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in a lack of individual's coverage notability criteria tell us a discussion then has to be about the roles, and so anyone simply and unfoundedly claiming his roles are unsourcable or insignificant is unhelpful. We do not cherry-pick which guide to understand, but what I do understand after seven years and 60,000 edits is that the inclusion guide WP:NACTOR requires verification of an actor's roles, without demanding SIGCOV of the individual. Those two guides are not set as mutually exclusionary. No evidence beyond supposition that author User:Parthactor is the likely subject, but the user has not edited the stub since November 2010... but it has been edited by many others have since he stopped editing Wikipedia. And while ADVERT/PROMOTION in any article would certainly apply if the article were itself somehow full of unsourcable fluff, rather than sourcable fact, I know you decided to ignore a a reasonable assertion of notability when you wished it speedied. Atlantic306 was correct to decline your requested speedy. Had you given any thought to simply tagging it for sources rather than bringing it to AFD? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:14, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as had prominent roles in feature films, there are plenty of reviews such as [42], and [43], I haven't found anything biographical yet. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, I'm not seeing the significant roles in notable films. It only took about 8 minutes to look at all 12 roles, and the only one which even approaches the level of significance is that in Blackmail. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would have to agree with Onel5969 here. He does not have significant roles in most of the notable films (except for 1 or at most 2) he's acted, fails WP:NACTOR. Doesn't meet WP:GNG—UY Scuti ^Talk 19:40, 7 April 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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 05:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DhoomBros

AfDs for this article:

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

As per previous deletion of this article, no significant coverage of group in reliable sources. Bakilas (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 12:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three reliable sources in the article that cover the subject in detail: JAMO Magazine, BBC Asia, and Punjab2000. Notable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 15:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that the links given establish notability. Ross-c (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete actually as my searches found nothing better and the current sourcing is actually not as convincing as it could be. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - interviews, being primary sources, cannot be used to show notability. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent, secondary sources to show they pass WP:GNG. The promotional aspect of the article also makes this an easy decision to delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale makes no sense. A Primary source is something the subject would publish himself. These are published by the media and all three sources are reliable. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- sami ^talk 04:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been covered in the media, and reliable sources are available. For example: [44] Bradv 18:50, 11 April 2016
Keep as google gives over 300,000 hits for it, seems to be popular. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:38, 15 April 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 15:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Ormson

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe that this article fails WP:ENT. As per this, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", the subject of this article has only had one role in Coronation Street and appeared as a guest on a daytime show. I cannot see that there is anything worth keeping in this article, I suggest either redirecting to David Platt (Coronation Street) or just deleting this article. 5 albert square (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to David Platt (Coronation Street) as none of this is better for WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 22:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found some passing mentions. I have added this to the article.--TheDomain (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, fails WP:ENT. Anemone Projectors 07:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for role in U.K's first or second most popular series for 10 years solid,WP: ENT are only guidelines, his national newspaper coverage passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I completely get all the delete !votes. And I understand how strictly applying the guidelines at WP:NACTOR lead you to that decision. That being said, the guy was a regular on a television show for 10 years. A very popular television show. If William Christopher's only role was as the chaplain on M*A*S*H, I'd say that was good enough (and he only appeared in 218 episodes). That being said, I've never seen the show, so I don't know how significant a role it is, but the fact that it's notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, it's probably a decent role. Although, it looks like most of that article is post-Ormson, so if he was merely a glorified extra for those 10 years, than I'd rethink my !vote. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Onel5969: I didn't watch the show when Ormson was it in but it looks like he was in it from a baby to about 10 years old. Most child characters in that age range tend to be "glorified extras" which is why they end up being recast. These 10 years of the character are summarised by a single paragraph in David Platt (Coronation Street)#Storylines, so it looks like that's probably the case. I don't know if he had a speaking part at any point. Anemone Projectors 11:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response to comment - That's precisely my point AnemoneProjectors, I'm not sure. He may have been a glorified extra, or he might have had a part more akin to that of the Olsen twins on Full House. If it's the former, doesn't deserve an article, if its the latter, he does. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wonder if letting Coronation Street editors know about this AFD might help. Anemone Projectors 13:48, 8 April 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. Clearly a borderline case, but no agreement about which side of the notability border she falls on. Sandstein 15:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hammon

