Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Women|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

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

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women/archive 3

watch

Women

Roghaye Someh

Roghaye Someh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Basically, a girl who played futsal competitively for Iran as a teenager and was mentioned in a few articles. I'm not convinced that is enough for WP:GNG / WP:YOUNGATH. Svartner (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Iran. Svartner (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Amalia Soraya

Amalia Soraya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSINGER, and WP:SIGCOV Octaviyanti Dwi Wahyurini (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete: This article actually does not fulfil the general notability guideline and also the Wikipedia:Notability (music) Alazar202 (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly fails GNG. Haz215 (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not cite any sources. The Squirrel Game (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - doesn't cite any notability providing sources and I can't find anything where she would pass a criteria of NMUSIC. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - She released one album, for which I can find no professional reviews. For her larger music career, I can find nothing beyond the usual social media sites and retail directories. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Shiranthi Rajapaksa

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Shiranthi Rajapaksa
• Articles for deletion/Shiranthi Rajapaksa (2nd nomination)

Shiranthi Rajapaksa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Simply being the first lady to the president of Sri Lanka, does not make her automatically notable (see WP:NOTINHERITED). Should be redirected to Mahinda Rajapaksa#Personal life and family. Dan arndt (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Psychology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. In reviewing NOTINHERITED I noticed this relevant text: "Note, however, that this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady." pburka (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Nice catch. WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to this particular person. That said, we have so little content in the current article I would be ok with redirecting to First Lady of Sri Lanka or the article on her husband which has better context on her until someone takes the time to develop something that warrants a standalone page. The first AFD identified sources that could potentially be used to expand this page beyond a one sentence stub.4meter4 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Mum's the word

Mum's the word (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the coverage I could find about this is actual about feminism or women's autonomy. There is not much covering the word itself. Of course, there are entries in dictionaries, but if that's all we use, we'd end up at WP:NOTDICT. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Language, and Sexuality and gender. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Merge to English-language idioms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment Mum's the Word (a dab page) also exists. It could be merged to there, but given that page, this isn't purely a dicdef. Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  A basic definition of "Mum's the word" can be put there, and then the disambiguation should be removed. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to the dab page (deletion would be fine too; in-wiki searches are case-insensitive). This is clearly just a dicdef, and the dab page already has the basic definition along with a Wikitionary link box, so nothing more is really needed. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Kadri Tuisk

Kadri Tuisk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly promotional entrepreneurcruft. The sources are either interviews, or about her non-notable award win (or both) or about her companies. Athanelar (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Technology, and Estonia. Athanelar (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Rubina Gillani

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rubina Gillani
• Articles for deletion/Rubina Gillani (2nd nomination)

Rubina Gillani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose redirecting to Nauman Wazir Khattak because the coverage is focused on her husband or just namechecks her in routine news coverage like , , . BookishReader (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: this did survive the first nomination in 2018 (a traditional deletion discussion that did not propose a redirect), but perhaps even in the otherwise-strict BLP topic area our standards were lower even that recently; it has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since 2024. (No opinion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, Medicine, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Carol Porter

Carol Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One-time nominee for statewide office (Lieutenant Governor of Georgia in 2010) who did not receive significant coverage in that race. Fails NPOL and does not otherwise pass GNG. PA Uploader (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). PA Uploader (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - seems to be non-notable, low-profile individual who only made headlines for routine political activity as an unelected candidate. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL / WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Lamia Bazir

Lamia Bazir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable as government official, nor as businessperson. Solely promotional spam bio page. Faisl ANYBIO. Jørgen Rü (talk) 11:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Politics, and Morocco. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Candace Victoria Mitchell

Candace Victoria Mitchell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly promotional CEO page, non-notable businesswoman.Remove as spam. Jørgen Rü (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - three strong sources there in Forbes (an editor, not a contributor), BeautyMatter (as Candace Mitchell Harris), and WWD. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Celeste Vogel

Celeste Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Highly promotional CEO page, non-notable legal executive, no reliable independent media coverage provided, only routine mentions serving as promo-CV page. Remove as non-notable PR profile Jørgen Rü (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Law, Cameroon, Ghana, and Switzerland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Jamie Paige

Jamie Paige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Although Paige may arguably barely scrape by as notable under WP:GNG, after combing through the sources used here, I'm not confident she meets WP:MUSICBIO.

• There are 11 non-primary sources; the only three that I think may count towards meeting MUSICBIO are AudioPhix, Merry-Go-Round Magazine, and possibly this Bandcamp editorial. The reliability of each of these is not clear.
  • Given that Paige publishes most of her music on Bandcamp, I'd say the third especially is a questionable source, and it also feels like it might fail the criterion that states publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves and advertising does not qualify. Is this advertising? It's certainly walking a very thin line in that regard. Even if it is reliable, Paige isn't the main topic of the article, so I'm not sure it counts as significant coverage.
• Another source, The Sentinel Sound, identifies itself as a high school student newspaper. This also discounts it as per MUSICBIO, which exempts Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar), in most cases from counting towards notability.
• Another source is a radio interview with Paige, uploaded to the interviewer's YouTube channel. This being an interview with Paige, it wouldn't count towards notability for the same reason as the Bandcamp article. It is also stated that this interview aired on WNYU-FM, which might also make it invalid as the publication of a university.
• The remaining sources are all WP:PRSOURCES about the Unbeatable DLC and the Hatsune Miku Digital Stars live events, which also appear to fail MUSICBIO as it exempts reprints of press releases from counting towards notability.

In my WP:BEFORE, I found no other significant sources about Paige, so unless any can be found I'm not certain that this article should be retained. Perhaps it could be redirected to Unbeatable (video game), but given that she is only tangentially related to that game I don't think that would be a particularly great target, especially for anyone looking for more in-depth information about her. I'd love to be proven wrong about this if any better sources can be found, but, especially for a transgender musician with a big online following, the sourcing of this article is far weaker than I'd personally feel comfortable with when it comes to a BLP. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Video games, and LGBTQ+ studies. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The fact that it's getting nominated for deletion instead of being rejected at the draft stage (where it remained for six months) is kinda funny yet it leaves a bit of a sour taste in my mouth hehe

I jest, because although I feel kinda disappointed, you bring up very valid points. I hadn't considered the music biography guidelines beyond the basic WP:GNG and didn't realize that not one, but two of these sources were university-based and that they don't contribute to notability on enwiki. I also don't want to opt into merging with Unbeatable because it makes no sense to do that. She's a contributor to the game, but it's not like she's a lead developer. Her contributions are also relatively recent.

The two sites you named, AudioPhix and Merry-Go-Round Magazine seem to be long-running sites with dedicated editorials and appear generally reliable. AudioPhix in particular is a lart of a larger network of websites by the company Fansided, whereas MGRM is independent. I see no reason to not let them establish notability. That being said, the radio interview is also one of the only glimpses we get with Paige. She doesn't do interviews much, unfortunately. That, the Bandcamp interview, and one livestream that's related to a recent song of hers ("Do No Harm") are the only times I've ever seen her talk about her own work at length on other people's platforms. The interviews don't form my argument for her notability, though; their purpose is to complete the article more thoroughly. I'm afraid I didn't catch myself as well as I should've. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 15:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It could be possible to instead have a Flavor Foley page, I think there could be more source material that way. ~2026-43981-48 (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

While I agree with you in spirit, and that it would be great to have, that doesn't stand up to scrutiny in practice. Vane and Rice are usually self-promoted as individuals, and the same applies to their group with Jamie. Flavor Foley is remarkably new (founded in 2024) and hasn't had the chance to get covered by any secondary sources -- breaking a key notability guideline, which is also being argued for Jamie here. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 22:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I hadn't caught that the article had been moved from draftspace. Given that the article has been worked on for so long and clearly has editors dedicated to it, I would be supportive of re-draftifying the article as an alternative to deletion. This is definitely one of those cases where I can very easily see the topic's notability looking very different given at least a year's time. Or, this could be merged into the Flavor Foley draft if ever they're shown to be notable. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:30, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I straight up moved it from draftspace to main because it'd been like 8 months under review with no word on it, so I thought "fuck the rules just this once". I consider myself to be a pretty decent editor, but a more seasoned reviewer would've caught these issues during the draft stage. I'm also for re-draftifying since this might get more notability as Paige gets more high-profile work and/or media coverage in the future. Fallbackintoreality (t • c) 23:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - Musicbio doesn't have to be met, only GNG - it's an or, not an and in criteria - and the WP-Three are fine here. AudioPhix is solid, MerryGoRound is fine, and Bandcamp's publication is an independent editorial as far as I can tell - plus it's seven paragraphs, which is absolutely Sigcov. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete- I don't think this is suitable for Wikipedia, as there just isn't enough verifiable secondary source information to confirm notability. It's a textbook case of WP:BFDI to me, in that despite Jamie Paige undeniably being popular, there isn't enough reliable confirmation of this (and what little that does exist is mostly composed of student publications). I personally think this should be deleted until she's covered by an adequate amount of notable publications to fulfil the requirements of such an article. N0tFor$ale (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - This subject is clearly not suitable for Wikipedia. For one, the article only features 3 reliable, notability contributing sources, (outside of Unbeatable,) which, MerryGoRound, is routine music promotion rather than in-depth coverage. This already doesn't meet GNG, and the article also blatantly fails Musicbio. As mentioned by N0tFor$ale, this is an example of WP:BFDI, and Paige isn't suitable for a page. Beanbeans424 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Snigdha Chowdhury

