Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Dance

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Dance|~~~~}} 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 Dance. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Dance/archive

Purge page cache

watch

AFDs

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. asilvering (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Fontaine

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

Out of 11 references provided, YouTube, IMDb (2), Personal website(2) (fontainemedia, as mentioned in the article) (2). Except for ref 10, none of the rest 4 refs mention the subject. Subject fails the basic criteria (WP:BASIC) for all 8 mentioned professional including WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. ANU^writes 04:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, Dance, Theatre, France, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (with cuts). There is https://www.lindependant.fr/2024/08/21/des-artistes-en-villegiature-chez-aleksandra-12152552.php https://www.lindependant.fr/2023/11/19/aleksandra-kedzierska-a-la-mediatheque-11590278.php https://dziennikpolski24.pl/z-paryskiego-lido-do-variete-w-krakowie/ar/3939301, https://www.leparisien.fr/culture-loisirs/dans-les-pyrenees-orientales-lebouriffante-galerie-dart-dune-ancienne-danseuse-du-lido-02-08-2021-QFFJSIB55RFHRDFND7JBA6WETY.php https://www.lindependant.fr/2022/12/23/saint-laurent-de-cerdans-aleksandra-kedzierska-signe-son-3e-roman-tombe-lombre-10886548.php https://lepetitjournal.com/varsovie/communaute/aleksandra-fontaine-lido-doublure-margaret-qualley-substance-399242 and https://kultura.onet.pl/wywiady-i-artykuly/aleksandra-kedzierska-fontaine-ciagle-jestem-glodna-nowych-wrazen/p3xmxx5 for example. She does seem to meet the requirements for notability. -Mushy Yank. 07:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank I hope you're suggesting the article should be returned to draftspace for improvement, as it can not stand in the mainspace the way it is right now. I still think It should be deleted. ANU^writes 08:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not, I am clearly suggesting it should be kept.AfDs are for deletion not for cleanup and we are only discussing the notability of the subject not the state of the page. Feel free to improve it if you wish. -Mushy Yank. 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not leave any article with such unverified claims or references as this article just because the topic has references on web, we have draftspace for improvement or deletion if the subject doesn't even deserve draftspace opportunity. This subject deserves nothing than to be deleted. ANU^writes 00:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you want the page to be improved, again, feel free. Feel free to remove everything you find potentially harmful or libellous. I've provided some sources, you can use them. You submitted this to the community. If consensus is to keep it, it will be kept, if it is to drafifty, it will be moved to draft, if it is to delete, it will be deleted, and so on. Your own opinion was clear from the start by the mere fact you nominated it and by your rationale. If you didn't want others to voice opinions that differ from yours, you shouldn't have nominated this article to AfD. I will leave it at that. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 01:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry if any of my answers offended you in any ways, I'm just trying to discuss what I think is right and everyone is doing so. Angain, all I want for the page is for it to be taken down not improved that's why I requested it's deletion, it has nothing to improve based on reasons I provided, thank you. Again I'm humbly sorry if I offended you in any way, I don't intend to offend any valuable editor in here. ANU^writes 01:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. No offense taken. But my point is precisely that I think (and apparently I am not the only one) that there is something to improve. I'll do it, then. -Mushy Yank. 01:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pointed out WP:GNG, can you get back to the article and point any two reliable sources? ANU^writes 00:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if the sources are presented here, I would tend to think that asking someone to locate them in the article is not very useful. Anyway, I have added them to the page. -Mushy Yank. 02:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Mushy Yank's. MPian (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adequate sources have been provided to show the subject meets GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important note: This article have more than four reasons to be deleted.

- WP:COI issue, several claims in the article are written by someone with a close alias to the subject, You can't find and source mentioning them (i.e career and biography), that's why such a short article is asked to verify 8 claims to show where such claims came from, even with all sources in the article or additional sources provided by @Mushy Yank, none can prove those claims or is wikipedia a gossip hub now?

- For entertainers, they should have any notable work or achievement, well, the subject is an actress, choreographer and dancer, what are her important achievements of her career (i.e any notable film or show) or maybe accomplishments such as awards and accordance. Does she have any? If she doesn't have any achievement or work mentioned or seen, why is she considered important to keep this article?

- @Mushy Yank proved her notability through references from the web and not personal blogs, youtube links that were used as references in the article. Should we accept terrible articles because we believe subjects might be notable somehow in the web, What's the point of having draftspace and sandboxes?

- The article fails even WP:BASIC, 90% of references in the article are not reliable, any editor can inspect and get that in minutes. i.e self published pdfs, personal blogs, YouTube links, podcast interviews e.t.c.

- Let's be honest here, with all Polish references, isn't the article suitable in Polish wikipedia? Most of EnWiki readers have understanding of Enlang and expect to verify claims from EnEng sources, that's the point of having multi-lang wikis. This wikipedia isn't for her maybe when she becomes global sensation. Inshort, she isn't notable but a local artist, with first and second references proving she's now heading to perform out there for the first time from local venues. Deletion is so crucial here.ANU^writes 01:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly unbold your !vote. You are the nominator and you are already considered "!voting" delete and !voting twice is not permitted. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 01:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ANU^writes 01:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- COI is supposed to be addressed through editing, not deletion. Again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

- No, that's not how notability works. Entertainers can pass either GNG or NENT. They don't have to pass both.

- This is something that should be addressed through editing, not deletion. The article isn't so terrible that TNT is warranted.

- This is a complete misunderstanding of WP:BASIC. Please read it carefully. Again, the terrible sources are an issue that should be addressed through editing, not deletion.

- No, that's not how notability works. Please read through WP:GNG. Sources of any and all languages count for notability as long as they are independent, reliable and provide SIGCOV. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please note that the nominator seems to admit that the subject's notability is "proven". If that is helpful, I am inviting the nominator to read WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP.-Mushy Yank. 02:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nominator did not admit anywhere that the subject's notability is "proven". This user is trying to play the insinuating card. The nominator gave 5 cold facts as to why the subject is never notable which stand unchallenged. ANU^writes 05:32, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
!!.....Just read what you yourself wrote..."Mushy Yank proved her notability through references from the web and not personal blogs"...... So no, this user is not "trying to play the insinuating card" (:D). I've tried to improve the page, by the way and you're very welcome. At this point, I have no further comments. -Mushy Yank. 07:11, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton Wilborn

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

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability here. Amigao (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Television, Video games, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all unreliable sources. I like to read gossip as much as the person, but we have never published original material. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wilborn's prominence and recognition is solely as Madonna's dancer, and not enough WP:NOTABILITY by himself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sourcing is mostly unreliable and one can't be notable by association.Ynsfial (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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