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

Failed WP:PROD. BLP article completely unsourced since creation in 2007. Very borderline WP:NACTOR (two "significant" roles would be Port Charles and Allyson Is Watching), but I can find no significant sourcing for this one, so it very probably fails WP:BASIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best with nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, she was a General Hospital character for two years but there's simply nothing convincing to keep. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as had significant roles in Port Charles and Allyson is Watching, found these sources [45] and [46] I think WP:BASIC is only just passed. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't clear it for WP:GNG. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think its borderline.Check out section 2 in the box for instructions to AFC reviewers which defines significant coverage as at least one substantial paragraph here [47], it surprised me as I had thought it had to be more than that. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - The thing is, what clears you through WP:AfC is not binding on what happens here at AfD. Put another way, what AfC is telling reviewers is the bare minimum to accept an article for publication in mainspace. But I suspect the AfC people assume that these "single refs" will soon be supplemented by other refs from other editors once the article is published (i.e. they're viewing that "bare minimum standard" as the starting point for an article...). At AfD, OTOH, we're sometimes looking at BLPs that have been entirely unsourced for up to a decade (and which would qualify for WP:BLPPROD if BLPPROD had been "grandfathered" to include them) which is usually a sign that significant sourcing is unavailable for the subject. Note the choice of my words – "significant sourcing". It's not to say that some of these languishing BLPs can't be sourced at all – it's that they can't be "adequately" or well sourced enough to clear WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC). In any case, what happens at AfC is certainly not binding here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added a source so no longer unreferenced BLP. Certainly there are other marginally famous actors with wikipedia articles. I agree she barely meets the requirements for notability, but she does meet them. Add to that, there is a tremendous disparity in the number of men's and women's biographies, for me that weighs in favor of keeping and improving this article.Knope7 (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This is precisely a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. SST flyer 01:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the requirements for notability of actors. We do not keep poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people because we have lots of poorly sourced articles on marginally notable people. If you think there are others actors who are not notable and yet have articles (which is probably the case), you are free to nominate them for deletion. And to tell you the truth, if they really are less notable than Hammon, I will also vote for deleting that article as well. Just because we cannot manage to nominate all below par articles that do not meet notability requirements at once, does not mean we should keep such articles as we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Borderline. but keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VanEman (talk • contribs) 17:40, April 3, 2016‎ (UTC)
Delete - The WP:OSE argument isn't really valid in this instance. And remember, having two significant roles only means the may be notable (the guideline says "multiple", but does not define it). To be specific, the guideline says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." In this instance I don't think the two roles she has had guarantee that she is notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Hammon appeared in two significant roles but barely reaches notability. Meatsgains (talk) 23:52, 8 April 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nadir Bouhmouch

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

Director with questionable notability-also looks like a too soon (only a couple non notable short films so far, he is pretty young so maybe someday) Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked-one of them is not a short film, 63 minutes actually. This article does need more then just putting he is a director though if it wants to last that is for sure. Not sure of the notability still of this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this currently satisfies WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:05, 29 March 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. Consensus is clear. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Olja Hrustic