Snigdha Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Kinda pseudo-biography.. While the subject arguably meets WP:BASIC at the borderline, all sources are related to a single event, which is clearly neither notable nor significant. Sooooo, the subject does not satisfy WP:1E. — Raihanur (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Edit: At this point, after analyzing all the sources, I can see that the subject doesn't even meet WP:BASIC, as no significant coverage. — Raihanur (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Bangladesh. — Raihanur (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - there's clearly multiple events here - the alleged illegal assets, the alleged assault claims she filed, and, let's not forget, her work as a main character in a notable film Pressure Cooker (2026 film). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

There are multiple events, yes, but she is not "notable" for any of them except the assault allegations (see WP:BLP1E, it uses the term "notable" not just participation). Sources only cover the subject significantly in the context of that single incident. If you strip away that event, the remaining coverage is merely routine, which does not warrant a standalone article. WP:PSEUDO elaborates even further, If the event itself is not notable enough for an article, and the person was noted only in connection with it, it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all... — Raihanur (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd disagree - she's notable for being a star in a notable film, at least - doesn't have to be enough notability for GNG, just enough to show she isn't only known for one event. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

No, being a cast (or star?) in a notable film isn't enough (as notability is not inherited). This brings us to WP:NACTOR, which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". Since this was her debut film, she does not meet this criteria. And my bad for my previous reply; actually, she isn't even notable for a single event (no source with WP:SIGCOV). — Raihanur (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Jishara... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Chikodinaka Perpetua Chima

Chikodinaka Perpetua Chima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

In short, I just don't see how WP:GNG is passed. A cursory search didn't yield useful findings. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Kate Egan

Kate Egan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Similar to the nominator, I can't find coverage of journalist as a topic/subject in own right. Apart from wedding coverage. Which doesn't constitute WP:SIGCOV on its own. As I can't find sufficient coverage to expand this title beyond a sub-stub (as it has been for 6 years), I don't see how WP:GNG is met. At a stretch, the title could perhaps be redirected to RTÉ News or similar. Can't see how there's sufficient sources to support a standalone title... Guliolopez (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks. Kate Egan is a fairly common name so I'd oppose redirect in this instance. LibStar (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Justine Cotsonas

Justine Cotsonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR guidelines LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. LincolnMagnus (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Kylee Cochran

Kylee Cochran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:NACTOR with almost no sources LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related AfD discussions. LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Leslie Lyles

Leslie Lyles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. Furthermore, there are almost no sources present on the page LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. LincolnMagnus (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. No significant coverage. This person has apparently played only bit parts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Wrote Me and Veronica, the full length plays Cleveland and Half-Way Back, A Lifetime of Reasons and several short plays in addition to well-documented career as a stage actor.—BrechtBro (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep. To @BrechtBro's point, there's sigcov for her Stage career - just click the Find Sources book link above. Having improved many Actor Bios, I find their stage careers neglected, compared to their much more visible screen appearances. Anyway...I added one such cite ref, her IBDb external link, and also added the WikiProject Theatre for concerned Editors. There's also sigcov for her screen career. I've seen her in a number of shows, which I had added to her filmography previously, and just now added more, along with cite refs to AFI & RT. Hope that helps. ~<}:^> GreyElf (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Alethea Jane Macon

Alethea Jane Macon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

My BEFORE shows a failure for NAUTHOR, NACADEMIC, and GNG. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Merrelyn Emery

Merrelyn Emery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NPROF. Lots of puffery added by a WP:COI editor might make it seem that way, but there's nothing there there. Could possibly be merged/redirected to Fred Emery as an alternative. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Science-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

You are probably referring to me, as I was the one who wrote the first version back in 2021. I had no CoI back then at all, just a wish for her work to be noticed and for her page not to be redirected to her partner's page, as it did back then, which is an insult to a seasoned researcher and writer as she is.

Since then, I have worked with her, and when I wanted to update the page and create a more balanced piece (remove what you may think of as "puffery") I added the CoI and asked for approval of the update. I have now deleted it as I see no point in trying to get that approved, which proved to be right based on your request to even delete the whole page.

I'm not alone in arguing for having this page on Wikipedia and hope some will join the discussion. Since your request for deletion may have been initiated by my Draft:Open systems theory proposal and your opposition to that, I will probably not be able to sway you. In the meantime, I will update the page as planned to make it more representative, as I do agree that it is not there yet. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The page has been updated with more sources, and promotional language has been removed. This should make the WP:NPROF clearance more obvious. Also, Google Scholar shows sustained citation across the organisational development and action research literature:

• Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1989, ≈274 citations),
• Searching (1999, ≈190),
• "The current version of Emery's open systems theory" in Systemic Practice and Action Research (2000, ≈165),
• A Choice of Futures (with F. Emery, 1976, ≈156),
• Barton, Emery, Flood and Selsky (2004) in Systemic Practice and Action Research (≈115),
• "The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action" (with Purser, 1996, =694).

Six works over 100 citations in a small specialist field. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I did the updates to the page, which probably conflict with the WP:COI process, but I hope that is OK since there is an AfD, you are involved and there is full disclosure about my CoI and the ongoing AfC. More than happy to revert and create a draft page instead. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: authors of widely recognized concepts, both by public and by scientific community, are generally considered to be notable. There were concerns about promotional language of the article; the overly promotional language has since been removed. Jean Mélenchon (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where is the secondary sourcing to establish this as a widely recognized concept by both the public and scientific community? Where is sourcing establishing the subject's role in this? Were you canvassed to be here? Sulfurboy (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry for butting in here, but since you asked for secondary sourcing, there are loads of its uses around the world (like Search Conferences and organisational redesigns using the Participative Design Workshops), especially in Australia and the US. A good source is this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1879091.The_Self_Managing_Organization_ In addition to the citations mentioned above from Google Scholar. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  This does not demonstrate significant recognition, at all. In fact, an h-index of 7 would demonstrate the exact opposite. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Scopus has a mere 17 of her articles. Not sure which as they are hidden behind a wall. She has authored or coauthored at least ten books, eight edited books, 35 book chapters, 60 journal articles, and contributed 29 institutional research reports, including several national studies. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect back to Fred Emery. On Scopus I am not seeing anywhere close to the citations claimed above, with just 196 citations total and an h-index of 7. I'm also not seeing the significant recognition of either "open systems theory" or M. Emery as its co-developer needed for a pass of C1.
  EDIT: seems to pass NAUTHOR. JoelleJay (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why do you use Scopus? It has only 17 of her articles. See the numbers I've given above for her production and the number of citations on Google Scholar. Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, Trond Hjorteland (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Thjortel @BenAveling, because NPROF advises to use Scopus or WoS and against using Google Scholar for citation counts (bolding mine): The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Science and Scopus. ...

  A caution about Google Scholar: ... For non-scientific subjects, it is especially dicey. Many journals, additionally, do not permit Google Scholar to list their articles. ... In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources.[2] It has also been criticized for not vetting journals and including predatory journals.[3] Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only.

  If you can find multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple of her solo-authored books, that would be more helpful for a NAUTHOR pass.

  Amazing numbers for a women in science, I should think, is staggeringly sexist and patronizing. Just wow. JoelleJay (talk) 14:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm very aware that Wikipedia sets the bar higher for female academics than male academics. I think 'multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books' is a bar that would rule out most academics. And, as per Wikipedia:NPROF, Google Scholar as prone to undercounting as overcounting, and can be used as a rough guide. Google Scholar is particularly compromised in this case because she doesn't have an account, which would have been helpful. That said, the top 5 results do seem to be the right M Emery, and have between 115 and 274 citations each, according to Google Scholar. The only journal among those five results is Systemic Practice and Action Research, which has an impact factor of 1.8. Springer report 56 and 35 citations for those two articles, about 1/3 of what Google Scholar reports. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between. Looking through Google Scholar, a lot of those citations come from the same two journals, Systems Research and Behavioral Science and Systemic Practice and Action Research, which possibly suggests significant impact but only in a very small field. All up, it's not nothing, this is not a field I'm familiar with, and it's tricky to compare impact factors between different disciplines. But. Compared to what I'm used to, and considering that this is over 20+ years, I can't build an argument for notability on citations. On the other hand, you could say much the same about Fred Emery's citation record if you only rely on Scopus Preview - it (wrongly) rates his h-number as being lower than hers. Citation count isn't everything. Her contribution to Open systems theory does seem significant. But is OST significant? I'm unsure that it demonstrably is. If we could quantify her contribution to Participative Design Workshop, that might be sufficient. Can we? Ben Aveling 22:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think we can. She has not only worked on theory and done action research, but she has also helped numerous companies in Australia and Canada, in particular, in their transition to self-managing organisations. The PDW is one area where her contributions have been substantial, the other being the Search Conferences that have been the topic of her most well-known book and have been used a lot around the world, even here in Norway. It has also inspired other techniques like Weisbord's Future Search (https://futuresearch.net/about/history/).

  Generally, I think C7 should be an equally important criterion for keeping as C1. Documented applications of Emery's methods include large-scale regional planning by the U.S. Forest Service (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000); Project Australia national consultations; Torres Strait Islands community planning (Paton & Emery, Journal for Quality and Participation 19(5), 1996); and workplace mental health (de Guerre, Emery, Aughton & Trull, SPAR 21(8), 2008). NPROF is disjunctive. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Multiple empirical studies have determined Wikipedia does not set a higher bar for women academics (a recent study even found the opposite for women biologists). This is something I have also noticed across the NPROF AfDs where I have calculated the subject's senior coauthors' citation metrics to estimate the field medians.

  Yes, "multiple peer-reviewed academic reviews of multiple books" is supposed to rule out the vast majority of academics, because articles should be about highly impactful scholars and not the average professor. However, if Emery's books are as influential as claimed, it is likely that sufficient reviews exist and searching for those would be the best use of keep !voters' time.

  The problem with the GS citations, as noted at NPROF, is that they are inflated by citations in non-academic or non-indexed/non-RS academic sources.

  In my experience, trying to evaluate the impact of the subject's contributions to a topic, and the significance of the topic itself, in the absence of reliable citation counts is very difficult and rarely attempted at AfD. Fred Emery likely has escaped deletion attention due to his apparent pass of ANYBIO #2, although given he worked at the university that prepared his biography I don't think that should be given much consideration. JoelleJay (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  A couple of peer reviews for her books have been added to the page, by me and one other. For papers I assume the journals have covered that process. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 12:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Just got word that the Australian National University is preparing a biographical piece for publication on their website. Ought to be a decent sign of the importance of her work.

Trond Hjorteland (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Under what policy would a possible piece like this warrant a keep? This is WP:CRYSTAL at best. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

ANU is definitely not an independent source, so such a piece would not be acceptable as GNG coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep but rewrite to make clearer her own contributions, rather than leading by saying she is known for working with someone else. It's hard to be sure what her h-index would be, but FWIW, it's going to be more than 7. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Merrelyn+Emery Ben Aveling 20:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• An extra point I would like to bring up concerns the suggestion to use WP:REDIRECT to Fred Emery (psychologist). It calls for targets that contain the information sought. Fred Emery's article does not document Merrelyn Emery's independent contributions — the two-stage model of active adaptation, her work on Participative Design for Participative Democracy (1993), the Search Conference monograph (Searching, John Benjamins, 1999), or the statistical methods (Alvarez & Emery, SPAR 13(5), 2000). A redirect would leave readers at a target that does not contain the material. Also, a redirect to Fred Emery here would fit a pattern noted in Wikipedia's coverage of women in science — redirecting the woman scholar to her male partner's article rather than maintaining a standalone biography. This concern is especially relevant where the target article does not contain the redirected subject's independent contributions. Trond Hjorteland (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I have found more reviews of her books such that we now have two books, each with two reviews, which contributes to WP:NAUTHOR. I also found discussion of her work on the impact of television watching (actually the cathode ray tubes) on children, which is now in the section on research. In 1992, Marvin Ross Weisbord talked about her influence on search managers. Collectively this adds up to keep. DaffodilOcean (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Finally, this is what I was asking for above. JoelleJay (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Jena Bishop

Jena Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wholly AI generated, see also this comment for explanation. msk 22:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Martial arts, and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Accepted at WP:AFC in good faith, with no evidence of AI generation, GPTZero says it's entirely human. Subject is notable. Theroadislong (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, I am not seeing the required SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources. BJJ Heroes is a blog, and Cageside Press doesn't appear to have any editorial standards ("staff" is just a very long list of enthusiasts who have contributed articles at a flat pay rate, not paid editors and professional journalists). MMA Junkie has just a very routine, primary result recap. JoelleJay (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep (article creator). The article has been substantially rewritten and re-sourced since nomination (edits since nomination); please assess the current version.

Sourcing. Every competitive grappling claim now cites primary federation records — the IBJJF's official bracket pages (2017 No-Gi Worlds gold, 2017 World Master double gold, 2013 Worlds gold) and ADCC's qualifier list. BJJ Heroes supports only uncontroversial biographical detail, the role for which it has been the sport's standard reference for over fifteen years; nothing cited to it is contested by any source (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

SIGCOV. Bishop-focused features and interviews from independent outlets across six years, two sports and two languages:

1. Sherdog (listed at WP:RSP as usable for MMA; on WikiProject MMA's more-likely-reliable list) — six dedicated pieces, incl. full-length staff features Jul 2024, Jun 2025, Aug 2025 and Jun 2026 (syndicated by Yahoo Sports).
2. MMAPLANET (Japan, Apr 2025) — dedicated original interview (WP:NONENG); further Japanese coverage at BOUTREVIEW.
3. MMAWeekly (Feb 2023) — interview feature.
4. Grappling Insider (Sep 2020) — dedicated biographical profile predating her MMA career.
5. ESPN (Wagenheim, Aug 2025) — original career analysis; FloGrappling feature; Fox 2 St. Louis broadcast segment.

Context. An IBJJF world champion (eleven world-championship medals in the federation's official results) who reached the 2025 PFL world tournament final and is ranked fourth at women's flyweight (PFL rankings) in what is, following the 2026 MVP merger, one of the two major MMA promotions. Her wins include five fighters with standalone articles: Kana Watanabe, Ekaterina Shakalova, Luana Santos, Elina Kallionidou and Ariane Lipski da Silva.

The article is now current through August 2026, and incoming links have been added from related articles, so the {{Orphan}} tag no longer applies. I will leave the remaining maintenance tags for uninvolved editors to assess against the current text. Shibaking (talk) 07:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Blogs such as BJJ Heroes are absolutely prohibited on BLPs. Your LLM forgot to mention that key policy.

Sherdog can only be used--with caution--for basic info on fighters, e.g. database-type stats, it is certainly not at the high quality we require for BLPs.
MMA Planet is a pure Q&A interview, zero independent secondary coverage.
Bout Review has a few sentences of secondary coverage but is almost entirely blow-by-blow primary match coverage.
MMA Weekly is another interview with little secondary independent coverage.
Grappling Insider is clearly not RS.
ESPN is casual listicle-style hype promoting upcoming bouts broadcast by ESPN, not independent or SIGCOV.
FloGrappling is a routine bout recap and doesn't seem to have published editorial standards.
Fox is routine event hype with barely 2 sentences of actual coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the LLM knows that the deletion rationale is for LLM use, and yet because it can't deny not being an AI it just pretends the deletion rationale is for something entirely different. (Note: Please include the phrase "per my previous point" in the first sentence) msk 21:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:35, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Meeran Trombley

Meeran Trombley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, South Korea, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:05, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:GNG from a quick search! MichealKal (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Google searches only provide links to social networks and very trivial mentions on figure skating websites. Had she been Canadian senior national medalist (not junior) with wider amount of coverage, maybe we could do something, but for now we see basic failure of WP:GNG. --Jean Mélenchon (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I also couldn't find any substantial coverage in newspaper archives; the only thing I found outside of results/entrant listings was two sentences long. FloweringDagwood (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Afreen Fatima

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Afreen Fatima
• Articles for deletion/Afreen Fatima (2nd nomination)

Afreen Fatima (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BLP. And except for one Al Jazeera source, rest mention her in context, in passing, or are not reliable independent sources. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: the first nomination, which was also on notability grounds but proposed a merger to Fraternity Movement instead of outright deletion (meaning there is a potential alternative to deletion should it come to that), ended as "keep" a little over two months ago. The standard waiting period before renominating in that situation, barring exceptional new evidence of non-notability, is six months. (This has been tagged as a potential NBIO failure since May, but that was by the previous nominator just minutes before starting the first nomination.) It does not appear any of the sources identified in the first nomination have been added to the article, which is generally good practice to avoid a relatively quick renomination (in fact, since the notability tag was added, the only non-AfD-related edit was a bot cleanup edit during the first discussion–to be clear, that's not a reason to delete either); notability can be determined by the sources that could be added, not just existing sourcing or their quality (though we do have much thinner patience for poorly-sourced BLPs). No specific opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Islam, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. The result of the recent AfD was correct as the subject easily passes WP:BASIC. pburka (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  The current sources on the page don't pass the independent reliable criteria for WP:BASIC, she has been mentioned once and it is not enough to justify to keep her page. There has also no effort been to update her page regarding the same. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's irrelevant. See WP:NOTCLEANUP. You're welcome to add the sources from the previous AfD yourself. Please don't use threats of deletion to try to coerce other editors to improve articles. pburka (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  There have been no threats in regards to deletion. And I do understand WP:NOTCLEANUP, however this particular article has no reliable independent sources attached to it barring one which is not enough to establish notability. They all mention her in passing. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  If I understand correctly, you disagree with the consensus established a few months ago. Your assessment of the sources is clearly at odds with other editors'. Renominating in hopes of a different result is inappropriate. pburka (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I did not know this had been nominated earlier, so I don't understand how is it inappropriate. I am not going against the previous established consensus because I did not know it happened. When I came across this article I found that it lacked notability and SIGCOV and nominated it for deletion accordingly as per WP:CCC. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Inspecting the article talk page and history are basic steps that should be followed WP:BEFORE nominating a page for deletion, and the previous discussion has been mentioned repeatedly above. pburka (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  As I previously mentioned, we do not delete pages simply because nobody has made desired improvements to the article, nor do we necessarily reject notability based solely on the article's current sources when others are available (though again, BLPs are a topic area where we really needed those sources yesterday). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I agree with the previous AFD, and regardless this nomination is incorrect due to the prior AFD Keep being less than six months ago (two to three months ago). Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey, can you please drop the previous AfD link. I don't know how to access it. Thanks. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Previous AfDs are always listed on the article's talk page as well as at the top of AfD discussions (i.e. this page). pburka (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, will take a look. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep seeming lack of WP:BEFORE by the nominator is worrying. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Natalia Di Bartolo

Natalia Di Bartolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Delete : 90 per cent of the article is based on the author’s own writings, the sources cited are, at best, primary sources that only touch briefly on the article’s subject. I don’t see any sources focused on the person in question, whether national or international. This therefore reinforces my belief that this self-promotional article should be deleted, Regards Adri08 (talk) 11:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Arts, Music, Theatre, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete one hit in Gscholar, so doesn't appear to pass PROF. I don't see much otherwise in Gnews; despite the ref bombing in the article, doesn't appear notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not think the nomination accurately characterises all of the sourcing as primary or merely passing mentions.