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

Non-notable actress: lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing better for WP:ENTERTAINER, simply background characters. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can not agree that she is non-notable actress. I think that the IMDB and the Playbillvault are appropriate and reliable sources. The fact that she has played leading and supporting roles in more than 20 movies and shows is additional reference, which proves that this actress has significant career. I ask you to reconsider your stances. This article deserves to be on Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Lesko11. Mike V • Talk 17:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this article has all necessary references in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I highlight the IMDB as one of the most relevant sites related to the World filmography. It is clear that the Wikipedia`s mission is to increase its database with new articles, which have to be covered with appropriate sources. I appreciate the effort of administrators and contributors who daily patrol new articles, but I also appreciate the work of those who created mentioned article. So, my suggestion is: do not delete. Regards, NatasaGav — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatasaGav (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC) — NatasaGav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I present you another reference for mentioned article. It is the Playbill magazine, edition from 2012. On this link you can check it: Olja Hrustic. When you click on "Inside the Playbill" you can read some details from actress` biography. Since the Playbil is a well renowned magazine I suggest you once again to keep this article. Also, via broadway.com you can witness that she used to play in The best man by Gore Vidal. By the way, I still think that the IMDB is well reliable source, since their staff are checking accuracy of editing, similar as on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2016
IMDb is not a reliable source. The Playbill and Broadway.com sources do not represent significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had some prominent roles in feature films, a third and a fourth billing and a lot of tv one-episode billings, am looking for better refs. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I am wrong, but in Wikipedia`s article related to the citing IMDb is not stated that IMDb is not a reliable source. There are questions regarding the appropriate and inappropriate uses, but it is an issue for another debate. However, if citing IMDb is not reliable, then we have a problem with a plenty of articles related to living persons from the film industry. I will not point on any of them, but many of articles provide coverage only from IMDb or some tabloids. On the other hand, I cannot agree that The Playbill magazine is not independent reliable source. Since this article provides objective information, I believe that Wikipedia policy is not violated at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari || talk 17:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After seven days of a constructive discussion, I have the same stance: this article should be on Wikipedia. I am sure that the Playbill magazine is a reliable source. Also, citing IMDb is not inappropriate. Once again, the information on this article is general and objective. The actress is relatively renowned in the US independent film industry. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've un-bolded your second !vote, and struck your third. You only get one !vote per discussion here, although you are welcome to continue to contribute to the discussion. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Playbill does not contain significant coverage of the subject. IMDb should only by used to cite writing credits marked "WGA" and MPAA ratings reasons supplied by the MPAA.^{WP:Citing IMDb} IMDb contains user-generated content. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has been in many notable films. She has plenty of references from reliable sources. I see no reason why she would be considered non-notable. Ethanlu121 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited. What sources are those? — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability standard for persons nor that for entertainers. Insufficent coverage in reliable third party sources. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 01:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uncle Milty, I understood. Talking about her education, the William Esper Studio is quite notable among the schools of performing arts. During her career, she used to work with John Larroquette and Michael Wilson, Robert Rodriguez, Rob Zombie, Maria Beatty etc. There is a lot of references which confirm that cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her credits aren't significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Within the Notability (people) article has been stated as follows: “Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.“ It is obvious that her career meets this criteria. Honestly speaking, I do not know which measures you use for assessment whose credits are significant or not. The most important, we should insist on the same standards. I highlight that the independent film industry is much different from the Hollywood A production, thus the notability of actors/ actress varies. We could discuss all day long which production is more artistic, but the point is that both of them should be represented on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesko11 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, due to lack of significant coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a bunch of bit parts ("Blues girl","student","Russian girlfriend") don't come close to establishing WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 28 March 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 00:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Claxton