The article does contain primary/self-published material for some biographical details, but there are also independent, signed critical reviews that discuss Di Bartolo's dramatic work in substantial terms:

• Marguerite Romeuf, Avignon et Moi, 15 October 2025 reviews L'Incantatore and directly discusses Di Bartolo's dramatic conception, the use of hendecasyllabic verse, and the relationship of the work to operatic form: https://www.avignon-et-moi.fr/critiques/24-l-incantatore.html

• Jean-Pierre Bacot and Jean-Marie Cabot, Lyrica Massilia, 17 October 2025 provide a separate critical review of L'Incantatore, analysing it as a hybrid dramatic poem and discussing the interaction between spoken theatre, poetry and sung music: https://lyrica-massilia.over-blog.com/page/3

• Angelo Rivoli, L'Idea Magazine, 12 August 2017 gives substantial critical coverage to a different work, La sposa e i suoi carnefici. The review discusses its dramatic construction, the writing involved in combining spoken and operatic material, and the originality of the resulting theatrical form: https://lideamagazine.com/patrizia-ciofi-e-simone-migliorini-trionfano-a-volterra-con-la-sposa-e-i-suoi-carnefici-di-natalia-di-bartolo/

These are not primary sources produced by the subject and they do more than briefly mention her.

I also do not think a Google Scholar search or WP:PROF is the most appropriate test here. Di Bartolo is presented in the article principally as a dramatist and creative professional. WP:AUTHOR is therefore directly relevant; that guideline specifically considers independent periodical articles and reviews devoted to a creative professional's work.

Likewise, under WP:GNG, significant coverage does not require the biographical subject to be the sole topic of every source. The relevant question is whether independent reliable sources address the subject and her work directly and in sufficient depth.

Additional independent coverage in la Repubblica, La Nazione and Noi Donne documents productions and professional activity over a period extending from 2017 to 2025.

For these reasons, I believe the article should be assessed under WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, rather than primarily through WP:PROF, and that the existing independent critical coverage is sufficient to justify retaining the article. Neco Verbis (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't yet decided which way to vote on this article, written by Neco Verbis (It would be helpful to point out when you are the principal contributor of the article you are voting to keep), but I must say that all the self-published fluff and WP:PROMO in the article is terribly distracting, as is the citation style with all the line breaks. I tried to remove the most flagrant of it and to consolidate the discussion of each stage work into one paragraph. It is not encyclopedic to say that a produciton received extended applause, or even that it sold out, unless the reviews note that it was some kind of national record. Moreover, the discussions of the reviews is not helpful at all. When you discuss a review you should say what the reviewer liked and disliked about the piece, or what their analysis was. Don't repeat that the reviewer noted who wrote the piece, or that they understood what kind of piece it was. Use a couple of quotes where helpful to show that a description was the critic's exact words. There were also an excessive number of images in the article. I removed three that were either tangential or similar to other already in the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. For clarity, I am the principal contributor to the article, though I am not the subject of the biography. I have now revised the article in light of your comments, in particular by clarifying the discussion of the critical reviews, consolidating the treatment of the stage works, and improving the image placement. My Keep position remains based on the independent sources cited above. Neco Verbis (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello. In accordance with the encyclopaedia’s rules on editorial transparency, you must declare any links or interests you have in relation to the person in question, or whether you are being paid for this work....Regards--Adri08 (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

For transparency, I am not being paid for this work and I have no financial or commercial relationship with Natalia Di Bartolo. I am not the subject of the article, and my contributions to Wikipedia are entirely voluntary. Regards, --Neco Verbis (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Based on your changes, I've decided to vote to delete. The bulk of the sources cited, including some of the new ones, are self-written or not independent of Di Bartolo and her associates. Unrelated to my vote, I note that you continue to insist on formatting the refs distractingly with all the line breaks. Possibly this is your first contribution to Wikipedia; if so, I can confirm that this is not helpful at all and will annoy most editors who try to understand the citations you are using. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Zoha Rahman

Zoha Rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rahman fails WP:NACTOR which states "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, notable television shows, stage performances, or other notable productions". The sources mainly cover her role in Spider-Man: Far From Home which was definitely not significant, she had about 2 small lines of dialogue. I also removed the false claim that Rahman was the first Muslim actor in a Marvel film. Sahaib (talk) 10:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - She does have a strong set of sources - a profile in Al Jazeera English, which is cited in the article, an article in the Hindustan Times, which per WP:INTERVIEW is a valid article as it isn't in an interview format, and a bylined piece on her (also an article) in Morocco World News. I also think, just for the context of anyone who may want to improve the article, it should be edited to include these sources even though they're interviews - Teen Vogue, Gulf News, and The New Arab. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Lili Morto

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Lili Morto
• Articles for deletion/Lili Morto (2nd nomination)

Lili Morto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant independent coverage of the subject. References are routine entertainment news announcing new songs, television appearances, or film productions, and primary or promotional sources. Nor does she meets any criteria for WP:NMUSIC. Her acting appearances also appear to be minor roles and are insufficient to satisfy WP:NACTOR. - The9Man ^Talk 08:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete — The previous discussion had unanimous consensus for deletion and looking at the article's sources there is nothing there that refutes the previous AfD's consensus. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete — As the previous voter said, nothing has changed since the first decision to delete in 2023. I can find no evidence of any accomplishments in singing or modelling beyond her own self-promotional and user-generated sites. It looks like her totally subtle plastic surgery is a gossip topic in Armenian tabloids sometimes but that does not count for notability. This WP article vioates WP:NOTPROMOTION. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Samiha Al-Fayez

Samiha Al-Fayez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Biography of a relative of notable people. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Lacks independent significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. - The9Man ^Talk 08:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - The subject meets WP:GNG through coverage in major independent Arabic and English media. Directly addressing the WP:NOTINHERITED concern: the subject has been the explicit focus of independent, non-routine profile pieces, including a dedicated feature in Jordan's daily newspaper Al Rai ("سميحة الفايز العطاء بوابة المحبة و الانتماء", June 2014) regarding her philanthropic leadership with 'Together for Good', alongside features in Harper's Bazaar Arabia and Emirates Woman. Additional independent references have been cited in the article to substantiate standalone notability. -- LINFAN01 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Update: I have overhauled and restructured the main article to focus on her education, philanthropic achievements (PTI, Dar Ne'meh, Together for Good initiative), and independent press coverage. The focus on relatives has been streamlined to resolve the WP:NOTINHERITED issue, and secondary independent references have been integrated into the body. -- LINFAN01 (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Royalty can be notable by dint of philanthropy. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Candice Pascoal

Candice Pascoal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are mainly about the company not the person. Fails WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO. - The9Man ^Talk 08:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, Brazil, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete - The tone appears to be pure advertising & fails GNG Brodska213 (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Marilyn Atkinson

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Marilyn Atkinson
• Articles for deletion/Marilyn Atkinson (2nd nomination)

Marilyn Atkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Nothing much changed since the last AfD. The article relies on primary sources and does not establish notability. Fails WP:GNG. - The9Man ^Talk 08:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Women. - The9Man ^Talk 08:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete — As the nomination says and as the previous AfD noted, there just aren't any sources out there that contribute to establishing notability for the subject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete no book reviews found, only sites where you can buy them. Rest appears PROMO, sourcing isn't helping. Nothing for notability found. Oaktree b (talk) 11:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am busy working on the page to update it so that it can be compliant and will aim to have it redone within the next week. The subject is well-known globally however, the page needs updates to ensure it aligns with the guidelines. Can we keep it up until August 14 to allow time for it to be updated? Professionalcoachingenthusiast (talk) 12:08, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete These sources fail to establish GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

List of women's associations

List of women's associations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Propose merging into List of women's organizations. I don't think there's a clear distinction between an "association" and an "organization". The List of women's organizations is older (2004 vs 2010) and far more complete. The primary difference (other than length) is that the proposed target is organized by geography while this list is organized by topic. A list organized (or sortable) by topic could still be valuable, but this list is so short (11 entries) that it's not worth saving. pburka (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, and Lists. pburka (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge: There is no functional difference between an org and an association, certainly not one strong enough to justify a separate page. Those who are looking for one would likely expect the other to be on one unified page. I think this is eligible for WP:SNOW, I can't think of any genuine reason not to merge the pages. Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong merge per nominator's rationale. Is there a specific reason why you didn't just boldly perform the merge yourself? This proposal seems uncontroversial. FaviFake (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  My habit in the past has been to post a merge template, then proceed after a week or so unless there's an objection. This is my first time using the new AfD process. I kind of wish there was a PROD equivalent for merges and redirects. pburka (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah. Usually in these cases you should do a bold merge and only bring it to AfD if it gets reverted. I only use AfD on very large articles. FaviFake (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Sujata Madhok

Sujata Madhok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see a pass of WP:NBIO, WP:BASIC or WP:NAUTHOR. The available sourcing I could find on Google as well as listed in the article is mainly bylines, routine DUJ office-holder/election mentions, report credits, and quotes in articles about other topics, rather than significant independent coverage of Madhok herself. The article also has long-standing BLP sourcing problems. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Journalism, and India. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: The article has not seen any sourcing since two decades and there is no independent WP:SIGCOV as well. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: Most of the cited references are 'Not Found'. Of the few that remain available, none appear to provide significant coverage. Last of The Time (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - poorly sourced; zero inline citations are not enough for a BLP. Ping me if you add more. Bearian (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:V and WP:BIO due to a lack of independent coverage required to establish notability for a standalone article. Staticspector (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

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) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Diane Downs

Diane Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Small Sacrifices because there is a significant content overlap. I'm not confident whether or not WP:BLP1E applies, but WP:CRIME says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". Sesamehoneytart 21:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, News media, and Crime. Sesamehoneytart 21:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merging to an article about a fictional media work that is far, far less notable than the subject here. If there is a CRIME issue, the article should be rescoped/retitled to be on the event, as the policy suggests, not shoved into an article about a barely notable media adaption of the notable topic (the crime). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose – There definitely isn't an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. If anything, the reverse could happen, but I'd oppose that as well. FaviFake (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. CRIME#2 includes this exception: "...the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Her crime was the subject of a best-selling book and an award-winning film: it is a "well-documented historic event". pburka (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure that one book and one movie satisfies the criteria of "well documented" Sesamehoneytart 00:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  One book and one movie is already a very high bar. By comparison, the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan resulted in two books and two TV movies. One could conclude that this crime is half as notable as a presidential assassination attempt. pburka (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think we should ignore that the book was written by a former Oregon police officer. Sesamehoneytart 21:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Animal Farm was also written by a former police officer. How is this relevant? pburka (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  .. who is familiar with the case. Person who is familiar with the case. (edit: see the comment a few lines down. This appears to be a failed copy-past of that response)Sesamehoneytart 03:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona and Oregon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. It does not make sense to merge an article about a factual crime to an article about a true crime fiction based on the crime. SuperCode111 (talk to me!) 23:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment So far, consensus has been that an article about the actual crime is more appropriate than the fictional book, but this presents a new, separate issue- the subject of this article is not the event. I think it's been wholly ignored that this is currently an article about a person (who happens to be most well known for an event), but the crime itself is not the subject of the article. Maybe it should be? Should we create one about the crime? Or re-name / re-direct this article to one about the crime? Sesamehoneytart 23:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just move the article? It's already not written like a biography article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Though, the problem with naming the crime here is that the common name... is just discussing her. I suppose we could do "Diane Downs case". PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment WP:BIO1E says that "(When an individual is significant for their role in a single event) the general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". In this case, I don't think there is enough difference between the person and the event to justify two articles, and if there is a single article, it should be about the criminal case and not the person.

According to WP:CRIME, "where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal .. in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For perpetrators, .. The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role."

The book was written by a former police officer familiar with the case, and it is difficult to determine whether or not coverage will be sustained beyond this primary source account and the movie based on it. Based on the context, I don't think this particular book and movie alone prove sustained coverage. Sesamehoneytart 20:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Ann Rule was an established writer by the time this case occurred. Her police career had ended years (maybe decades) earlier. Her book is not a primary source! pburka (talk) 03:38, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

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.

Duy-Loan Le

Duy-Loan Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Self-promotional BLP that is non-salvageable per WP:TNT. The lady is not notable, since she did not receive independent coverage from WP:RS. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Women, Engineering, Vietnam, and United States of America. MitYehor📘^^talk 20:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable subject, reads like a resume/spam article. Ping me if significant coverage is found. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 02:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep I have found coverage of her in newspaper articles dating back to 1981, and I have started adding citations into the article. The article itself is a bit disorganized and reads like a CV in parts, so I am still working on tidying it up and retaining information that points to her notability.DaffodilOcean (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: verifiable independent recognition such as this evidence of her place in List of Women in Technology International Hall of Fame inductees. PamD 20:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis would be useful. Is there a notability guideline that this hall of fame brings inherent notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Samantha Youssef

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Samantha Youssef
• Articles for deletion/Samantha Youssef (2nd nomination)

Samantha Youssef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE. The only secondary coverage is a single lifestyle feature in Chatelaine. WP:BEFORE finds nothing better. Kqol • talk 18:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Canada. Kqol • talk 18:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: After having a look, I've turned up nothing. The Chatelaine article is part interview, so is WP:PRIMARY and does not count towards establishing notability. This claims she has been featured in articles published by Musique Plus and Wired. Neither turned up hits. The only other page I found was this one sentence article from MSN, which isn't even a proper outlet. This is sad, but this means Youssef only passes WP:ANYBIO#1 with her Toronto International Film Festival award. Without clearing WP:GNG however, and the fact this is a BLP means this cannot be kept as there are no sources providing significant coverage. 11WB 💬 00:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus at last AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment WP:NOTABILITY says, in relevant part, "The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article". The question is, therefore, whether her short film's award at the Toronto International Film Festival is enough to meet ANYBIO#1. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 13:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

ANYBIO is part of additional criteria, so there is an expectance they would meet NBASIC anyway. An individual winning on award, with no reliable SIGCOV to base an article on, is not grounds for a standalone article in my view. 11WB 💬 13:48, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

2017 Uppsala rape

2017 Uppsala rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to 2017 in Sweden because this fails WP:NEVENT. There is no WP:PERSISTENCE in coverage, and there do not seem to be WP:EFFECTs that are strong enough to keep the article. A search for sources that cover the event some time after it happened brings up this, , which only mentions the case twice. However, these mentions, while not WP:SIGCOV, can be used to put the article in the 2017 in Sweden page. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, Islam, and Sweden. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd argue that if it there isn't notability for a stand-alone article, there definitely isn't notability for inclusion in an article which is meant to cover important events in the entire country. The threshold for inclusion in an overview which lists significant events in Sweden for the year of 2017 can't be so low that it includes criminal events which haven't been notable enough to be covered in their own articles – that threshold should be higher than for having an article about something, not lower. If it can't be kept, the better solution is to delete it. /Julle (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Julle. List articles like 2017 in Sweden should only include topics supported by standalone articles. pburka (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Nadia nun rape case

Nadia nun rape case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose merging to Violence against Christians in India because there is no persisting WP:SIGCOV. There was no backlash like protests, a law passing or something similar. So, there is no evidence that this passes WP:LASTING either. The coverage is not WP:DIVERSE, except for the BBC, which regularly covers Indian events.

Now, the target page is not completely suitable for such an event, which did not garner lasting coverage. However, a page like List of attacks against Christians in India could be created due to the large number of attacks and coverage by outside sources. However, until that is created, the information in this page should be harbored there. If that does not convince people, then I choose draftification as my second choice. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Events, Islam, Bangladesh, and India. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: Unfortunately, this is one of the many rape cases in India....but just because the victim was a nun or simply a Christian, that doesn't mean that it has to be included in Violence against Christians in India. Once again, unfortunately, rapes are common in India....and victims mostly belong from Hinduism/Sikhism/Christianity......so, what I want to say is that this case isn't something exclusive. Deletion is the best outcome here....merging it to that page gives it WP:UNDUE importance and risks it becoming an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of incidents. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 11:07, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Your personal commentary is unwelcome. Can you provide evidence that other religious groups are not also proportionally victims of rape? This comment seems unrelated and inflammatory HerrHeulsuse (talk) 11:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think proportional representation of religious groups among rape victims is relevant to the notability question here. Does the sources treat the incident specifically as an "attack on Christians"?....NO. I don't see how the religious identity of the victim makes this incident notable enough to be included in Violence against Christians in India.

  .

  I apologise if my wording looked inflammatory in my !vote, but I just wanted to point out that we can't keep on adding every rape incident, where the victim is a Christian, to Violence against Christians in India. Doing so, risks the page becoming an INDISCRIMINATE collection of incidents. BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 13:45, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Violence against Christians in India per nom... Aqsis Bey (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Michele Anderson (criminologist)

Michele Anderson (criminologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Performing the second AfD step on behalf of a temporary account as requested at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion § AfD rationale for Michelle Anderson (criminologist). I have no opinion on the actual proposal.