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

I did not find sufficient coverage in secondary sources. Ringbang (talk) 20:33, 11 March 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 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for his work on award winning documentaries ( such as Emmy Award) for major broadcasters such as BBC, and Disney, I think he passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He was not the recipient of the Emmy. What are the secondary sources that lead you to conclude that he passes WP:BASIC? —Ringbang (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting this "Keep" cannot be taken closely to actually better satisfying any applicable notability as his exact article is still currently questionable thus deleted for now. SwisterTwister talk 22:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making was that as well as WP:BASIC, he also passes the Creative notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 00:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: I stand by the Delete vote implied by my nomination of the article. The references I found are almost entirely incidental mentions; I don't call that "significant coverage". Is this a case where a number of not-so-deep references amount to notability? I don't think so, because the closest that any of them comes to specifying Claxton's on-the-ground involvement is when Rich says that he interviewed subjects for Seeds of Despair. But Rich also says that Claxton won an Emmy, and my research does not corroborate that. Show me that he won the Emmy, and I'll rewrite the article instead of voting for deletion. —Ringbang (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing solidly convincing for independent notability and my searches found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I continued my search. Here is Nicholas Claxton's filmography at the British Film Institute, and here is the filmography for his production company. I searched for coverage of the following documentaries: Drug Raped (1998), The Search for Shangri-la (1998), Frontline (1994), Linda McCartney: Behind the Lens (1992), The Hidden Hand (1991), Do They Feel My Shadow? (1991), Edward Goldsmith: The Green Revolutionary (1990), Suffer the Children (1988), Promised Lands (1987), The Price of Progress (1987), and Seeds of Despair (1984).
  
  Although I did find some coverage (listed below), it rather seems like scrapings to me. Some of the films are significant—no doubt about it. The question is, as SwisterTwister put it, is it "solidly convincing" evidence of "independent notability"? Most of the sources below are snippets from Google Books. In some cases, there isn't enough context to determine the depth of the coverage. In all cases, the emphasis is on the film, not the filmmakers. Even in Bruce Rich's book, which of all the sources is the most generous to Claxton, this is the case. Some of the films look really intriguing; especially the vanguard coverage of the 1983–85 famine in Ethiopia. I still haven't found much that one can say about Claxton himself, and his involvement. Most of the material in the article right now is unsourced, and some of it is clearly promotional. It emphasizes his current career, which seems to be unnoteworthy. But even if I attempted to revise the article to refocus attention on his filmmaking career in the 1980s and '90s, I don't see much substance I could put into it from these sources (which are the best I could find). If the article is going to be more than a catalogue or summary of the films in which he had a greater hand, I think we need more and better sources than what I list here:
1. In his book Mortgaging the Earth, Bruce Rich writes about Claxton and his film The Price of Progress. Rich says that Claxton won an Emmy for Seeds of Despair, but I haven't found any sources that corroborate the claim that Claxton (as the film's producer) personally won the Emmy. When the film won a Peabody Award, the recipient was Central Independent Television. The 1986 Year Book and The Americana Annual say that CIT won the Emmy for Seeds of Despair. The Emmy search engine didn't return any hits. I also browsed through the documentary categories on Emmys.com for each year in which one of these films is meant to have won; again, no hits. Is there a more comprehensive resource for Emmy winners?
2. The Price of Progress is covered in The Latin American Times. It seems to have gotten a four-star rating in the Video Rating Guide for Libraries.
3. The Hidden Hand is discussed in Horizon, a Zimbabwean magazine.
4. A piece in New Statesman Society praises Do They Feel My Shadow? before its release.
5. Linda McCartney: Behind the Lens won a CableACE Award after it was rebroadcast in the United States. The film was on display in a retrospective of McCartney's photography.
6. Suffer the Children is mentioned in the magazine West Africa.
7. A writer for the Royal Geographical Society's magazine Geographical says "Claxton is perhaps best known for his Emmy Award-winning film Seeds of Despair".
  —Ringbang (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment firstly I'd like to commend your extensive search for sources and your intention to produce a high class article. Unfortunately I can't seem to magnify the Google book results but I trust your judgement However, I think the paragraphs about Claxton in the book "Mortgaging the Earth" and his lesser coverage in other RS such as The Times article allow WP:BASIC to be passed and a stubb class article to be maintained until better sources occurr that would allow for a high class article. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think reducing the article to a stub with some select sources might be reasonable. The thing that stimies me about film and television producers is it's often unclear what their creative involvement was. When a film wins prestigious awards, that doesn't automatically confer notability to everyone involved with the film. In this self-written bio, he says he "made" Cry, Ethiopia, Cry, but his Wikipedia article says he was a "joint producer". What he actually did remains vague. —Ringbang (talk) 03:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think from this source [48] he was joint producer and as such when the film won the award it was received by both producers as is the case at the Oscars for best film. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those producer credits appear on all those Frontline programme info pages. It's not a list of the Emmy recipients. I've found no document that names the recipients. Ringbang (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There just isn't enough solid coverage about him to meet WP:GNG, or any of the other notability criteria. Article would also likely need serious rewriting in order to not qualify for CSD G11, IMHO. This article also suffers from far too much WP:OR for my tastes on top of the WP:PROMO aspects. Chrisw80 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 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. Clear consensus after relisting. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ferris