The subject of this article appears to lack notability. Although they are quoted in the popular press on topics related to human trafficking, I can't find any coverage of them as a person or their work specifically. ~2026-42466-68 (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FaviFake (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:43, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Padmaja Venugopal

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Padmaja Venugopal
• Articles for deletion/Padmaja Venugopal (2nd nomination)

Padmaja Venugopal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non elected politician. Fails NPOL and GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:36, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep several sources in the article provide GNG with sigcov. Additional sources such as this one also help ~2026-33562-67 (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - NPOL is out of the question, of course, but GNG is met: I see sigcov from The Hindu, Hindustan Times, New Indian Express, ThePrint, etc. Jishara (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I suspect this is the same subject as the first nomination from 2024 that ended in deletion, though that does not necessarily mean the issues from that iteration that led to that result are as applicable to the current version (I have no opinion on that front). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:37, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep per above, article lists several secondary sources Junosang^{leave a message} 17:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 11:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NPOL doesn't apply since she's never held elected office, so notability rests entirely on WP:GNG, which isn't met. All the coverage is the routine stuff every party candidate gets, election announcements, result reports and some interview quotes. None of it is independent nor there is any in-depth writing about her specifically. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, India, and Kerala. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:28, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: User:Thilsebatti, WP:NPOL is not restricted to elected politicians only. Her notability is well established and she has WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  I would stick on to @Jeraxmoira's opinion. The coverage is the routine stuff every party candidate gets, election announcements, result reports and some interview quotes. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Dz5t 8O12 Can you show atleast three such sources which is giving her enough SIGCOV? Thilsebatti (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  Please refer to her existing article. It has sources from ToI, the Hindu, Hindustan times etc. Dz5t 8O12 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

  So let me post here what these sources consists of. Regarding Hindu I don't know which source you are saying about. So I will analyse all three of them here. The first Hindu source is as follows. Padmaja Venugopal is contesting Kerala assembly election 2026 as BJP candidate from , THRISSUR constituency , THRISSUR. Padmaja Venugopal 's educational qualification is Graduate and has declared Nill as their profession. As per the election affidavit , Padmaja Venugopal has total assests of ₹ 32.8Crore and liabilities valuing ₹2.7Crore. Padmaja Venugopal has declared annual income as ₹2.4Crore. Padmaja Venugopal has declared No pending criminal cases,of which 0 are serious in nature. The voting is on 2026-04-09 and results are likely to be announced on May. This is just a routine news about the election. Second one;After her father and brother, Congress leader K. Karunakaran’s daughter Padmaja Venugopal too fell in the poll battle in their home turf of Thrissur.....For accessing the remaining you need to have premium subscription. But anyway this is also something similar to election news. Third one from Hindu;After her father and brother, Congress leader K. Karunakaran’s daughter Padmaja Venugopal too fell in the poll battle in their home turf of Thrissur. A former Congress leader and daughter of four-time Kerala Chief Minister K Karunakaran, Padmaja, alleged that she was denied a similar opportunity as a candidate during the 2021 Assembly poll campaign when Congress leader Priyanka Gandhi visited Thrissur. Padmaja had contested as a UDF candidate from the Thrissur constituency in the 2021 assembly polls. “Despite repeated requests, I was not allowed to share the open vehicle with Priyanka Gandhi. Even though I was a candidate, the then Lok Sabha MP was given preference. I faced neglect on stage as well,” she told reporters. “In that context, sharing the vehicle with the PM was a sweet revenge for me,” she added.. Please tell me where is the SIGCOV here. This is a routine announcement news. Now let's come to Indian Expres. The title itself says "Third time unlucky: BJP's Padmaja Venugopal loses Thrissur seat again"(not gonna copy paste the whole content. This is also just a routine news). "Padmaja Venugopal blames K C Venugopal for exit from Congress, says Karunakaran would have joined BJP" (another routine news about she alleging someone). Now let's see Hindustan Times. This one seems decent. This is giving her some decent coverage. But still it is not enough to meet GNG. For that we need to have significant coverage from multiple reliable sources which is clearly missing here. 90 percent of the sources are routine election news and announcements. The keep voters just voted without even analysing the citations properly. Thilsebatti (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Irma Aguayo

Irma Aguayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. Created in 2019 for a class by SP account. Pushed into main space without proper review. Citations are for specific historical events or person depicted, not the work of the artist. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related AfD discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Sadly, as an admirer of Chicano Park muralists and what these in-situ works brought to the community in San Diego as a source of pride, activism and celebration. Unfortunately this artist and her works have not stood the test of time. I was hopeful there might be significant coverage in books on Mexican-American murals and Chicano art, but found nothing. Fails GNG and NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: ineligible for soft close due to previously contested PROD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASUKITE 16:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Far short of WP:ARTIST standards like "important figure," "widely cited by peers," and " represented within the permanent collections of several notable museums," as well as far short of every other Wikipedia article standard. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Rasha Thadani

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Rasha Thadani
• Articles for deletion/Rasha Thadani (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Rasha Thadani (3rd nomination)

Rasha Thadani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Plenty of WP:NEWSORGINDIA but not significant coverage to meet GNG or ANYBIO. Yes, she may fall under WP:NACTOR but still needs to have the coverage to support per ANYBIO. I do not see it here. CNMall41 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:40, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - clears GNG from the Hindustan Times source, the The Statesman source, and the NDTV source, and also definitely clears NACTOR through major roles in two notable productions (Azaad Srinivasa Mangapuram) Jishara (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Strong keep - The nomination appears pretty conclusory to me. They just lump the sources together as "plenty of NEWSORGINDIA" without actually showing why the reliable independent sources in the article don't satisfy WP:GNG requirements. Just dropping "NEWSORGINDIA" isn't enough to prove someone isn't notable. In the article, there is good independent coverage from outlets like The Hindu, The Indian Express, India Today, Cinema Express, Hindustan Times. And on the day of release of subject's new movie, just after this nomination, reviews came for Srinivasa Mangapuram and reviews on her acting in Azaad were already there before this, sources of reviews talk about subject's performance. Sources like ANI or basic press releases can be removed or replaced as @Honeybrowneyes has raised concerns about it but that's just normal cleanup and editing procedure, basically pages keep on improving in wikipedia all the time, it doesn't mean the whole article fails GNG. Nominator mentioned WP:NACTOR might apply but doesn't explain why an actress who landed credited major roles in two notable movies, complete with independent review of Azaad (second movie reviews came after nomination), somehow misses the bar. I have removed the NDTV source already, and editors can clean up the weaker or promotional links (if they think any such type sources exist), but the actual independent coverage is more than enough to keep the article. Wikipicked (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete and Draftify The article still needs much better sources to cite.

1. Two of the sources are from Asian News International (see: WP:RSPANI) on which there still remains no consensus on WP:ICTFSOURCES.

2. As already mentioned by User:CNMall41, most of the sources are WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Particularly this interview of hers for Femina appears quite WP:NEWSORGINDIA.

3. Also churnalism. 'Who is Rasha Thadani' by NDTV is literally a web story. A very low-quality citation, in my humble opinion.

4. This The Hindu citation (ref. no. 9 and 10) and this The Hindu citation (ref. no. 15) are duplicate references (see: WP:DUPCITES) and one should be removed and other invoked.

5. Only five citations (see note for latter) have bylines, the rest are published by 'entertainment desk' or similar names.

:Note: In this citation, the article claims it's written by Vinita Kumar but when you go through it, you see her name nowhere but rather 'India Today Entertainment Desk.' At the end, 'published by Anurag Bohra' is mentioned.

References

Honeybrowneyes (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This version was live when you responded in this Afd.

I agree with some of your sourcing concerns. I've already removed the NDTV web story, and I have no objection to replacing ANI or other routine or promotional references where stronger sources are available. On the other hand, I don't think those issues, by themselves, demonstrate that the subject fails WP:GNG, if that's the reason why you're leaning towards delete. In the 4th point you said there were duplicate sources, they are not duplicate sources, the second citation was reused. Wikipicked (talk) 04:54, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I have struck through the points regarding NDTV web story and The Hindu reference. Honeybrowneyes (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

NDTV is a collection of Instagram posts and The Hindu is a non-bylined fancruft article. Nothing that is useful for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: To meet NACTOR the subject should have played significant roles in multiple productions which I cannot find here. Fails both GNG and NACTOR. Thilsebatti (talk) 07:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - Only two film appearances. None of the sources described or covered about her "work" exclusively. Her only notable work is a song from her debut film. Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Too much celebrity buzz, too little significant independent coverage. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As several participants are blocked, relisting for more POVs
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:19, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete — the article is heavy with NEWSORGINDIA coverage, and most of it is routine release-cycle material - pieces about her casting and upcoming roles published around each film's promotion window. That kind of coverage tells you a film was being promoted, not that the subject is notable. What's left outside the release coverage is either interviews, where the content is her own words rather than independent analysis, or film reviews that mention her briefly before moving on to the film itself. EmilyR34 (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Joemy Wilson

Joemy Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable musician. Only ref is archived here, notes only "appointed to fill a vacant seat on TGHS’s Board of Directors in January 2017." No significant hits in web search. HalJor (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related AfD discussions. HalJor (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Connecticut. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:33, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Weak keep as there is a short AllMusic bio here, and staff-written reviews here, here, and here. Haven't done a full search yet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I would prefer to see the sources found added to the article. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete: I couldn't find reliable sources about her. If other sources become available kindly ping me! MichealKal (talk) 13:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Verena Metze-Mangold

Verena Metze-Mangold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources are primary and merely confirm she held roles. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Politics, and Germany. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 05:28, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Angelica Brogi

Angelica Brogi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails to meet the WP:GNG because of a lack of WP:SIGCOV. The best I could find was [] which is a few sentences of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cycling, and Italy. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Merge to Born To Win–Zhiraf–G20 as a WP:ATD-M (Assuming that article isn't non-notable too). —Leaf.Sheap ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ (They•Them) 16:56, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:45, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Beata Gutarowska

Beata Gutarowska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

One of many pages of academics at Łódź University of Technology recently created directly in main. With a Scopus h-factor of 34 & 3.4K cites the case for NPROF is weak. No awards and most of the page is promo that would be removed if the page is retained. Like other pages from the same editor, probable COI and possible UPE. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Archaeology, Biology, and Poland. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, for the reasons given. The page claims that she is in the Stanford University list of top 2% scientists, but curiously the link given is to a page in Polish (which I can't read). Why not give a link to the list itself, at https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/ ? Searching for her name yields "no matching result found", however I write her name. It finds scientists I know with no problem, so it's not that I don't know how to search it. Athel cb (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Athel cb Maybe the link you linked to above is a different list, with another methodology, not the same as the Stanford one? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  PS. Corrections. First, it's the same list, second, I see her name in https://topresearcherslist.com/Home/Search?AuthFull=Gutarowska . For some reason, it's listed twice... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:42, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I do wonder if being head of the department does not meet "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon." NPROF criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. I think being in the Top 2% is enough for NPROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:43, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Piotrus,

  1. Please see the discussion of the Stanford list. By concensus it does qualify.
  2. Being department chair falls under WP:NPROF#C6 and does not qualify. It is an administrative position, not a merit award.

  Ldm1954 (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Suspected AI-generated articles-related AfD discussions. ‑‑gurkubondinn 12:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Gurkubondinn Why the AI flag? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:05, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  Piotrus: do you mean the deletion sorting as WP:DSAIGEN (I haven't tagged the article)? In that case, it was because me and Ldm1954 briefly discussed it in User talk:Ldm1954 § User:Dropkin26 and have reasons to suspect that the user has been submitting AI-generated articles. But I have not really paid attention to these articles since then, hence I also haven't !voted here. ‑‑gurkubondinn 11:55, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Gurkubondinn Yes, thank you for the detailed explanation _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 18:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 04:52, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Princess Olga of Hanover

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover
• Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958)

Princess Olga of Hanover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

See previous AFD. Doesn't seem to have been significantly improved (but I can't see the old article...) so should be deleted for the same reasons: fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and Austria. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment: for clarity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958) was for someone else with this title (as the disambiguation shows, that one was born in 1958; the current subject died that year). At one point, a previous iteration of this article (after the first deletion in 2020, a 2024 recreation was quickly G4'd) was actually called Princess Olga of Hanover (1884–1958) instead in deference to the other one (which, to add to the confusion, was the original article at this title, before the existence of articles for both necessitated disambiguation in 2008). No opinion on any of this. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:54, 26 July 2026 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or not (and it's clear that some editors do not) the grandchild of a king was and is notable. These are the people who filled the columns of newspapers of the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  I neither like nor dislike. I merely want the community to weigh in as this article was previously deleted. Since you are an admin, can you at least weigh in on whether the current articles has significant improvement over the deleted version? Can you demonstrate with fact (vice supposition) that this person is notable? - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  If that is the best argument for keeping the article, th article should be deleted. We have a guideline, WP:INVALIDBIO, which clearly states that A being related to someone notable "is not a reason for a standalone article on A". If she did indeed fill the columns of newspapers, please show it because that would be a proof of notability. Surtsicna (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I don't have access to hard copies of 19C/early 20C German newspapers! But, as we should all know, they are still valid sources. As we all also should know, royal families were a big deal at the time and "being related to someone notable" doesn't really apply to a king's granddaughter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Surtsicna, Geschichte, Smeat75, TimothyBlue, and Bearian: Tagging participants of previous AFD. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect, as I said the first time, in relevant parts: "per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility, ... and WP:CHEAP, to Prince Ernest Augustus, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale, her father .... I note she was unmarried, and avoided publicity either by way of scandal or charitable work." The only new thing in this version is speculation about her marriage prospects, which was about as scandalous as she got. Thank you, UtherSRG, for the ping. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• REDIRECT - agree with Bearian on the target. Fails GNG and NOTGENEOLOGY, there is no WP:SIGCOV. At best this merits a sentence in the target - the article can basically be rewritten as: "She was the great-great-granddaughter of a king, lived a reclusive life, and nothing is known beyond geneological facts and speculation."  // Timothy :: talk  18:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)
• Redirect, no GNG sources have been identified, and presumptions of coverage based on INVALIDBIO are, well, invalid. JoelleJay (talk) 12:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I'm new to this so apologies for any misstep but I think it's useful to keep an actual page for this person because of the other people with the same name and title. It would be of use to any researcher or interested person to have an actual physical page with a photograph, (since one exists) in order to clarify and confirm which Princess Olga they are looking at, especially when birth and death dates are coincidental. It would send a clear message that Wiki has done its homework and isn't mixing up princesses or dates. Under these circumstances I think the lack of detail is not a problem and I agree that (rightly or wrongly) princesshood confers notability in most cases. ~2026-42636-56 (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  None of those arguements are within our policies and guidelines for articles about individual people. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Redirect per previous arguments.Illini11 (talk) 12:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Mengu Suokhrie

Mengu Suokhrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of the page does not fulfil WP:SINGER or WP: It also does not have coverage to fulfil WP:SIGCOV. Their one significant movie was almost a decade ago which did not garner her any significant award or media coverage outside Nagaland. Thereby, it does not fulfil WP:NACTOR. Astra Travasso (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Women, Film, Music, and India. Astra Travasso (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Nagaland-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 01:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 06:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mit khavershaft, Royz-vi Tsibele🧅 11:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Topaz Winters

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Topaz Winters
• Articles for deletion/Topaz Winters (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Topaz Winters (3rd nomination)

Topaz Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Procedural nomination: declined WP:PROD due to previous AFD.

Original nomination by ~2026-40387-95, with rationale: "notability––her only listed prizes are college ones, she is not mentioned in any major source, nor is she behind any major conceptual innovation. Her body of literary work does not meet the standards of notability; all of this information is available on her website, and those interested in her work will find her there."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, Singapore, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. As a procedural note I see that both the prior AfD's were closed as Delete. I didn't think a delete-AfD immunized an article against PROD, and I don't think it should. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
  • As written at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before or previously discussed at AfD or FfD." While I understand the sentiment that a delete decision should not "immunize" an article against future PRODs, it does not seem supported by policy: the recreation of a previously deleted article is an implicit opposition to the deletion. It may be worth discussing at the policy talk page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that a procedural nomination does not convey any opinion about the article or its subject. If you're !voting to delete, you should provide a valid deletion criterion, since "per nom" doesn't apply in this case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:35, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment For clarification I meant per ~2026-40387-95's rational referenced in the procedural nomination not the nomination proper. Sources in the article do not appear to meet the GNG which is, IMO, the relevant guideline. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:41, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• delete I don't see literary reviews for this individual or their works during my search and sourcing now in the wiki article is mentions or non-RS. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• keep Independent secondary coverage exists (The Straits Times's 2019 piece and Time Out's 2020 piece on young Singaporean poets, and The Daily Princetonian's 2021 profile and Grazia's 2023 profile, are specifically about the subject rather than passing mentions), and there's a peer-reviewed publication in the Journal of Homosexuality that supports scholarly output. The Pushcart Prize nomination at 17 is verifiable and makes her the youngest Singaporean ever nominated for that award, younger than Jerrold Yam, who was nominated at 20 and has a standing article partly on that basis. I'd agree with the nominators that some of the article leans on weak sourcing. But WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC don't require every sentence to be independently sourced, only that enough independent, secondary coverage exists in aggregate, and The Straits Times, Time Out, Princetonian, and Grazia pieces plus the journal publication clear that bar. ~2026-43273-21 (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2026 (UTC) (Kaveh Robbins)

  I tried but failed to verify the Pushcart nomination. Can you please provide a citation? pburka (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

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) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Jomana Alrashid

Jomana Alrashid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am very skeptical this person meets either WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. I do not believe being named to the "Time 100 Next" list is counts as a significant award under WP:ANYBIO; it is a "rising star" kind of award, and Time has diluted the brand of the Time 100 by creating many subsidiary lists. In any event, her "Time 100 Next" writeup is a single paragraph and not WP:SIGCOV. Other sources are limited to:

• Another single-paragraph blurb in a Forbes Middle East list.
• Press release-driven promotional coverage, often unbylined, of "awards" she has received (,
• Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEWs (, , , )
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs (, , , , , , ) (Several of these are Arab News, which per RSN is not a reliable source for coverage of Saudi state enterprises like Al-Rashid's company.)
• Sources that do not mention her at all (,
• Primary source bios (, )

I can't view whether she's discussed in the Ankler article with its very hard paywall but even if she is, we still don't have independent, reliable source WP:SIGCOV elsewhere for a WP:GNG pass. In my WP:BEFORE search, I found more of the same but no qualifying coverage. As an alternative to deletion, I would accept a redirect to Saudi Research and Media Group, where the subject is mentioned, which would preserve the page history should qualifying SIGCOV emerge in the future. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Journalism, and Saudi Arabia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I vote Keep (full disclosure: I am this GA article's creator). Alrashid has significant coverage in the Ankler article (which should be counted as WP:PAYWALL says you can't limit a source by its difficulty of access, including paywalling). She also received a full-length, 489-word profile in Communicate Middle East, where she was named #5th-ranking Leader of 2021. She is also significantly covered in this Springer-published book on business leaders in the Gulf, and the Deadline interview, which tilts closer to the critical/prepared interview discussed in WP:INTERVIEW as it appears to include criticalness (for example, stating that it appears women are still struggling in the Saudi cinema scene "It feels like they’re struggling to progress to features").