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

Insufficient notablity; zero reliable sources. —swpb^T 14:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of this satisfies WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above, quality sources are either inadequate or simply non-existent altogether. GAB^Hello! 00:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Self promotion? Mattximus (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability - all references are to his own website or imdb, not reliable sources. Searches don't turn up anything better. Reads like a bio his agent might send to movie producers. Neiltonks (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete comes no where near staisfying the notability criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 28 March 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. Sufficient sourcing, and highly unlikely that a consensus of "delete" can be reached. (non-admin closure) Slashme (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Bevis

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

Delete: as non-notable minor actress; fails GNG. Quis separabit? 21:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 22:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her IMDB credits appear extensive, including recurring roles on notable shows. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with previous comment, also notable as a top model, 44 screen credits and one of those was for 44 episodes of a soap opera, also appearances in Dallas, 6 episodes, and Star Trek Next Generation, 3 episodes. I think notability guidelines are passed.Atlantic306 (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why have neither of you provided sourcing to back this claim up? These articles aren't just about WP:NACTOR – they're about WP:BASIC, and a BLP article with zero sourcing, and no additional sourcing provided during AfD, should be deleted on sight. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best the best solid work was the Young and the Restless character for one year, nothing else better for WP:ENTERTAINER aside from that. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I simply hate no consensuses AfDs, I am willing to Keep even if reluctant because the Young and the Restless role is the best thing from this article.....now let's go nominate some other articles for deletion for now.... SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep but a weak one. She's clearly had lots of roles and is a professional actor; problem is, not much in-depth coverage of her. I'm somewhat on the fence but note that there is interest in her in Wikipedia (an unofficial measure) but almost 90 pageviews per day suggests (for me) inclusion.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a NYT filmography reference to the article which can support a filmography, also found these which am adding [49], [50] Atlantic306 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 1 April 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 02:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chriss Anglin

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 09:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 66 screen credits, including some leading roles, passes notability guidelinesAtlantic306 (talk) 01:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as IMDb shows his works not at all solidly satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. SwisterTwister talk 01:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 00:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please note that simply having a certain number of works and such are simply not enough for actually better satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER. With actuality, this article would need improvements and with no one taking the efforts and time, this is best deleted until better is available. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the number of credits does matter as per criteria3 of WP:ENT Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.A large number of credits could be considered prolific, looking for RS. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, couldn't find much at all except [51] although don't have any advanced search engines, just the google.Atlantic306 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't agree with Atlantic306's assessment of the third criteria for WP:ENT. Using that definition, there are literally thousands of extras who would qualify for a Wikipedia page. I personally know probably over 100 people who have each been in over 100 films. None of them notable. The two best roles this person has is the Dead Men Walking credit, while the second is as Humpty Dumpty in a soft porn film (not a notable film). Other than that, his roles are simply not significant, or the films/videos/shorts are not notable. Therefore he does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:ENT, nor is there enough in-depth coverage to show he passes WP:GNG. I will say his imdb bio is a perfect example of why that is not a reliable source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:52, 31 March 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.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VRtrooper (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VRtrooper (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 ==Actors and filmmakers==
 <!--New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khris_Kaneff}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Pink_Panther_cast_members}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_singing_actors_and_actresses_in_Indian_cinema}}