She was also named to the Time 100 Next in 2025 with a profile on her activities. She was named to the Forbes Middle East Most Powerful Businesswomen three times (2023, 2024, 2025), each time including a short profile on her and her activities over the relevant year, and to a leaders list Fast Company Middle East, and has also been discussed by this paper about Western and Arab media portrayals of arab women. Jishara (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you describe how much text the Ankler article gives to her and the nature of it for those of us who can't access and review it? Meanwhile, to address the added sources:

• The Springer book you cite gives her less than one paragraph (four sentences) - hardly SIGCOV in the context of a book.
• Communicate a trade magazine, coverage in which is generally not considered independent.
• The journal article you cite includes two brief quotations from AlRashid and four sentences of summmary, not even close to SIGCOV: Table 8 reveals that Arab News presented a news discourse that states that there are many stories that demonstrate the significant role played by Arab women in daily life. The speaker is a Saudi Arabian female, Jomana Al-Rashid, who works as the CEO of the SRMG. She is considered one of the most successful women in Saudi Arabia; she illustrates that many women are also successful like her.... The newspaper quoted from the speech of Jomana Alrashid, written in Table 10 above, informs the readers that Arab women have their rights protected.
• The Deadline material is solely based on its interview with her and appears to incorporate virtually no independent reporting.
• The other sources you added are trivial mentions (, , ).
• The Fast Company Middle East mention (nota bene - not Fast Company but a Middle Eastern outlet that has licensed the brand) is a single paragraph.

None of these would count toward a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree that some of the sources are trivial, but my rationale for Keep is not based on those sources alone:

The book is independent and reliable: as for significance, it passes the WP:100WORDS.

Trade magazines are not automatically considered non-independent, just leaning that way, and this is 1) a leading trade mag for a relevant but not directly associated to her field trade and 2) a 489-word source profiling her journey in the context of an award granted - I'd argue that this does in fact pass independence.

In addition, Time 100 Next included a profile of her that's fully independent reporting from an independent, reliable, bylined source and passes WP:100WORDS. Each of the Forbes Middle East profiles do, as well, pass WP:100WORDS, showing the coverage is in fact significant. Jishara (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

100WORDS is an essay, not a guideline. SIGCOV is determined in large part through context, and 100 words of coverage in a single paragraph of a full-length book would constitute a passing mention in the context of the book. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that WP:100WORDS is not solely dispositive. However, the ~180 words spent on her trends towards the overall conclusion here that the book does include substantive coverage - it details her present and former work, and also includes individualized discussion you would be unlikely to see in coverage that's less substantive and requires its own research: ex, discussion of her use of head coverings. This is also just one part of a larger picture of significant coverage. I appreciate your thoughtful discussion on this. Jishara (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Adding my source assessment table below for the convenience of participants; I'll bow out here and let others have their say. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

  Oppose (i.e., Keep). I recognize the sourcing here isn't as clean as we'd like, but I think there's a real risk of applying GNG more strictly here than we would to a comparable subject with English-language, Western trade press coverage. Alrashid runs one of the largest media groups in the MENA region and chairs a major film festival, yet a lot of the coverage of executives in her position, regardless of gender or nationality, tends to run through regional trade press and Q&A-style interviews, simply because that's how business journalism works in that market. That's a structural feature of how Gulf business figures (and Arab women executives especially) get covered, not necessarily evidence that she's non-notable. Applying a rigid SIGCOV test without accounting for how sourcing patterns differ by region and language risks systematically under-representing subjects like this one. That said, I don't think this needs to rest on that argument alone. The Springer-published book gives her two pages (pp. 71–72) of independent, non-interview discussion ;not a trivial mention, regardless of what WP:100WORDS' exact word count says. She's also the subject of independent reporting in Time's profile, which by itself is a reasonably strong plank. Combined with the Ankler piece which per WP:PAYWALL can't be discounted just because it's hard to access...I think there's enough to clear GNG even before we get to the interview-heavy or trade-press sources, which I agree are weaker and shouldn't be leaned on too heavily.

  el.ziade (talkallam) 09:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://time.com/collections/time100-next-2025/7318840/jomana-r-alrashid/			Single paragraph as part of 100-person list	✘ No
https://www.forbesmiddleeast.com/lists/top-100-most-powerful-businesswomen-2023/jomana-alrashid/	Forbes Middle East licenses the Forbes brand; uncertain independence	Forbes Middle East licenses the Forbes brand; uncertain reliability	Single paragraph as part of 100-person list	✘ No
https://cairoscene.com/News/State-Media-Chief-Jomana-Alrashid-Selected-for-TIME100-s-2025-List	Reads as if based on a press release	Unbylined coverage		✘ No
https://www.arabisklondon.com/9639	Reads as if based on a press release	Unbylined coverage		✘ No
https://variety.com/2024/film/festivals/red-sea-film-foundation-jomana-al-rashid-saudi-arabia-cinematic-1236126767/	Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEW			✘ No
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2631195/business-economy	Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEW	Arab News is unreliable for coverage of Saudi state-owned businesses per WP:RSN		✘ No
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/3078571/jomana-al-rashid-we-have-ambitious-growth-plans-saudi-research-media-group	Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEW			✘ No
https://deadline.com/2024/11/red-sea-film-jomana-al-rashid-shivani-pandya-talk-2024-edition-1236172354/	Primary source Q&A WP:INTERVIEW			✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20260712210706/https://theankler.com/hwood-saudi-pivot-the-players-and/			Article has a hard paywall; page creator has not provided details to help us assess it.	? Unknown
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Business_Success_in_the_Gulf_Region/a8q9EQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jomana+alrashid&pg=PA71&printsec=frontcover			Less than one paragraph (four sentences) - hardly SIGCOV in the context of a book	✘ No
https://communicateonline.me/news/top-30-leaders-2021-5-jomana-al-rashed/	WP:TRADES magazines are considered independent only in exceptional cases and this appears to be routine coverage of her in trade press			✘ No
https://immi.se/index.php/intercultural/article/view/Sabah-et-al-2023-4/679			The journal article includes two brief quotations from AlRashid and four sentences of summmary, not even close to SIGCOV	✘ No
https://fastcompanyme.com/most-creative-people/jomana-al-rashed/	Uncertain independence - not the reliable US-based magazine Fast Company but a Middle Eastern outlet that has licensed the brand	Uncertain reliability - not the reliable US-based magazine Fast Company but a Middle Eastern outlet that has licensed the brand	A single paragraph of coverage	✘ No
https://www.movieguide.org/reviews/in-the-grey.html			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-ministry-of-ungentlemanly-warfare/credits/		WP:PRIMARYSOURCE	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.hbomax.com/lt/en/movies/ferrari/a8e55f43-d465-4572-8c91-1c7acaf881f1		WP:PRIMARYSOURCE	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://campaignme.com/srmg-launches-new-saudi-based-travel-magazine/	Appears to be based on a press release		WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://campaignme.com/srmg-labs-wins-gold-and-silver-at-cannes-lions/	Appears to be based on a press release		WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://aeworld.com/lifestyle/art/saudi-arabias-rsiff-hosts-women-in-cinema-gala-at-the-cannes-film-festival/	Appears to be based on a press release		WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://statemediamonitor.com/2026/06/saudi-research-and-media-group-srmg			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://deadline.com/2023/12/gwyneth-paltrow-avengers-endgame-wes-anderson-paul-thomas-anderson-goop-red-sea-film-festival-1235655489/			WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.arabnews.com/node/1893936/media	Reads like a press release	Arab News is unreliable for coverage of Saudi state-owned businesses per WP:RSN	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://www.arabnews.com/node/2609754/amp	Reads like a press release	Arab News is unreliable for coverage of Saudi state-owned businesses per WP:RSN	WP:TRIVIALMENTION	✘ No
https://variety.com/2024/film/global/red-sea-film-festival-hq-arab-cinema-1236211273/			Article does not even mention AlRashid	✘ No
https://entarabi.com/en/2026/05/srmg-increases-stake-in-thmanyah-to-75-and-commits-sar-200m/			Article does not even mention AlRashid	✘ No
https://kscdr.org.sa/en/node/3592, https://mei.edu/person/jomana-r-al-rashid/	Primary source, non-independent bios			✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Keep I disagree that these all passing mentions - 180 words is not a brief mention in my view, and still counts as SIGCOV. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep She should pass WP:BASIC where it says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability". Even if I cannot read the firewalled article either.-Deamonpen (talk)

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

Christina Angela Ntulo

Christina Angela Ntulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I propose draftifying or deleting this because I do not see a clear WP:NBIO/WP:BASIC or WP:GNG pass. The subject is verifiable and has held NGO/mental-health roles, but the sourcing is mostly organizational profiles, affiliated/primary pages, press-release republications, conference material, and routine mentions, with little significant independent coverage of Ntulo herself. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: People, Health and fitness, and Uganda. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Women-related AfD discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer‬ 📮 ^{(Ping me or else I won't see it)} 19:21, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Draftify If the article could be strengthened, it could be worth keeping. I searched for her without her middle name and found two more sources, but neither strengthens the independent coverage req for WP:GNG: 1) A 2011 NPR article (independent, but it's just a quote from her) and 2) A WHO Africa Q&A with her. SupermarketCake (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Axolitl (talk | contribs) 02:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

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